We Do It Backwards

I've been reading a lot of posts on Facebook lately about people taking their Christmas decorations down and feeling sad but relieved that "the holidays are over."

Ummm, the holidays aren't over.

The first such post I saw was the day after Christmas. I thought, "Holy cow! Christmas had just started, and this person is ready for it to be gone."

We do it backwards. I've noticed that most people put their Christmas decorations up on that magical day after Thanksgiving or even more wondrous December 1 (or the Sunday nearest it). This is usually before the season of Advent is even started. Stores start putting out their Christmas baubles for sale in August. No wonder by the time Christmas Day arrives, we are suffering severe "holiday fatigue" and are just ready for it to be over. On Christmas Day, though, the true purpose of Christmas and its celebration is only beginning.

As Catholics, and some of the non-Catholic churches, too, we lament the secularization of Christmas: "Make sure to keep the 'Christ' in 'Christmas," and "I'll say 'Merry Christmas', not 'Happy Holidays', thank you very much." As Christians, we bemoan the commercialization of Christmas: "Remember, Jesus is the reason for the season, not presents and Santa Claus." Yet, so many of us participate in this secularization of Christmas by aligning our celebration of the Birth of Jesus with the secular "Holiday Season," and not with our Church's calendar.

You see, for the four weeks prior to Christmas Eve, we are not in "Christmas" yet. As Catholics, and some of the major Christian denominations, we are in the season of Advent. This season is about Joyful Anticipation for the coming of Jesus. I used to get so mad at the monks of Conception Abbey when I was a student there, because they would not let us put up Christmas decorations on campus prior to the winter break. By the time break was over, so was the Christmas season, and we could not decorate for Christmas at all. Now I realize the spiritual maturity of that practice. What the monks were trying to teach us was to align our celebration of the holidays (these "HOLY DAYS") with the Church, instead of with the secular culture.

This is something we've had to compromise in our house. My preference would be that we do not put out any decorations for Christmas until Christmas Eve. Yeah. Right. You try to stop Lesley from putting out Christmas decorations. I've caught her listening to "The Carpenter's for Christmas" in July! She's unstoppable. The compromise that we made early in our relationship is that the Christmas decorations would remain out until the Somnity of the Epiphany. (For my non-Catholic readers, that is when the Catholic Church celebrates the coming of the Magi who reverenced the Christ Child as King [gold], Priest [incense], and Sacrificial Victim [myrrh].) Our Christmas decorations stay up until the Church's Christmas Season is over, usually 2 Sundays after Christmas. If I had my drothers, I would leave them up until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, 3 Sundays after Christmas, but hey, marital comprimise.

I think this is something we need to start taking seriously, if we want to re-evangelize our culture, and make Christmas a Christian holiday again. We need to stop submitting to the secular calendar of the "Holiday Season," and begin aligning our prayer and our activities with the Christian "Christmas Season." There are some simple ways to do this.

1. And this one is good for the whole year round: Integrate the readings of Mass with our personal prayer. I know that many, many Catholics spend time each day with the scriptures. As Catholics (and truly all Christians), our private, personal prayer and communal, ecclesial prayer are supposed to flow from and feed in to each other. One of the simplest ways to do that is to read the scriptures for Mass each day. It takes only a few minutes, and the readings are published in so many different places, "I don't know what the readings are," really is no excuse. There is even an app for it on your smart phone, iMissal. I frame my personal prayer with the scriptures. I read the scriptures for the daily Mass to begin my daily personal prayer. Then I spend time in quiet meditation and then I say a rosary. Then I end my daily, private prayer by listening to God speak in the scriptures for the upcoming Sunday Mass. By the time Sunday comes, I've heard the scriptures for Mass 7 times (Monday through Sunday) already. The way I do this is just one way to do it. Find your own way in your own prayer to spend time each day with the scriptures of the Mass. You will find that your life begins to align naturally with the celebrations of the Church calendar throughout the year.

2. Slow down during Advent. Advent is a time of waiting, anticipation, patience and quiet. Maybe we should all start a practice of not having holiday gatherings until after Christmas Day. Feeling the darkness of Advent by withholding a lot of the lights is an interesting idea. The reason Christmas was assigned to December 25 was not because it is actually Jesus's birthday. By all indications in the scriptures, Jesus was most probably born in the springtime. The earliest Christians evangelized a pagan holiday which celebrated the triumph of light over darkness, when the days started becoming longer. Jesus is the Light of the World, who came into the world to banish darkness. The earliest Christians evangelized the Pagans by "Christianizing" this Roman festival, using it to teach people that Jesus is the Light who has overcome the darkness. Spending Advent in quiet darkness is a good way to give the season of waiting for the Light it's true meaning.

3. Have your holiday get togethers after Christmas. In some of the Orthodox Traditions, gifts aren't given on Christmas at all, but on the Solemnity of the Epiphany. This is to commemorate the gifts of the Magi given to Jesus. Instead of getting together with family and friends the weeks prior to Christmas day to celebrate "Christmas", let's wait until the weekend after Christmas. Let's celebrate gift giving in the Light of the gift of God the Father, Jesus. We might say, "Oh, but who has the time after Christmas?" Why are the days seemingly more condensed after Christmas? Probably because we've already been celebrating for weeks, and are just tired. Putting the celebrations of Christmas off until after Christmas might make the days seem less hectic.

The bottom line is, if we are truly to re-evangelize our culture in an attempt to restore the meaning of Christmas, then we need to think about how we celebrate it. Are we aligning ourselves with the secular calendar, or with the Christian calendar? What are we doing prior to the celebration of the Christian holy days? Is December 25 the beginning of the celebration of the Birth of Jesus that we continue for several weeks, or is it the end of a tiresome, busy, hectic December that we're actually glad to see gone?

