letjusticerolldown

Blue Deacon--I think you are being asked to notch up your commitment to dialogue one level. It is a just request in my mind.

Jesus instructs that not only are we to not commit murder--but we are not to respond in anger by saying 'raca.' There is a way, in conversation that we can completely shut off another and assert ourselves as the only voice.

Routinely shifting conversation can be as rude as slamming a door in their face. Fundamental to dialogue is hearing a person's point and giving it dignity by responding to it (in agreement or disagreement).  I have watched multiple persons attempt to address this with you--sometimes gracefully and sometimes not. Please entertain the possibility that complete strangers/brothers seek to make a contribution to your life and to dialogue--and may not just be trying to win a verbal contest.

bitches
Slut
Prostitute

I affirm or condemn the application of these terms to groups of my neighbors based on which neighbor is doing the name-calling and which neighbor they are targeting.

It is especially important to know the political and religious identity of all involved.

But I want you to know my prejudices are entirely righteous.

I absolutely agree with your "fear and anger" comment.

How could there be politics, campaigns, and messages without intentional crafting of language? Every day of the year there is a small army of researchers and call banks testing out words and phrases that end up in the onslought of political propoganda we are barraged with every day.

Amen.

It seems much of reigning "political wisdom (if I dare call it that)" is that to be civil is to render oneself politically impotent.

So what happens when we give a few hundred leaders the control of the most powerful government on Earth whose controling idea is that what works is to not listen, to call names, to use selective hearing, criticize motivations, do not grant the benefit of the doubt--etc. etc?

Could this post have been made without talking about Rush's comments? Of course. But it's more interesting to be fighting--or so we seem to think. And there is a fight still going on over this incident--the best I can tell. So is the point of this piece to raise up the flag of civility so this conflict is managed to just and healthy ends? Or is it to carry on a political conflict to defeat someone in the name of "civility?"

Civility starts with an honesty in our own hearts, ears and tongues.

Thanks. I think that moderates my comment--probably doesn't remove it entirely.

It is interesting to me how GP posts rightly take Rush Limbaugh to task for missing the whole point of this battle (ie re: religious liberty) and then title this post framing it essentially as a Catholic battle over contraception.

One almost gets the feel that the Sojo agenda is the support of whatever the Obama agenda is by whittling away at whoever the opposition is.

Has there been one post which dealt with the Bishop's position--or other voices with substancial concerns regarding religious liberty as being serious, coherent or substantive??

Which was the funny part?

Underlying both of their schtick are some legitimate questions/issues. And in my book neither one of them are either funny or terribly insightful. It is the cheapest/easiest gig in the world to get on stage and say 'f___ you' which is the level of genius employed by both.

I was responding to your comments about evangelism--good news. We share--based on our understanding.

My personal understanding is that a nuclear holocaust would decimate humanity and life on Earth--and that the existance of huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons means such a devastation is a real, present and perpetual danger. Many people's life experience has led them to conclude: "Ho-hum."

I feel compelled to attempt to eradicate nuclear weapons because of the threat I understand they pose. I don't conclude: "Well others have differing opinions so I guess I should just keep my mouth shut."

With the Apostle Paul I affirm that I am largely a fool if the good news of Chris't death and resurrection is not true. But I believe His death was not pointless. I believe there is a shalom for all the created order available through the cross--a justice, righteousness, healing, salvation and shalom for all eternity--that we make dramatic choices for life or for death; for fellowship with the Creator or a complete separation. I believe God's love when it infiltrates our hearts compels us to love.

If my neighbor was certain a UFO was coming that would save my city from being obliterated by an asteroid--I would find it strange (and may I say I would feel a bit offended and insulted) if he didn't bother to tell me about how I could escape obliteration.

Robertson makes an implicit argument I think you miss. The failure to voluntarily nurture a moral code (e.g. "Fraud is wrong")produces tyranny (external control).

So I have lived through a fifty-year journey of the social trashing of all ridiculous religious 'legalisms' (e.g. smokers go to hell)--and replaced with fifty years of activism, court cases, ordinances, penalties, enforcement aimed at squeezing smoking out that makes the original "legalism" look innocent and quaint.

You may not be old enough but there were a couple decades when the use of illegal drugs was not spoken about in moral terms. The removal of moral constraints gave way to a massive criminal bureaucacy to punish/control.

I believe much of the spiritual journey is one of being stripped--of all that we tend to put our trust in. Life is found in losing it for Christ's sake.

Life itself, and that which God has prepared for each of us, if received--will teach us.

I have traveled a long journey--something like what you describe and it has been immensely rich. But there is no one thing to do. There is not one sacred place or sacred path we all need to take.

God has already planted a question in you--a prompting. Receive that--and submit to the unique journey God has for you. There will be grace for you in that. There will be protection, comfort, provision and shalom. That is the only safe place.

You see there is a connection between your neighborhood and the others you describe. Receive that. Let them both be your neighborhood(s). Who is our neighbor?

God is in both places--and will be active in people in both places. Christ's grace will not only provide for you but grant an ability to see the dignity in your neighbors--to join hands and allow God's Spirit to heal and breathe life.

I say "Yes" to the "move" idea. But broaden your initial thoughts about what "moving" means. Allow God to "reposition" your life--your thoughts--your habits--where you go. This is part of the spiritual discipline of submitting--of letting go of our routine and perspectives and comforts. God might bring you to drive a certain street and pray for the people there for 20 years. God might carry you to a prayer meeting once a month at a church that seems a million miles away from you. Who knows? But it is a grand adventure for those willing to leave the safe confines of life as we know it.

comment