I remember when I was attending elementary school that one of the least enjoyable parts was the use of the school bus. While there were some bus drivers that were friendly and did their best to make the experience safe and enjoyable, there was one in particular (who was assigned to the route that I used) who seemed irritated with the inconvenience of ferrying children to and from school. I never once saw them smile, and when they spoke, it was laced with condescension.
I was in the unfortunate position of being one of a small number that got off at a certain stop. Of that number, I was the only one that crossed the street. Of course, normally this required the driver to exit the bus and hold a stop sign up to assist the student in crossing, but my six-year-old heart was not brave enough to confront the disagreeable driver and request this service. Instead, I developed what seemed at the time to be a brilliant solution that would allow me to get home without having to face the scary bus driver. I would get off the bus and feign as though I was following the other children who went down the opposite way, without crossing. Then, when the bus was gone, I would cross the street myself.
This method worked for a couple months, and it seemed to be a great solution... however, one day, the angry driver shouted to me as we approached my stop. She told me that she had seen me crossing the street, and that she could get in trouble for that. She told me I should ride to the next stop and cross the street there, where she was already getting off the bus. Of course I was horrified that my technique had been discovered. (Only later I realized that this bus driver was not as observant as I had initially believed, since she had neglected using her mirrors for two months.) At any rate, I did as I was told.
When I arrived at home, my mom immediately noticed that I was upset. I did not divulge the details of the event, but gave a general complaint about the bus driver.
After some time, I decided it would be a great idea to return to my previous method, as it would allow me to return home much quicker than going all the way to the next stop and backtracking. Except, in a hurry to get home, I went behind the bus and ran across the road. The bus driver noticed me and shouted something in an angry tone. Though I do not know what she had yelled, I felt ashamed and guilty, and ran home. My mom calmed me down enough to learn that her six-year-old son had been expected to go to another stop to cross for the convenience of the driver. I saw a fire in her eyes that I have never forgotten. She stormed out the door and ran down the street, where the bus was stopped to allow other children to cross. I have no idea what my mom said to her, but every day for the remainder of the year, the bus driver got out of her seat, grabbed her stop sign, and walked me across the street without speaking another word to me.
There was never any doubt that my mom loved me. She repeatedly went to bat for my siblings and I whenever we needed. She volunteered in our classes, she encouraged us in pursuing musical talent, she supported us in athletic competitions. She exemplified a woman determined not to outsource the nurture of her children to anyone else, regardless of the opportunity costs for pursuing her own entertainment or enjoyment.
She was not the type of mother that sought personal recognition by earning scout awards for her boys... in fact, she remained loving and supportive even when her boys discovered how much they disliked such programs. If she was disappointed in how I neglected developing skills on the piano or the trumpet, she did not express it in any way that made me feel less valued.
In hindsight, it was as though my mom had confidence in us and our potential beyond what we were. It was as though she knew that we would turn out alright in spite of our flaws. As I grew older, and struggled with self-doubt and discouragement, the confidence of my mother proved to be extremely valuable. That is not to say that I have become a billionaire whose philanthropic efforts have saved millions of lives... but I have a beautiful wife and wonderful children, and the traditions and values that my mom worked tirelessly to pass on to me have been invaluable to our family... and though I have probably not always done the things she might have preferred, her kindness has been constant.
Though my mom has not always been a resource for evaluating calculus problems, balancing chemical equations, or analyzing the logic of computer code, no amount of help in these areas can replace what she has been to me. Thinking of her reminds me of the sentiment of the Apostle Paul... "...whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" but charity never faileth. (1 Corinthians 13)
I am certain I am not alone among those expressing appreciation for their mothers, particularly on Mother's Day... but it is my hope that we might be more appreciative of the women that work tirelessly to forge each building block in society... surely these heroes should not remain "unsung".
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Didn't the prophet say the same thing last conference?
When I attended singles wards, after Priesthood sessions of
conference, it was common for us to be asked by women what the prophet had
said, or what had happened in conference.
Of course, they were rarely satisfied with answers such as “keep the
commandments.” The mature and
responsible thing to do would have been to pay closer attention to the messages
to give a better accounting, but in an effort to prolong conversations with women, I would respond that the church was
planning to send proselyting missionaries to Iran, or that a Temple had been
announced in Jerusalem, or some other completely false but faith-promoting
rumor.
Ultimately, prophets and apostles really were persistently
asking us to keep the commandments.
Whether that meant moral cleanliness, magnifying our callings, studying
the scriptures regularly, or repenting of our sins, the overall message was
always familiar and repetitive.
In our last conference, (April 2013) we again heard the
words of prophets and apostles. There
were no earth-shattering doctrines announced; while new temple locations were
given, they did not include the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. We do tend to hear similar information each
time we listen to the prophet speak.
Certainly the most obvious reason for repetition is that
members of the church are not doing this well enough. The repetition is frustrating to some
people. After all, isn’t the definition
of insanity to do the same thing over and over again expecting different
results?