In short, while we pay lip service to "the true meaning of Christmas," do we truly celebrate it as Christians?

I Just Want To Be Free

 Here's the situation: Me and a liberal friend (yes, I can have those), have been going back and forth on Facebook. First, what you will see is her response to a comment that I made. Then you will see my response. I'm posting this here because my response was too long for Facebook to publish in the comments. First, my friend's comment (warning, she uses the "f" word if you are sensitive to that):

Oh Jamie, I love you and will always love you. Of course this is going to be a heated debate, I disagree with you on ever level babe. You just don't get it and won't. You are delusional and think all of mankind is equal, equal in thought, equal in ability to maintain self and others, equal physically, mentally, intellectually. You want an Ozzie and Harriet world that never existed to begin with. I could easily refute all of your claims with numbers and facts but it won't change your mind anymore than you will change mine. I know you are as passionate about your beliefs as I am mine. I just happen to think I am on the human interest side of this while you truly come across as the me, mine, and ours view to me. That is not to say I don't enjoy a good debate and will always listen to you I just won't agree with you. Perhaps I worded my comment poorly as I didn't mean you equated the KKK with PP, you did however equate them in funding and that is just silly, the KKK is a hate group plain and simple while PP is an organization that does NOT promote abortion, they support women's heath, plain and simple and if abortion is a choice a woman makes then they have a place to assist them through PP and other organizations and I am thrilled there are places for such women to go. The bottom line Jamie is that govt is necessary and your idea of privatizing everything on the planet is a clear plan for disaster and would do little more than to increase the already huge divide between the haves and have nots, that is no recipe for healing for growth, that is a recipe for chaos simply because "your" group would maintain a one thought order while "my" group would maintain an opportunity for all regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. Religion has no place in politics and will never have a place and I, for one, am very grateful that we have a gov't that will see to that (in the constitution I think, wink). Any organization that offers a service with an agenda such as your woman's health group is dangerous to me, while organization such as PP who's ONLY agenda is to provide safe and affordable healthcare to those that need it regardless of their beliefs is the only way to go. You need to admit it, you want everyone to think as you, live as you, have the same standards as you.....that will never happen, we are all entitled to our beliefs and still be allowed the same quality of service whether that be health, food, education, roads, you name it and we all have to pay for it, that is how the world works, plain and simple. And as for the quality of education in this country, we could argue for eons, it is the republican agenda that has fucked up education with all their accountability measures that have to date produced nothing more than a cheating system to appease the ignorant while continuing to ruin what once was a respected field and without quality education this country doesn't stand a chance. The republican party claims to want more quality education but on their terms and with certain schools of thought to be used only, that is a most dangerous path to go down. Give people knowledge of all and allow them to make their own choices, indoctrination has never worked to the good of the world as a whole, take a look at the middle east. We are and will remain a leading nation because we are a caring nation that while isn't perfect we still stand for freedom of thought, freedom to choose, and thank goodness for that. You don't have to support everyone's views but "your" group needs to stop wanting to control everyone's actions, thoughts, and desires. It's simple Jamie, you get the same opportunities I do and even the idiot KKK member is entitled to their twisted belief system, we don't deny someone's basic needs just because we disagree with their use of resources. As to all the funding issues and debt we are in, you have no where to look but the republican that caused this, Bush, plain and simple. That idiot team took this country into the toilet and we are barely starting to climb our way out of it and it will take a hell of a lot of time and yes, TAXES. As to our arguing, don't stop, well maybe on this one lol...but I am always up for a debate and can still love you in spite of the fact you ARE an angry old white dude....lol. Just kidding, chillax. You say that everyone needs to get back to taking care of themselves and stop taking hand outs, back at ya, take care of you and allow others to do the same for themselves and stop asking people to believe as you do, you want to punish those that don't follow your religious or personal beliefs while I want for all to have basic needs regardless of how they feel about abortion, gay rights, God, Ninja Turtles, or even Big Bird!

 

 

Here's my response:

 

Ok. Here we go: First, I’m going to ask you to refrain from statements like, “You think…” and, “You want…” and, “You believe…” These kind of statements do two things. 1. They express what you think that I think and what you believe that I believe, not what I really think and believe. So really, these statements are more about your biases and prejudices than anything else. 2. They prevent us from having a real conversation about the ideas and principles that differentiate us, because you have prejudged what I say based on your biases against conservatives. We cannot have a conversation if you are not going to hear what I am actually saying.

 

Secondly, I would like to explain briefly the philosophical foundation of my thinking. My fundamental principle is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Anything that involves freedom also involves responsibility. We simply cannot have one without the other. Having the freedom to choose something means that I am responsible for the consequences of my choice. If I decide to hand responsibility to someone or something else, I lose my freedom to choose. I have to do what the one or the thing to whom I gave responsibility wants me to do, because it is they, not me, who will have the consequences. Two examples: Thannie’s pulmonologist, who manages the damage done to his lungs after his initial trauma, has decided that Thannie should have the RSV vaccine, Synagis. It is a round of shots, one set per month, for 6 months, to guard him from serious pulmonary disease during the cold and flu season. The doctor says it is absolutely necessary that he should have this. The insurance company, to whom we have given responsibility to pay for our health care by paying our monthly premiums, disagrees. The insurance company will not cover it. The cost for this round of shots is $12,000.00. So we either have to forego the shots, or pay for them ourselves, or find another way to get them. We pay for insurance to make them responsible for paying for medical costs. We have given that responsibility to our insurance company, therefore we lose a certain level of freedom in choosing our healthcare. Luckily, we have found another way to provide these shots to Thannie, so he is going to get them. The point is we want the freedom to give him the medical care the doctor believes is necessary, so we have to be responsible in having it paid for, one way or another. We took that responsibility and found a way through the generosity of the company who is going to provide the shots. If that hadn’t worked out, we’d be paying $12,000.00 for them. Freedom and responsibility. We want to choose what healthcare our children receive, so we need to pay for it. One would think, well, with government healthcare, we wouldn’t have to worry about that. That’s not the case. I worked with a client who was denied treatment for Hepatitis because the panel that makes decisions for Medicaid/Medicare recipients had decided that for the class of patient in which my client belonged, the benefit of the treatment did not justify the cost. The difference was this client of mine had no other options for paying for it. She had given responsibility to Medicaid/Medicare for paying for her healthcare (like we did our insurance company), and so lost the freedom to choose what healthcare treatments she could receive. I could give you many more examples in different areas, including housing, health, and food, but this would be a lot longer. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated. If we want freedom, we must take responsibility. That is the foundation of all of my political philosophy.

 

Now, to some of your specific points. I’m not sure why you, who are “pro-choice,” have such a venomous attitude towards organizations like the Pregnancy Help Center (PHC). Allow me to explain to you what the PHC does. When women come to us, we welcome them. We do an assessment as to what their needs are. Then we offer them directly or make a referral to a place where their needs can be met. We offer directly mental health and social work support. We offer them directly clothing and food for both them and their baby. We make referrals for housing, healthcare, and other things that we cannot provide directly. We do this with a loving and nonjudgmental attitude with the idea that if a woman’s needs are met for material, social and emotional support, then it would remove the reasons she would feel she needs to have an abortion. If a woman chooses, after meeting with us, that abortion is the best choice for her, we do not stop her. We will not refer her to an abortion provider, because that violates our religious belief, but since you believe in religious tolerance, I’m sure you don’t have a problem with that since she can find abortion providers without our help. We do not deny abortion services or seek to have abortions made illegal. We provide a service to women directly, without asking for government support, hoping to stop 1 abortion at a time by offering a woman a choice when she feels there is no other alternative. I’m not out to convince the world that abortion is wrong.  I believe that abortion is wrong, and I put that belief into action by helping women who are in unplanned pregnancies, and hopefully prevent an abortion by helping them get what they need so they don’t feel that they need to choose to end their pregnancy. If they make that choice, I’m not going to stop them, but because I believe it is wrong, I’m not going to help them either. That’s true tolerance. They are free to act in a way that they think is right. I am free to act according to my conscience. I would imagine that you who are pro-choice can’t have a problem with us offering a woman an alternative to abortion as one of the possible choices for her to make. Why is that so wrong to you?

 

It’s actually ironic to me that you say that “my” group would support “a one thought order”, while your group would not, specifically in the instance of privatizing education. You are the one who is advocating a one school system run by the government, and you bemoan the fact that the government then puts regulations on education. Remember, we cannot have freedom without responsibility. If you want the government to provide education, then the government has the authority to decide on standards, curriculum, and every other aspect of education. You cannot expect the government to take responsibility for providing education, and then allow schools to be free to do what they want. You cannot give up responsibility and keep your freedom. Privatizing education would allow everyone the freedom to choose the education they want their children to have. If a person is an agnostic, they could send their child to a secular school where religion is not included in the curriculum. If a person is Christian, the person could choose to send their children to a Christian academy. Privatizing education actually allows people to send their children to a school where they feel the values they want their children to learn would be taught. The “one-size-fits-all” public, government regulated education system that you value does not allow for that kind of diversity. Children aren’t allowed to pray openly in their school if they choose freely to do so. Christian children with traditional beliefs about marriage, for example, are often forced into sex education classes that teach that they should be accepting of things that contradict their traditional values. Why is it that tolerance only applies to those who agree with the liberal agenda? With the public, government education system in place, many people do not have a choice as to where to send their children, and so are forced to send their children to schools that teach things that violate their personal beliefs. Of course, giving this greater freedom in education would mean greater responsibility, especially in terms of funding. People would have to pay their children’s schools directly, rather than having their taxes go to the state and local governments to be divided among schools that they may not even utilize. It would remove state authority over education. What would ensure educational excellence is the competition that would exist between schools. Lesley and I took the choice of schools very seriously, knowing we would not be using the public schools. We chose St. Peter’s because of its reputation for being so strong academically. Competition between the private schools creates the drive to be the very best school, because most (not all, but most) would want to send their children to the school where their children will receive the best education. Competition between the schools would also ensure lower costs. Private education is expensive, but we would not have to pay property taxes to support schools anymore. Lesley and I and you currently pay taxes to support a broken, dysfunctional (even you say so) educational system that we don’t utilize. Lesley and I don’t use it because we use the private schools. You don’t use it because you don’t have children. Privatizing education would mean that people would only pay for the school they are using. Why should we be paying for a public service that we don’t even use? You can look at the Catholic and secular private school system in St. Louis as a model. Some are more expensive than others. The ones that are most expensive offer multiple scholarships to ensure that if a child is academically capable, that child can attend. It would also eliminate the idea that all education needs to be the same. If you have a young person, for example, who has a high interest in mechanics, why should this young person be forced to sit through years of English grammar classes? This young person and the parent(s) could choose to send him to a school that focuses on mechanics and engineering at an earlier age, and the child could be engaged in education in a way that actually prepares him to be in the work force. We can’t do that now, because the government regulates what education children receive. When people abdicated the responsibility of educating their children to the government, they lost the freedom of allowing their children to learn academically, socially, and morally the values that they hold.