Of course one thing to note is that conference does not
contain any Jedi mind tricks. No prophet
or apostle waves their hands and says “these aren’t the droids you’re looking
for… oh and do your family history…” The
church leaders are not saying the same things each conference to control you…
they are trying to persuade you… to plead with you to change yourself. They expect you to find ways to heed the call
to come unto Christ from your own unique circumstances and background, and
provide tools to help you do it.
It is with a kind voice and with a gentle tone that
President Monson said: “The knowledge which we seek, the answers for which we
yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the challenges of a
complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey the Lord’s
commandments.”
Naturally, all of us have various challenges with this
request. Probably the majority of people
that watch conference keep a large number of commandments, but they may
struggle with a few, or even feel that a few are ‘unrealistic’. Consider the Israelites as they approached the
land of Canaan. Moses sent twelve spies
into the land. Unfortunately, ten of
them decided that they were not spies, but a feasibility committee. Though they reported that the land flowed
with milk and honey, they also reported that the people of the land made them
feel like grasshoppers because of their size.
Keep in mind, the same God that had smitten Egypt with
blood, frogs, lice, flies, the death of their cattle, boils, hail and fire,
locusts, darkness, and the destroying angel, and delivered them from what was
arguably the most powerful army in the ancient world by miraculously dividing
the waters of the red sea, and then swallowing the chariots of Pharaoh, was the
one that had sworn he would give the land to them. Still, they were convinced that they could
not possess Canaan because there were “big” people there.
Of course, it is easy for us to say that they were short-sighted. The same short-sightedness may been seen in
us though when a priesthood leader extends to us a calling or assignment. For some people, they transform into their
own “feasibility committee” and find numerous reasons why the same God that
through his prophets has declared whom he calls he qualifies may not be
thinking through the situation.
Certainly in some circumstances, leaders are able to follow the Spirit
more accurately when they have all the information, but ultimately, we believe
that a man must be called of God, by prophesy.
Those of us who have been baptized have sworn a covenant to keep the
commandments. Accepting, fulfilling, and
magnifying callings are fundamental to this commitment.
Fulfilling assignments allows members to cooperate one with
another in the great work of the Kingdom of God. Even if there seems to be little value,
little appreciation, and large amounts of work required, the prophets have
never made a secret of the rewards that accompany obedience. As President Monson said, “The knowledge
which we seek, the answers for which we yearn, and the strength which we desire
today to meet the challenges of a complex and changing world can be ours when
we willingly obey the Lord’s commandments.”
Of course, it is not always a big, intimidating calling that
represents the biggest challenge. There
are some people that go to great lengths to provide meaningful service, but are
more easily beset by smaller obstacles.
Consider the story of Naaman, the Syrian captain. He had been stricken with the terrible
disease leprosy. He became desperate to
find healing. One of his servants was
acquainted with a Hebrew prophet named Elisha, and suggested that he might be
able to help. Naaman prepared a caravan
with gold and silver and apparel to go and meet the man of God. When he drew close to the land of Israel,
instead of meeting the captain personally, he sent his servant Gehazi to meet
him bearing only a few simple instructions: bathe seven times in the River
Jordan.
At first, Naaman felt insulted. He had not even been permitted to speak to
the prophet directly, in spite of his journey and his prestige. Furthermore, he preferred the fountains of
his own country to the filthy water in the Jordan. He went to leave for his home when one of his
servants suggested that if the prophet had bid him do some great thing, he
would have done it. Why should he
neglect this simple task?
Persuaded by the wisdom of his servant, he went to the River
Jordan. He dipped himself into it again
and again as Elisha had instructed.
After the seventh time, when he arose from the water, he found that no
trace of the disease remained with him.
He had been completely cleansed of the disease. (2 Kings 5)
There are also examples demonstrating the consequences of
ignoring the simple commandments. We
learn in the Book of Mormon that there were many Israelites that would not look
at the brazen serpent that Moses had set up to be healed of their wounds because
it was so simple, and that they perished for their neglect. (1 Nephi 17:41)
Certainly among the most basic tasks that are recommended by
the prophet is daily scripture study. Perhaps
Harry Potter has more drama than 2nd Nephi. Perhaps it seems unimportant that Arphaxad
begat Salah who begat Eber who begat Peleg who begat Reu who begat Serug who
begat Nahor who begat Terah.
I might compare these attempts to read the scriptures to
Naaman dipping himself in the Jordan River the first six times. Persistence will eventually lead to
eye-opening experiences. To this day,
nothing is as bold or powerful as Elijah calling down fire from heaven on Mount
Carmel and humiliating the priests of Baal.
The confidence of David shouting down Goliath, or Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-Nego holding their ground in the face of Nebuchadnezzar and his fiery
furnace gives me confidence. The humility
of Gideon who wanted to be certain that he was doing what the Lord wanted when
he fought the Midianites persuades me to seek the will of God in my
dealings. I understand the feeling that
Joseph Smith had when he was moved by James 1:5 as much as I understand why the
people were astonished at the power of Jesus Christ himself after he delivered
the Sermon on the Mount.
Perhaps the most remarkable use of scripture is that of Jesus
Christ himself when he was tempted by Satan.
Though he was the God that had given the law and inspired the prophets,
he answered every request of the devil with words from the Holy
Scriptures. He used them as a shield
against evil.
It could be said that “The knowledge which we seek, the
answers for which we yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the
challenges of a complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey
the Lord’s commandments.”
Seeing the importance of commandments large and small
inevitably causes us to reflect on our pasts.
Only Christ lived every commandment without mistake. Repentance is a principal as old as
time. Prophets have always been
instructed to call people to repentance… and have even gotten into trouble when
they have not.
Consider the experience of Jonah. He was called by God to go to Nineveh and
proclaim repentance. Perhaps he thought
that it was a dangerous task, but whatever his reason, he decided to run
away. He boarded a ship for Tarshish as
if he could flee from the Lord. Of
course he could not. God sent a terrible
tempest that threatened the ship and its passengers. Reluctantly, the others on board cast Jonah
off the ship. A great fish swallowed
Jonah, and after three days, spit him out on the land again. God again called Jonah to preach repentance
to Nineveh, to which Jonah responded obediently. He warned Nineveh that if they did not
repent, they would be destroyed. To
Jonah’s surprise, they did repent, and they were spared.
God knew the value of the people of Nineveh even if Jonah
did not immediately see it. He has never
sent his prophets to mince words regarding the importance of returning back to
him. Said Lehi to Jerusalem: repent or
be destroyed. Said Jeremiah to
Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah: repent or be destroyed. Said Isaiah in the reign of Manasseh: repent
or be destroyed. Said Moses to the children
of Israel: repent or be destroyed. Said
Noah to the world: repent or be destroyed.
Warned the apostles to the fledgling church: repent or be
destroyed. Of course we know that when
Christ returns, it will not be to have a big discussion. Those that do not repent, will be destroyed.
In spite of our proximity in the fullness of times to the
return of Jesus Christ and his victory over evil in the earth, he surprisingly
does not send his prophets to warn “repent or be destroyed.” I do not recall President Monson warning
about how our enemies will invade… our old men will bury our young men… our
mothers will bury their infants... I
recall no warning of plagues, famines, droughts, and disasters as consequences
for sin or for failing to repent in time.
The perception that conference seems to be dull, repetitive,
or redundant is largely shaped by context… but only the context of other
conferences. In the context of all time…
it becomes clear that Jesus Christ is sending his prophets to say something new
and different before he returns… He
sends them to say ‘please try a little harder’, ‘please be a little kinder’, ‘please
be more forgiving’, and ‘please believe that God loves you.’ He sends them to say ‘please take advantage
of Christ’s sacrifice.’
Essentially, Jesus Christ, the most High God that is coming
in power and glory to reign and establish a paradise that has not been known
since the days of Eden, is begging us
to accept the very thing for which we should be begging him.
It is my hope that we will do as he asks… that we will be
receptive to his pleadings… that we will magnify our callings… that we will
diligently study our scriptures… that we will sincerely repent of our sins…
that we will truly keep his commandments to take advantage of the promise of
his living prophet:
“The knowledge which we seek, the answers for which we
yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the challenges of a
complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey the Lord’s
commandments.”
Monday, April 15, 2013
Honestly, you don't want me to be honest...
As a parent, I try to encourage honesty in my children. Voluntary confession of wrongdoing generally wins leniency in matters of discipline, whereas dishonesty or concealment results in the loss of more privileges. Many parents implement similar policies to encourage honesty and communication with their children.
As much as parents may value honesty in their children, the standard is somewhat relaxed in other situations.
Many people are familiar with the scenario of a larger woman showing her outfit to her boyfriend and asking the question "does this make me look fat?" Of course, what would the point of that question be since a "no" is expected whether it is honest or not.
On the other side of the coin, men seem comfortable increasing the length and weight of the fish that they caught on their last fishing trip, particularly when describing them to people they want to impress, or with whom they want to compete.
In societies where marriage is not arranged, both men and women become frustrated with one another over the dishonesty that seems inherent in the dating process. I have spoken to women who express frustration when men promise to contact them for future romantic excursions when they have no intention of fulfilling such commitments. I have personally experienced frustration when, while single, I worked up the nerve to ask a girl out, and was informed that while she "really wanted to" that she had scheduling conflicts due to "important" tasks such as "being busy." I can empathize with those that are told after a couple of dates that the person in whom they have interest is "not ready for a relationship" only to see them engaged to someone else a short time later.
Ultimately, the motivation that causes otherwise honest individuals to lie is typically compassion. The person wanting to avoid the date does not want to be or seem hurtful, so their fictitious schedule becomes quickly packed. The boyfriend wants his girlfriend to feel appreciated, or at minimum to continue being his girlfriend in spite of a dress of incorrect size. The man who caught a fish "as big as him" probably seeks respect from individuals for whom he feels respect.
The number of scenarios where "white lies" or "fibs" are better than the truth seems to increase all the time. Please don't misunderstand, I am by no means advocating the cruel flavor of honesty that prevails due to the anonymity of the internet. There, while people feel free to spout the filthiest and mot hurtful slurs, curses, or threats under the guise of "guest" on the forum or the mask of username "kingofhell1432" in a chat room, human decency is lost. Increasingly, even without anonymity on sites such as Facebook or Twitter, people honestly express the most vulgar or hateful sentiments, and do not seem to worry about the feelings of others.