 

I also think it is ironic that you say that “my” group wants to maintain a “one thought order” while “your” group wants to maintain diversity and tolerance despite personal and religious beliefs, but you think of me as an “angry, white, religious guy.” That is incredibly insulting and demeaning. I know you don’t mean for me to be insulted by that, but I am. Allow me to enlighten you about the diversity that constitutional conservatives like me believe in.

 

The only reason that the government is involved in the gay marriage question in the first place is because of taxes. It is written into our tax code that married couples get tax credits for being married and having a family. If the government were to abolish tax credits for marriage and family (which can only happen if the government establishes a fair tax), then there would be no more need for the government to be involved in marriages at all. That makes the question of gay marriage a religious issue. Gay people who want to be married in a church could go to a church that allows gay couples to marry. I personally believe, based on my religious faith, that marriage is ordered by God and can only exist between a man and a woman. This is what my church teaches. But if a different church wanted to allow gay marriage, what would that matter to me? I go to the church whose teachings make sense to me. They can go to the church whose teachings make sense to them. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is not trying to get the Catholic Church to change its teachings because you don’t like them.

 

As a constitutional conservative, abortion is a state’s right issue. The Constitution of the United States is silent on the matter of abortion, so states should be allowed to set their own laws through their own legislative processes. One state may make abortion illegal altogether, while another state may allow abortions without any limitations. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is not trying to get people who believe that abortion is a moral wrong to change their religious beliefs.

 

I know that government is, unfortunately, necessary. As a constitutional conservative, however, I believe the function of government is limited. I believe that the government is responsible for providing for the protection of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic. That requires a strong military. Probably the closest I get to the idea of welfare and disability is the debt that is owed to those who have served in the military protecting us from threats. Our veterans deserve lifelong health care and benefits for the service they did for you and me, but for me that goes along with a having a strong military. It incentivizes military service for people. I also believe that government is responsible for ensuring the means of interstate commerce, and negotiating between states for commerce. That’s it. Limited government.

 

I do not believe the federal government is responsible for providing welfare and education. Once again, those are states issues. The needs of Missouri are not the same as the needs of California or New York or Wisconsin or Wyoming in terms of caring for the poor and the disabled. This is a state issue, not a federal one. What works in one state will not work in another, because of different population, different demographics, and different fund sources. The states should have sole authority to provide what welfare and medical help they determine is best suited for the needs of the state, not the federal government with, again, its “one-size-fits-all” approach. I also believe that if we as a people, both humanists like yourself and religious people like me, were a little bit more radical in our generosity toward the poor and the disabled, there would be no need for welfare. We would understand that part of our responsibility is to take care of each other. Is that a high moral standard? Sure. But it’s one that is universally accepted. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

 

You have these beliefs that I want everyone to think like me, act like me, believe like me, and eat, sleep, and dress like me. I’m not the one calling you names, like “an angry, white, liberal woman,” because I don’t agree with you. I’m not the one who thinks you should be silent about your strong convictions, and pay for things that you find morally offensive. I’m not the one who thinks that you should be forced to accept things that you believe are wrong. I’m not the one calling organizations that you support, like Planned Parenthood, “dangerous” because I don’t agree with them.

 

I remember during the 2008 elections being called all kinds of names. I was called a misogynist because I believe that abortion is wrong. I was called a homophobe because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I was called a racist because I believe in a smaller, fiscally conservative, constitutional government, and so would not vote for Obama. I get tired of being called names by the liberal left, and told I’m intolerant because I don’t agree with you. The only way you would consider me being tolerant is if I said I agree with you. What a crock of crap! I don’t care what you believe, and I don’t care if you act out on your beliefs. I just want to be free to believe what I believe, and act on my beliefs. How does that make me different than you? As the system exists, I am forced to support things, like a dysfunctional, broken educational system that I don’t use; like PP, whose philosophy I don’t agree with; like federal (let me repeat: FEDERAL) welfare and Medicaid/Medicare. I am forced by the system to participate in the system that violates my morals and beliefs. How is that tolerant of me? Privatizing everything, as is my argument, allows for true tolerance, diversity and freedom. My money goes where I want it to go. My children are educated in the way that I think is best for my children. I become personally responsible for helping the poor and the disabled, and I am also free to help them through the organizations with whose philosophies I agree. I become personally responsible for exercising my freedom. And in being free, I, and I alone, am responsible for the consequences of my choices.

 

From what I can tell, your philosophy of government abdicates personal responsibility to the government, and limits freedom. The more responsibility we give to the government, the less free we are. The more personally responsible we are, the freer we are. I just want to be free.

The Lesser of Two Evils: Casting a Moral Vote

I've been thinking lately about something I've said in the past and have heard others say about voting for the candidates, "I'm voting for (fill in the name), because really, he/she is the lesser of two evils. I mean, I don't really like either candidate, but this one I think is the one who is the less awful."

I want to challenge this directly. This is irrelevant to conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. For full disclosure purposes, I will state that I am a conservative. I become more and more conservative, and probably lean almost to the Libertarian Party in most of my ideas, but have significant differences even with them in certain areas. What I'm writing about has been said by me and others who fall all over the political map. They are voting for one candidate over another because the candidate for whom they are voting is the lesser of two evils.

I want to look at this from a moral perspective. 

Let's get some definitions: I define evil by the traditional, Augustinian definition as the absence of good. A thing cannot be evil in and of itself, of its own power. Something is evil only in so far as it lacks goodness. When you hear me discuss something as "evil," that is how that word should be interpreted. In what I am writing here, something that is evil means that there is some goodness lacking in it. It may not be completely devoid of goodness, but there is goodness lacking in it somehow. Secondly, morality means in the context of this essay a deliberate act of the will. In other words, to be moral is to make a choice. In order for something to have a moral quality, it must involve a deliberate choice that a person makes. A person must set his or her will in a certain direction in order for the person to be held responsible for the choice on a moral level.