The truth is that honesty and compassion do not need to be enemies as much as we make them. God finds value in all of his sons and daughters. There is no person, however vile, disagreeable, or awkward they may seem, that Christ excluded from his infinite sacrifice.
More to the point, does the boyfriend need to like every dress for him to express that the girlfriend is beautiful? Does the man need to exaggerate the size of his catch to express that he values the respect of his peers?
That having been said, if honesty and compassion are at odds, the correct choice is honesty. I certainly would have appreciated being told by girls that "would love to go out" but were "busy that day" actually meant "not interested in going out any day" if for no other reason than not to have to work up the nerve to call them again. While it is not great to be undesirable, the feeling of having wasted a lot of time and effort needlessly combined with feeling undesirable is worse.
To say that God is similarly concerned with truth is an understatement. Truth is so important to Christ that he assumes it as part of his identity: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6) Additionally, John states: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)
There were times when Jesus stood up for what was right and true. He was perfectly honest when he exposed the money changers at the temple as making his Father's house a "den of thieves." (Matthew 21:13) Jesus also knew when to avoid answering questions to maintain his honesty. (Matthew 21:23-27)
God's hope is that his children will come to value honesty as he does. It is for this reason that he asks questions to which he already knows the answers. Consider the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden:
"And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:8-13)
Of course, God already knew where Adam was, what he had done, and why he had done it... but he asked anyway. Both Adam and Eve responded truthfully, and while the consequences of their actions have had lasting impact, God obviously valued their family, as he was willing to sacrifice his only begotten son to provide an opportunity to save them. (John 3:16) He provided Adam and Eve opportunities to be honest in asking these questions.
A culture that values honesty is a culture that values the truth. As a Christian, I believe the truth, ultimately, is not a cold and harsh thing. The truth is that we are children of God, and that he loves us. The truth is that the difficulties of mortality are temporary, and that adherence to principles of the Gospel bring lasting happiness. Jesus Christ does want us to be honest, and he proved it is possible to be compassionate while doing it. In the end, it is just as he said... "if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
As much as parents may value honesty in their children, the standard is somewhat relaxed in other situations.
Many people are familiar with the scenario of a larger woman showing her outfit to her boyfriend and asking the question "does this make me look fat?" Of course, what would the point of that question be since a "no" is expected whether it is honest or not.
On the other side of the coin, men seem comfortable increasing the length and weight of the fish that they caught on their last fishing trip, particularly when describing them to people they want to impress, or with whom they want to compete.
In societies where marriage is not arranged, both men and women become frustrated with one another over the dishonesty that seems inherent in the dating process. I have spoken to women who express frustration when men promise to contact them for future romantic excursions when they have no intention of fulfilling such commitments. I have personally experienced frustration when, while single, I worked up the nerve to ask a girl out, and was informed that while she "really wanted to" that she had scheduling conflicts due to "important" tasks such as "being busy." I can empathize with those that are told after a couple of dates that the person in whom they have interest is "not ready for a relationship" only to see them engaged to someone else a short time later.
Ultimately, the motivation that causes otherwise honest individuals to lie is typically compassion. The person wanting to avoid the date does not want to be or seem hurtful, so their fictitious schedule becomes quickly packed. The boyfriend wants his girlfriend to feel appreciated, or at minimum to continue being his girlfriend in spite of a dress of incorrect size. The man who caught a fish "as big as him" probably seeks respect from individuals for whom he feels respect.
The number of scenarios where "white lies" or "fibs" are better than the truth seems to increase all the time. Please don't misunderstand, I am by no means advocating the cruel flavor of honesty that prevails due to the anonymity of the internet. There, while people feel free to spout the filthiest and mot hurtful slurs, curses, or threats under the guise of "guest" on the forum or the mask of username "kingofhell1432" in a chat room, human decency is lost. Increasingly, even without anonymity on sites such as Facebook or Twitter, people honestly express the most vulgar or hateful sentiments, and do not seem to worry about the feelings of others.
The truth is that honesty and compassion do not need to be enemies as much as we make them. God finds value in all of his sons and daughters. There is no person, however vile, disagreeable, or awkward they may seem, that Christ excluded from his infinite sacrifice.
More to the point, does the boyfriend need to like every dress for him to express that the girlfriend is beautiful? Does the man need to exaggerate the size of his catch to express that he values the respect of his peers?
That having been said, if honesty and compassion are at odds, the correct choice is honesty. I certainly would have appreciated being told by girls that "would love to go out" but were "busy that day" actually meant "not interested in going out any day" if for no other reason than not to have to work up the nerve to call them again. While it is not great to be undesirable, the feeling of having wasted a lot of time and effort needlessly combined with feeling undesirable is worse.