With these two definitions in mind, morally, we are not to do evil by an act of the will. To will to do evil is to sin, which separates us from God, one another, and creation. Even those who do not believe in God, but believe that there are things that are good and evil based on their own philosophical construct, would agree with the basic, generic moral edict, "A person should not will to do evil."

So here's the first part of the statement: "I’m voting for…because this person is really the lesser of two evils." See where I'm going here? To vote for someone because that person is the lesser of two evils is to will evil. It's like saying, "Well, I could have shot the person in the gut and let him slowly bleed to death, but I chose to shoot the person in the head so it would be over more quickly. It was the lesser of two evils." Either way, you've still killed another person.

If you have two choices in front of you, and both are evil, then to choose either one is to choose evil, and thus you have done something immoral. If in the election, you see that all candidates are evil, and you choose one of them, then you are choosing an evil. You have set your will to choose what you perceive to be an evil for our country. That is an immoral act. It would be better for you not to vote in that circumstance, than to do an evil act by voting for someone that you see as evil.

Now I know that people are going to say, "Well, what I actually mean by that is that I don't see either candidate as ideal." Ok. That's a very different thing than saying you see them as evil, and you're voting for the lesser of two evils. Why is this important? 

Our political discourse, especially this election season, has degraded to the point where we are more interested in discussing what is wrong with the candidates we don't like, than by talking about why our particular candidate is better. This was gently pointed out to me after a recent facebook rant I posted about Obama. It is no secret that I don't like Obama. I think he has spent American taxpayer money foolishly. I think that he has interfered with the recovery that the American economy could have experienced had he not put his policies in place. I think that he has weakened America through his foreign policy approach. I think that he is a fool in the biblical sense and a narcissist in the psychological sense. Frankly, he scares me.

To vote for Mitt Romney, however, because he is not President Obama, is just as foolish. I want to make sure that what I said is understood. For me to vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is not Obama is just as foolish. In the same sense, for someone to vote for Obama because he is not Mitt Romney is just as foolish. It's not voting for the person that is foolish, but voting for a person because that person is not another person that is foolish. I'm not making a positive moral choice with my vote in that case. I'm simply voting for someone that I think is less of screw up than Obama would be. To vote for someone because you think he is less of a screw up than the other is to still vote for someone that you think is a screw up. You're not really doing anything good for your country. It's like hiring someone for a job because you think that person will screw up your company less than everybody else. Why would you hire that person at all?

There is a solution to this.

First, we have to get away from the idea that there are only two political parties. The reason there are two dominant political parties is because the American voters allow there to be two dominant political parties. If the American voters were serious about making real change in the government, then the American voters probably need to start looking at Third Party candidates and voting for them. There is the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, and others out there. So the first premise of the idea that we have to choose the lesser of two evils is wrong. There are more than 2 choices. Until the American voters decide to do the work of looking beyond what is propagandized in the media, then we will continue to suffer under a two (dominant) party system. 

Secondly, we have to get away from the idea that voting Third Party is a waste of a vote. We need to ask ourselves seriously about why we vote. I want my candidate to win. No doubt. To say, however, that voting for a Third Party candidate is a waste of my vote because the Third Party candidate will lose is to say that everyone who votes for the candidates who lose has wasted his or her vote. I want my candidate to win, but I don't vote so my candidate will win. 

Thirdly, we have to get away from the idea that not voting is a bad thing. I will repeat what I said earlier: if in your conscience you feel that to vote for either candidate is to vote for "the lesser of two evils," it is better for you not to vote at all. We must begin to look at our vote as a moral choice that we are making. If we are Christian, we must believe that we will be held culpable for our decision about whom we elect to represent us. What we are saying with our vote is, "I support this candidate and what this candidate says he or she is going to do regarding life issues, financial issues, foreign policy issues, and the other areas over which the person will have influence in government." With your vote for a candidate, you are saying you support that candidate's positions. If you can't support any candidate's positions, don't vote, or write in your own name.

My vote is my expression of my opinion about what policies are best for the future of my nation. To vote is to make a moral choice for what I believe is the good of our country. What that means is that I then have to find out who the candidates are and for what they stand in order to make that moral decision. If neither of the two major party candidates reflect my vision, it is my responsibility to do the research to find the candidate who does.

Is any candidate going to be ideal? Of course not. I have to vote, though, for the candidate whom I think is best, not for the one I think is the least worst. I can honestly say that if I cannot find a candidate who I feel reflects what I think is the right direction for our country, then I will not vote. I would rather not vote, than to vote for someone that is the lesser of the two evils. I can only find the candidate who best reflects what I think is the best direction for our nation if I know their platforms.

This means I have to work hard. I have to be able to answer the questions: "What do I think is the right economic policy for the country?" "What is the situation of the world right now and how should we approach foreign nations?" "What are the great moral decisions we face today as a nation (i.e., abortion, gun control, care for the poor, the illicit substance epidemic, etc), where do I rate this on a list of priorities, and what do I think is the right approach to those moral questions we face as a people?" After I have researched and come up with what I think are the right answers to these questions, I have to research the candidates, and figure out which ones reflect most closely my own vision.

I've brought out this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson before and I will probably bring it out again: "The worst threat to the republic is an uninformed electorate." We, the voting people of the United States, have to get beyond the spoon fed propaganda of all of the media, whether it's NBC and CNN who are biased toward liberal, or Fox News that is biased towards conservative. Even so called "non-partisan" or "non-biased" sites like FactCheck.org need to be fact checked. We have to do the research ourselves. We have to be informed. It's the only way the United States is going to work.

 

And it is the only way I can cast a moral vote.

Asking God For Stuff

There’s a great line in the movie, “Shadowlands,” which is about C.S. Lewis’s marriage and subsequent death of his wife. Anthony Hopkins, who plays C.S. Lewis, says at one point, “We do not pray to change God’s mind, but to change ours.”

As Christians, we believe that God’s will is supreme. When we pray, we follow the model of Jesus, “Thy will be done,” “Not my will, but yours be done.” Our only desire as Christians is to know, to want, and to do the will of God. We believe that God will accomplish his will in all things. We also believe that his will is for our benefit, our good. That being said, should we ask God for stuff in our prayer?

If God’s will is supreme in our lives, and we long only that his will be accomplished, and we know that what he wills for us is better than anything we could will for ourselves, then why should we pray for anything other than that his will is done? If I really want a new motorcycle, why should I pray for a new motorcycle? Shouldn’t I instead just pray that God’s will is done? I mean, if it’s not God’s will that I get a motorcycle, I won’t get one. If it is, then I will. What’s the point of praying for it?

My Papa died from cancer, so should I just have prayed that God’s will be done regarding my Papa’s health? If it were God’s will that my Papa would be miraculously cured, he would be alive today. Apparently, it was God’s will that my Papa die.

Should we pray for stuff?

To me, the answer is resoundingly, “Yes.”

I think about it like this. I know what is good for my children. I know that when it is 30 minutes before supper time, and my children start asking me for cookies, a bowl of cereal, or Phineas and Ferb Fruit Snacks, they’re not going to get them. I know that when it is time for Jacob to wear his eye patch, and he throws a fit because he doesn’t want to, the end result will be an unhappy child wearing an eye patch. I know that in my children’s lives, my will be done.

That doesn’t mean I don’t rejoice in their asking. I love when they ask for stuff. They can be so freaking sweet. It can be really hard to say no to them sometimes (I have to admit, especially Caitlin). I think God rejoices in our asking, too. He loves it when we come to him and acknowledge him as the provider of all things. He rejoices that we, his children, make requests that he intends to give anyway. 

For example, we have limited Jacob’s Wii playing to a few hours a couple of times a week. I love it when Jacob asks, “Is today a Wii day? Can I play Wii?” I love being able to say yes to him. I love giving to my children. I know that God loves giving to us. There is occasionally the time that Jacob forgets it is a Wii day, and gets busy playing imaginative play with his Legos. I love that just as much, and am content to let him do that. When my will is that he should play Wii, and his will is that he should play Wii, our wills are in concert with one another, and I love giving him what he asks for. When his will is that he wants to play Wii, and my will is that it is not a Wii day, he gets upset, but I can count on the inevitable question, “Why?”

At this point, it becomes a teaching moment if he is open to hearing the answer.

When we ask God for stuff, and it is his will that we get the stuff we ask for, I have no doubt that God rejoices in giving us what we want. When we ask God for stuff, and it is not his will that we should get it, then it is a teaching moment if we are open to the lesson that God has for us.

If it is God’s will that we should have something, and we don’t want it at the moment, God does not impose his will on us. We are free creatures, given that freedom by him. He is not going to rescind the gift of freedom that he has already given. He is content to watch us move along in our lives, “playing” with the other gifts he has given us, until such a time that we should ask.

When we ask God for stuff, God will respond. He is faithful to us. Sometimes, the answer will be yes and we will grow closer to him in the gift of his love. Sometimes, the answer will be no with an explanation that (if we are able to hear it) will help us grow closer to him in his love. Either way, the opportunity to ask God for stuff is a tool that God uses to help us grow closer to him in his love.

No Title, Just Thoughts

I posted on Facebook the other day that I’m leaving my position at Columbia Treatment Center, a Behavioral Health Group facility. I’ve spent the last 19 months as the program director of and counselor in the Medication Assisted Treatment program here. This place has changed me.

I know I’m not as nice as I used to be, but that needs to be qualified. Accountability has become an important word to me over the last year and (a little more than) a half. Taking responsibility is a large part of life. It’s the only way to really move from day to day. Accountability has come to mean to me taking responsibility for those things for which one is responsible. I have realized in my work with the patients here, and in some cases with the staff, that I tend to let things go, hoping for the best. I’ve always believed that it is better to inspire someone to do something than to require them to do it. I still believe that is true, but my window for providing inspiration is much shorter.

Conflict has always been difficult for me, and there was a time in my life when I would avoid it at all costs. I would be slow to bring up to people areas where I felt there was a deficiency in their performance, again both patients and staff. So, once again, things were allowed to progress beyond reason, and the problems would just get bigger. Now I realize there can only be conflict if 2 people are engaged in it. I’ve become someone who refuses to engage in conflict, but in a more healthy way. A key concept to understanding this is found in Patricia Evans’s book, The Verbally Abusive Relationship. Evans discusses the distinction between Personal Power and Power Over. There are those who want Power Over. These people tend to be abusive, manipulative, with aggressive behaviors. They see themselves as always the victim of injustice, and often blame their behaviors and deficiencies on others. They seek to control others. These people often find themselves in conflict, perceiving others as mistreating them, misjudging them, trying to control them. They see everything as a power struggle, “Either I am in control or they are in control.” They are in constant conflict with everyone who does not do what they want them to do or be the way they want them to be.

People with Personal Power, on the other hand, know that the only person that he or she truly has power over is himself or herself. They don’t seek to control others. Rather than telling others what they will or will not do, the person with Personal Power informs others only of what he or she will do or won’t do. There is no conflict there. The person who seeks Power Over says, “You will do this,” or “You will not do that.” The person with Personal Power says, “You are free to do whatever you want to do. If you make this choice, this will be my response. If you make that choice, that will be my response.” There is no conflict

I never wanted to have Power Over others. That was never my problem. Until working at Columbia Treatment Center, however, I was never comfortable with my personal power. I don’t know how to explain it, except that following through on responses that I knew were necessary was really hard for me.