To say that God is similarly concerned with truth is an understatement. Truth is so important to Christ that he assumes it as part of his identity: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6) Additionally, John states: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)
There were times when Jesus stood up for what was right and true. He was perfectly honest when he exposed the money changers at the temple as making his Father's house a "den of thieves." (Matthew 21:13) Jesus also knew when to avoid answering questions to maintain his honesty. (Matthew 21:23-27)
God's hope is that his children will come to value honesty as he does. It is for this reason that he asks questions to which he already knows the answers. Consider the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden:
"And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:8-13)
Of course, God already knew where Adam was, what he had done, and why he had done it... but he asked anyway. Both Adam and Eve responded truthfully, and while the consequences of their actions have had lasting impact, God obviously valued their family, as he was willing to sacrifice his only begotten son to provide an opportunity to save them. (John 3:16) He provided Adam and Eve opportunities to be honest in asking these questions.
A culture that values honesty is a culture that values the truth. As a Christian, I believe the truth, ultimately, is not a cold and harsh thing. The truth is that we are children of God, and that he loves us. The truth is that the difficulties of mortality are temporary, and that adherence to principles of the Gospel bring lasting happiness. Jesus Christ does want us to be honest, and he proved it is possible to be compassionate while doing it. In the end, it is just as he said... "if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Sunday, March 24, 2013
He saved others; himself he could not save...
Easter 2013 video by yours truly:
Transcript:
“He saved others; himself he could not save…” (Matthew 27:42)
I cannot help but wonder if this phrase did not stick in the minds of those early disciples after Jesus died on the cross.
Some of his disciples had been with him for nearly his entire ministry, and believed almost as soon as they saw him. Many went to their friends declaring that they had “found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write…” (John 1:45)
They were there when he boldly instructed multitudes, and quietly taught those that sought him by night. These people were among those that were “…astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29)
They had seen him feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes. They had seen him make lame men walk, deaf men hear, and blind men see. They had followed him when others accused him of blasphemy, tried to kill him, or simply asked him to leave them alone.
Some of them had experienced the terror of being caught in a storm at sea and appealed to him saying “carest thou not that we perish?” (Mark 4:38) In amazement they had watched as he commanded the winds and the waves to be at peace, and saved them.
They had listened to his thunderous condemnation of the scribes and hypocrites, and seen him overthrow the tables of money changers in the temple. They had heard him compassionately stop to help those who desperately sought healing, and to mercifully promise peace and forgiveness even to those who had made poor decisions in their pasts.
They heard him command Lazarus to come out of his tomb, and had watched in shock and awe when he that had died came out alive and whole.
After he had been betrayed by Judas, some of them had seen as Pontius Pilate washed his hands and let his enemies torture him. It had been too late to do anything when they watched the soldiers drive nails into his hands and feet. Even as he died, his enemies declared those hurtful words, “…he saved others; himself he could not save…”
For some of his disciples, there was nothing left to do but pay respects. The man they had believed to be the redeemer of the world had been killed.
After he died, several of the women who had believed in him went to the tomb in which he had been sealed, only to find the stone had been rolled away. To their surprise, they saw two men in shining raiment near the entrance. The men asked them “why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen…” (Luke 24:5-6)
They might as well have asked “did you actually believe what those men said? Did you think he could not save himself?”
Most of the women went to tell the apostles, but Mary Magdalene wept near the tomb, perhaps thinking that an enemy had taken his body to further disgrace him. In her grief, she perceived a man that asked her why she was weeping. Thinking that he was the gardener, she asked to know where the body of Jesus had been taken. As he called her by name, she turned and realized the truth. Standing before her was Jesus Christ himself, alive and well.
Over time, many disciples saw him and came to the same understanding as Mary did on that first Easter morning. The words of the enemies of Christ might have seemed convincing… “he saved others; himself he could not save…” But the truth was that he did save himself. Even death was not sufficiently strong to stop the Son of God.
Though centuries have come and gone, the man that beat death itself is as alive today as he was then. His power has not waned with the passing of time. Though skeptics and enemies of Christ would have Christians despair, especially on Easter, we would do well to remember that the champion of right has not yet completed his plan. Jesus Christ lives… and he is coming to save us all.
Credits:
Narration and recording on a mediocre microphone, done by me.
Artwork:
Various
Video Music:
Epic moving hearfelt beautiful dramatic trailer score by Audiomachine - Helios! 'Like' their official page on facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/audiomachine Title: Apollo's Triumph Artist: Audiomachine Composer: Paul Dinletir (ASCAP) Album: Helios Genre: Epic Beautiful Intense Dramatic Orchestral Trailer Score Image: http://dinesiac.deviantart.com/galler... Website: http://www.audiomachine.com/ Buy Audiomachine's public music here: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/audiomachine http://itunes.apple.com/de/artist/aud... http://www.amazon.de/s?ie=UTF8&se...
Monday, March 18, 2013
Let your hypocrisy so shine before men
In Jesus Christ's most famous sermon, he declared "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16)
In the following chapter, Christ seems to completely withdraw this concept in favor of being secretive in doing good to avoid hypocrisy:
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:1-8)
These two concepts seem mutually exclusive. On the one hand, God wants people to openly stand for what is right by doing good publicly... on the other hand, God wants us to hide our good deeds to be rewarded for them, and to avoid being as the hypocrites are. How can Christians reconcile these two points?
These points seem especially important in the field of missionary work. Every Christian has a responsibility to witness for Christ. Consider the words in the New Testament: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16) Also, these words from the Book of Mormon that expound on the commitment made in baptism: "...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God..." (Mosiah 18:9) Also, contemporarily, consider the words in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:81)
If Christians follow the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12), how can we simultaneously heed the words of Christ to do good in secret?
More to the point, how can a Christian ask someone else to follow Christ when they themselves are guilty of not following him as well as they should? Did Christ not repeatedly and vehemently condemn such hypocrisy?
The answer is that he did condemn such hypocrisy. The Pharisees were frequently subjects of such condemnation. They openly prayed, gave alms, and fasted... which were all things that God had commanded. Christ pointed out that they paid tithes, but devoured widows' houses and tolerated swearing by altar, as long as they did not swear by the gifts on it. (Matthew 23)
Of course every person that encourages someone else to make correct choices except for Christ himself takes on a degree of the same hypocrisy that Christ condemned, because every other person is guilty of sin.
Fortunately, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even hypocrites can be saved. Avoiding hypocrisy is not a valid excuse to put one's light under a bushel.
Consider the parable of the talents. (Matthew 25) The servant that had received one talent hid it in the ground for fear of losing it. When the Lord returned, he was displeased with the servant. He had not given that servant a talent to be buried away... but to be used. I suggest that the talent is symbolic of many things, and that one of them is knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel means good news... and news is meant to be spread, not to be buried or hoarded away.
Additionally, Christ declared that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:37-40) When we arrive at the judgment bar of Jesus Christ, can anyone imagine that he would be pleased with those who refuse to share the message that cost his life and the lives of his Apostles? Can anyone suppose that a valid excuse for withholding knowledge that could bring peace, hope, and joy from others would be "I wanted to avoid being hypocritical"?
I do not believe that God wants people to wait until they have eliminated every flaw before they share the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ with others. Of course, in connection with sharing the message that Jesus has power to save everyone, Christians are obligated to do all they can to eliminate those aspects of their thoughts, words, and deeds that are unchristian, but fulfilling the obligation is not prerequisite to sharing the message.
Furthermore, sharing the message of Christ does not require a Christian to loudly pray in restaurants or malls, or to announce their charitable contributions, or to babble in tongues before large audiences, or even divulging every personal spiritual experience. There are some experiences that are intended to emphasize the personal connection between an individual and God. Christ's power is not extended to the children of men to make them look good... it is extended to save them all.
The thing of which a Christian can be sure though, is that every person that they will ever meet has need of faith, penitence, and ordinances as prescribed by God. The thing of which a Christian cannot be sure is whether others already know this, or whether they may need some encouragement. Whether offered by men or God, it is a divine effort to make bad men good, and good men better.
In the following chapter, Christ seems to completely withdraw this concept in favor of being secretive in doing good to avoid hypocrisy:
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:1-8)
These two concepts seem mutually exclusive. On the one hand, God wants people to openly stand for what is right by doing good publicly... on the other hand, God wants us to hide our good deeds to be rewarded for them, and to avoid being as the hypocrites are. How can Christians reconcile these two points?
These points seem especially important in the field of missionary work. Every Christian has a responsibility to witness for Christ. Consider the words in the New Testament: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16) Also, these words from the Book of Mormon that expound on the commitment made in baptism: "...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God..." (Mosiah 18:9) Also, contemporarily, consider the words in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:81)
If Christians follow the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12), how can we simultaneously heed the words of Christ to do good in secret?
More to the point, how can a Christian ask someone else to follow Christ when they themselves are guilty of not following him as well as they should? Did Christ not repeatedly and vehemently condemn such hypocrisy?
The answer is that he did condemn such hypocrisy. The Pharisees were frequently subjects of such condemnation. They openly prayed, gave alms, and fasted... which were all things that God had commanded. Christ pointed out that they paid tithes, but devoured widows' houses and tolerated swearing by altar, as long as they did not swear by the gifts on it. (Matthew 23)
Of course every person that encourages someone else to make correct choices except for Christ himself takes on a degree of the same hypocrisy that Christ condemned, because every other person is guilty of sin.
Fortunately, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even hypocrites can be saved. Avoiding hypocrisy is not a valid excuse to put one's light under a bushel.
Consider the parable of the talents. (Matthew 25) The servant that had received one talent hid it in the ground for fear of losing it. When the Lord returned, he was displeased with the servant. He had not given that servant a talent to be buried away... but to be used. I suggest that the talent is symbolic of many things, and that one of them is knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel means good news... and news is meant to be spread, not to be buried or hoarded away.
Additionally, Christ declared that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:37-40) When we arrive at the judgment bar of Jesus Christ, can anyone imagine that he would be pleased with those who refuse to share the message that cost his life and the lives of his Apostles? Can anyone suppose that a valid excuse for withholding knowledge that could bring peace, hope, and joy from others would be "I wanted to avoid being hypocritical"?