People who seek Power Over see this as a word game. People with addiction have the illusion of Power Over their substance. A big part of addiction is seeking Power Over things over which a person is powerless. So some patients who are “Power Over people” would see it like this: “So you’re telling me that if I don’t pay my bill, you’re going to discharge me. Why won’t you work with me? Why won’t you give me a chance? Why do you want to control my life like this?” They forget that they’ve forfeited their 3^rd financial contract, that we have given them multiple chances to make it right, and they perceive my response to their choice of being non-compliant with treatment by discharging them as an attempt to control their behavior. The same is true of staff. I had to terminate the employment of a team member who was a Power Over person. The person chose not to meet the expectations of the job description. I responded by terminating the employment. This wasn’t an attempt to control this person, but simply me allowing this person to exercise the free choice to perform the job at the level this person wanted to perform it, and my exercise of free choice in saying that it did not fulfill the expectations of the job.

So when I say I’m not as nice as I used to be, what I mean is I am more assertive with my responses to people than I used to be. I like Johnny Cash’s version better than Tom Petty’s, but the words are the same, “Gonna stand my ground. Won’t get turned around. And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down. And I won’t back down.” “Well, I know what’s right. I got just one life. In a world that keeps on pushing me around, I’m gonna stand my ground. No, I won’t back down.”

The reason I’m leaving my employment is because of Nathaniel. I really wasn’t looking to go, although it is something that I’ve been thinking about for some time. The straw that finally broke the camel’s back was last Wednesday, when Lesley called me to say that he had fallen and hit his head pretty hard at daycare. I was still 45 minutes away from home, working in Columbia. In a situation where 10 minutes could make the difference between life and death for my little guy, I cannot be 45 minutes away from where he is going to daycare anymore. Maybe someday, as he gets older and begins to learn to infuse himself and will hold still, I will be able to do other things. Right now, life has lead me to this place, and I’m meeting life on life’s terms. Personal Power…it also means not trying to control life.

I think of the end of Forrest Gump, when he is standing over his wife's and his mother's graves. He reflects that he isn't sure if we are just feathers blowing in the wind or if we have control over our destinies. He then says, "But I think it's a little of both." I do, too. 

So, this has been kind of a “stream of consciousness” writing. Just some reflections on where I’m at, where I'm going, and and why I’m going there, wherever "there" may be.

 

Observations While Travelling

I just returned from travelling to Oklahoma City. It was OK.

Anyway, I've been travelling for work a lot lately, and I've made few observations.

1. People say things like airports are great places just to people watch. Really? Um, creepy. How would you feel if you knew there was someone out there watching you? Uh-huh. That's what I thought. Besides that, it's actually impossible to "people" watch. Scientific research has proven that the human brain can actually only concentrate on 1 thing at a time. It is impossible for you or anyone, no matter how intelligent, to focus on two or more things at once. So, ladies, next time you want to brag about being multi-taskers, you actually aren't multi-tasking, you are simply doing a whole bunch of individual things in very quick succession. This means the real difference between men and women is that men actually finish what they're doing before moving on to the next thing. That was a side bar. But given this information, that we can only concentrate on one thing at a time, the most one can do at an airport is person watch, which I've found creeps people out much more. I mean, people don't like it when I follow them around the airport watching them.

2.Look at this picture:

The blackish thing hanging off the side of the conveyor belt unloading luggage from the plane...that's a sock. Yep, the guy pulled it off of a piece of luggage and just threw it to the side. Now you know.

3. All airports are basically the same. I could teleport you from the airport in Oklahoma City to Dallas, Memphis, St. Louis or Kansas City, and you wouldn't be able to tell which one. I don't know what people mean when they say, "That's a really good airport."

4. Why do airports have smoking lounges? I mean, you're not supposed to take anything flammable through the security, including lighters and matches. That means, even if you get your cigarettes through security, you shouldn't have any way to light them. Which leads to my next point:

5. Why do airports sell liquor and other flammable things after you've gone through security. Everything I need to make a molotov cocktail I can purchase or otherwise acquire after I've passed through security. Does anybody else think that airport security is a joke? Which leads to my next point:

6. Maybe TSA should spend less time looking for weapons, and more time looking for terrorists. A person of nefarious intentions could get everything they need to hi-jack a plain once he/she has passed through security, so maybe we should be looking for those with nefarious intentions, and stop bothering the rest of us. Profile the jerks.

7. Pilots of every airline do not "land" planes anymore. They aim them at the runway the way a kid aims a flat rock at a pond to see how many times he can get it to skip.

8. There is no good place to sleep in an airport. Just saying.

So that's it. Those are some of my observations now that I'm travelling more. I think the next time I'm asked to travel less than 500 miles, I'll ride my motorcycle.

The Crisis of Overcommitment

I have in my past and I have heard others lament what seems to be a "Crisis of Commitment" in our culture. The divorce rate in the United States consistently floats between half to two-thirds of marriages. The turnover in the labor market is huge. People used to work for 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years for the same company. Now, it seems in many places, if you've worked somewhere for 5 years, you're one of the senior employees. This is true of communities in which we live, too. My grandparents lived in the same community for over 60 years. My great-grandfather lived in the same community for 100 years (his whole life), and the same house for 70 years. According to a research study conducted by the National Association of Home Builders, about 33% of people will have moved from homes they purchased within 7 years of purchasing them. Only about 33% of people will still be in homes they purchased 25 years earlier. We are a mobile society, constantly on the move. All of this indicates that we are not a culture that engages in long term commitments.