I do not believe that God wants people to wait until they have eliminated every flaw before they share the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ with others. Of course, in connection with sharing the message that Jesus has power to save everyone, Christians are obligated to do all they can to eliminate those aspects of their thoughts, words, and deeds that are unchristian, but fulfilling the obligation is not prerequisite to sharing the message.
Furthermore, sharing the message of Christ does not require a Christian to loudly pray in restaurants or malls, or to announce their charitable contributions, or to babble in tongues before large audiences, or even divulging every personal spiritual experience. There are some experiences that are intended to emphasize the personal connection between an individual and God. Christ's power is not extended to the children of men to make them look good... it is extended to save them all.
The thing of which a Christian can be sure though, is that every person that they will ever meet has need of faith, penitence, and ordinances as prescribed by God. The thing of which a Christian cannot be sure is whether others already know this, or whether they may need some encouragement. Whether offered by men or God, it is a divine effort to make bad men good, and good men better.
Monday, March 4, 2013
With all the love in my heart, you're going to go to hell...
"Judge not that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)
The passage about judgement is often quoted. Some use the passage to persuade others to express Christian love and fellowship toward others. Some use the passage ironically to condemn those that they believe are guilty of judgement.
Regardless of the purpose, the use of the passage has increased in society over the past several decades. People are in generally more concerned with how people view one another than ever before.
I have had several individuals express particular concern over a certain demographic is treated. Many people are worried about the feelings of individuals that struggle with a particular problem, and are worried that they are frequently and wrongfully judged. Of course the group to which I am referring are those that struggle with smoking.
I know of people that are very kind, generous, God fearing, and virtuous, but that struggle with the terrible habit of smoking. Many of these people go out of their way to try to keep the odor of tobacco away from those of us who find it distasteful. These individuals can be sensitive to the disapproving looks of others. There are some of these who feel ostracized even when they are honestly putting forth effort to stop this expensive and unhealthy habit.
For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, there is on top of the negative odor, a spiritual aspect to the the practice, as it is prohibited by divine commandments called the word of wisdom. For people in the LDS church, the smell of cigarettes is the smell of sinful behavior. There are some who find the look of disgust on the faces of others to be a sign of judgment. Of course, every person who gives such looks of disgust are themselves guilty of sins, even if they are not detectable by scent. A good Christian should not assume that more obvious sins are the same as more obvious condemnation.
On the other side of the coin is the person who is accused of being judgemental when in fact, they may be making no spiritual assessment at all. I have had close friendships with individuals who used cigarettes, but not even my friendship can remove the foul odor that lingers on the breath and clothing of those that smoke. My belief that smokers are good people can't remove the expression of repulsion from my face.
There are those that do not find the odor of cigarettes to be distasteful. In such a case, imagine an individual that has explosive diarrhea leaking out of their clothing... how should a Christian express love and a spirit of inclusion to such a person who is extremely repulsive? Even if the Christian is able to purge their thoughts of any judgmental thoughts such as that person should control them self better or that person is not appropriately caring for their bodies, what if they are unable to force a smile and give the sensation that the person who smells like an outhouse is truly welcome?
Back to the cigarettes, is a person being judgmental if they avoid coming into a home that is filled with smoke? Are they being judgmental if they avoid letting their children go to such a home because of concerns about second-hand smoke?
What is the right approach to tell someone that their behavior or status makes you uncomfortable without giving the impression that you are saying "with all the love in my heart, you're going to go to hell" ?
Christ spent his time among publicans and sinners, much to the disapproval of the Pharisees. Of course, when asked about his company, he responded as follows:
"And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:11-13)
From this passage we get the implication that he was not simply "hanging out" with people, but he was asking them to change their behavior, or to call sinners to repentance.
Additionally, Christ did not seem ashamed to tell people that they were wrong, or even worse off than others. Consider the following:
"... Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matthew 21:31-32)
Deriving appropriate behavior exclusively from Christ may be more challenging than it initially appears. Jesus Christ will actually be the judge of all people, and he will have all the appropriate knowledge and authority to accurately threaten people with hellfire and damnation. The rest of us are not always entitled to the same degree of perception. Perhaps this is the purpose that Christ emphasized loving neighbor as self, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and demonstrating discipleship through love.
That having been said, disciples are not to tolerate sin. Joshua's armies in the Old Testament were not successful against the people of Ai until Achan and all his household were killed and their remains burned because they had kept some of the spoils of Jericho. (Joshua 7) The spirit of forgiveness seemed lessened in the New Testament case of Ananias and Sapphira when they misrepresented their income and did not give as much of their substance to the apostles as they should have. (Acts 5)
Ultimately, the concept of judgment is complicated. Christians have an obligation to be benevolent and welcoming, but also an obligation to stand for truth and righteousness. I suggest that the exact way to act in every case cannot be boiled down to a formula. To one person or group it may be appropriate to say repent or be destroyed. To another it is appropriate to say God is merciful and he will forgive. An individual effort must be made to stand against wrongdoing, just as individual effort must be made to welcome, forgive, and express love to those that may be guilty of wrongdoing. In such efforts, following the conscience is the best way to determine the approach that expresses love toward fellow children of God and encourages repentance of unacceptable behavior.
In the end, God wants all people to love one another and to repent of wrongdoing. It is possible to hate the sin and love the sinner, because it is what he does. The message for the person who is quick to judgement is to be more loving. The message for the person who accepts any behavior to be inclusive is to stand up for what is right. The message for the person who feels upset because other people are judging them is to try not to take all reactions personally, and to try to follow their conscience in efforts to improve themselves. God does not judge so that he can condemn mankind to hell... he's trying to save us all.
The passage about judgement is often quoted. Some use the passage to persuade others to express Christian love and fellowship toward others. Some use the passage ironically to condemn those that they believe are guilty of judgement.
Regardless of the purpose, the use of the passage has increased in society over the past several decades. People are in generally more concerned with how people view one another than ever before.
I have had several individuals express particular concern over a certain demographic is treated. Many people are worried about the feelings of individuals that struggle with a particular problem, and are worried that they are frequently and wrongfully judged. Of course the group to which I am referring are those that struggle with smoking.
I know of people that are very kind, generous, God fearing, and virtuous, but that struggle with the terrible habit of smoking. Many of these people go out of their way to try to keep the odor of tobacco away from those of us who find it distasteful. These individuals can be sensitive to the disapproving looks of others. There are some of these who feel ostracized even when they are honestly putting forth effort to stop this expensive and unhealthy habit.
For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, there is on top of the negative odor, a spiritual aspect to the the practice, as it is prohibited by divine commandments called the word of wisdom. For people in the LDS church, the smell of cigarettes is the smell of sinful behavior. There are some who find the look of disgust on the faces of others to be a sign of judgment. Of course, every person who gives such looks of disgust are themselves guilty of sins, even if they are not detectable by scent. A good Christian should not assume that more obvious sins are the same as more obvious condemnation.
On the other side of the coin is the person who is accused of being judgemental when in fact, they may be making no spiritual assessment at all. I have had close friendships with individuals who used cigarettes, but not even my friendship can remove the foul odor that lingers on the breath and clothing of those that smoke. My belief that smokers are good people can't remove the expression of repulsion from my face.
There are those that do not find the odor of cigarettes to be distasteful. In such a case, imagine an individual that has explosive diarrhea leaking out of their clothing... how should a Christian express love and a spirit of inclusion to such a person who is extremely repulsive? Even if the Christian is able to purge their thoughts of any judgmental thoughts such as that person should control them self better or that person is not appropriately caring for their bodies, what if they are unable to force a smile and give the sensation that the person who smells like an outhouse is truly welcome?
Back to the cigarettes, is a person being judgmental if they avoid coming into a home that is filled with smoke? Are they being judgmental if they avoid letting their children go to such a home because of concerns about second-hand smoke?
What is the right approach to tell someone that their behavior or status makes you uncomfortable without giving the impression that you are saying "with all the love in my heart, you're going to go to hell" ?
Christ spent his time among publicans and sinners, much to the disapproval of the Pharisees. Of course, when asked about his company, he responded as follows:
"And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:11-13)
From this passage we get the implication that he was not simply "hanging out" with people, but he was asking them to change their behavior, or to call sinners to repentance.
Additionally, Christ did not seem ashamed to tell people that they were wrong, or even worse off than others. Consider the following:
"... Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matthew 21:31-32)
Deriving appropriate behavior exclusively from Christ may be more challenging than it initially appears. Jesus Christ will actually be the judge of all people, and he will have all the appropriate knowledge and authority to accurately threaten people with hellfire and damnation. The rest of us are not always entitled to the same degree of perception. Perhaps this is the purpose that Christ emphasized loving neighbor as self, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and demonstrating discipleship through love.
That having been said, disciples are not to tolerate sin. Joshua's armies in the Old Testament were not successful against the people of Ai until Achan and all his household were killed and their remains burned because they had kept some of the spoils of Jericho. (Joshua 7) The spirit of forgiveness seemed lessened in the New Testament case of Ananias and Sapphira when they misrepresented their income and did not give as much of their substance to the apostles as they should have. (Acts 5)
Ultimately, the concept of judgment is complicated. Christians have an obligation to be benevolent and welcoming, but also an obligation to stand for truth and righteousness. I suggest that the exact way to act in every case cannot be boiled down to a formula. To one person or group it may be appropriate to say repent or be destroyed. To another it is appropriate to say God is merciful and he will forgive. An individual effort must be made to stand against wrongdoing, just as individual effort must be made to welcome, forgive, and express love to those that may be guilty of wrongdoing. In such efforts, following the conscience is the best way to determine the approach that expresses love toward fellow children of God and encourages repentance of unacceptable behavior.
In the end, God wants all people to love one another and to repent of wrongdoing. It is possible to hate the sin and love the sinner, because it is what he does. The message for the person who is quick to judgement is to be more loving. The message for the person who accepts any behavior to be inclusive is to stand up for what is right. The message for the person who feels upset because other people are judging them is to try not to take all reactions personally, and to try to follow their conscience in efforts to improve themselves. God does not judge so that he can condemn mankind to hell... he's trying to save us all.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wait, I thought you believed in separation of church and state...
Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists. The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)