I would agree with the perception of others that there is a general disregard for a "traditional" definition of commitment as something that is life-long, firm, unwavering. I have even heard of people "vowing" in their wedding ceremony that they will remain faithful "as long as their love shall last," which usually means the end of the honeymoon. "If we split up...", "If it doesn't work out...", and similar phrases are commonly heard in people planning their "long-term" relationships these days. I hear words like this all the time when doing couples' counseling.

I would argue, however, that the cultural disregard for a more traditional understanding of commitment has a different source. I think it has to do more with burnout.

I don't think we have a "Crisis of Commitment," but rather a "Crisis of Overcommitment."

As I walk down this path of married life with children, I can see it happening. Jacob has tee ball. Jacob and Caitlin have swimming lessons. During the school year, there's Cubbies (AWANAS children's bible study program for little ones). Lesley and I have commitments to Nathaniel's healthcare, of course. I have my MC and my participation on the board of the Pregnancy Help Center of Central Missouri. I also have a prayer group, which meets less and less frequently (a sign of overcommitment among its members). I also try to volunteer 1 time per month to help at the Samaritan Center, which has been happening less and less (a sign of overcommitment on my part). Oh yeah, I also have my wife and children and job. Lesley, God love her, is the only one who has no commitments to anything outside of us and her work, but those commitments seem to fill her time over-abundantly. Poor girl has barely any time to herself. I can only imagine at this point what it will be like for us when the children are committed to school, sports, extra-curricular activities and all sorts of other things. I hear about parents who don't see each other except for at night when they kiss good night and pass out from exhaustion. These people are not suffering from a lack of commitment, but from overcommitment. We get committed to so many different things that we end up doing everything with half a heart.

And then we get burned out.

I can see it happening to me now. Things I really used to enjoy, like riding my motorcycle, become tedious. I love the type of work I do, but these days, more days than not, I wake up and think, "Well, here we go again." I've lost the enthusiasm for the lives that I know I can touch. Even things that I know benefit me in the deepest levels spiritually, like meeting with a cursillo prayer group, become just another appointment on my calendar. Overcommitted and burned out. I recognize the signs.

But what to do?

I wonder if you can relate to this. It's not that your not committed. You are. As a matter of fact, you are so committed to so many things that you want to quit them all and be monk for a year or 10. The result of this pandemic of overcommitment: high divorce rates, low retention rates at work, half-hearted efforts at things that we say are important to us, and burn out, making us irritable with those we love the most.

What to do?

Maybe it is time to quit.

Oh, not everything.

When is the last time you sat down and really made a list of everything you have going on in your life, AND PRIORITIZED THEM? It's been a while for me. And by everything, I mean EVERYTHING. How much time do you spend on social media networks? Has that reached the level of commitment? You are committed to it because that is how you communicate with people now. How about your favorite television show that you just don't want to miss? Are you committed to watching America's Got Talent? What about time spent doing household stuff, like dishes, laundry, vacuuming, and budgeting? I'm pretty sure that most people don't budget, not because they don't care, but because they are not committed literally to sitting down and figuring it up, so they end up flying by the seat of their pants and hoping the paycheck hits before they have to transfer more money out of their savings to cover their bills that week.

Maybe it's time for a hard reset. Maybe it's time to look at our commitments in life and decide to which ones we really should be committed, and which ones we just need to let go.

Letting go of things to which we've said we're committed is never easy. After all, no one wants to break a commitment. I believe that everyone, even those who consistently break their promises, want to be considered as people who are good to their word. So it seems odd that I'm talking about keeping commitments by quitting things to which we are committed. Wouldn't it be better, though, to be committed to 2 or maybe 3 things, and do them well, than to be committed to 10 things and do them all poorly? A lot of times, we won't let go of our commitments because we've bought into the myth that if I don't do it, no one else will. The fact is, the Samaritan Center has existed for a long time before me, and will probably continue to flourish if I never darken their doorsteps again. I'm pretty confident about that, actually.

We can't be afraid of letting something go because we think it would stop functioning without us. That's an ego trip. Reality check: if whatever you're committed to would fall apart without you, you've already failed in your commitment. Commitments are not meant to create dependency, but to create interchange that lifts up both partners.

Some commitments we can just quit. As I said, if I decide not to give anymore time to the Samaritan Center, they're not going to miss me. Some commitments need planning, preparation and transition before we can give them up. If we do this responsibly, even though we're letting a thing go, we have fulfilled our commitment to it.

But to what should we be committed?

This is going to sound very selfish, but I think we should only be committed to those things that help us be the kind of people we want to be. Think about the kind of person you would like to be. What characteristics would you like to have? There's an exercise that the late Stephen Covey discussed in his work, "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People." Imagine you're at your own funeral, and as people walk by, they are talking about you. What kinds of things would you like to be said about you? At its essence, that's who you want to be. Be committed, then to those things that bring out those elements in you that you want. If you are committed to being a Christian, it seems you would value your commitment to a Church community more than your commitment to your golf buddies. If you don't care whether you're a Christian or not, being committed to a community of believers isn't really going to matter to you.

There's another question: How are we to be committed?

Many people make the mistake of thinking that every commitment is "jump in the deep-end" type. You're all in or your not. I can be committed to the shallow end very easily. But I need to understand and others need to understand that I'm not going to the deep end on this one. I will go in as far as my knees, and that's it. We don't have to give everything to every thing to which we are committed. I can commit this much time to this group, project, whatever. I commit 40 hours a week to my job. That's it. I commit a few hours a month to the Pregnancy Help Center. No more. I commit myself, "jump-in-the-deep-end," to my family.

Of course, all of this means that we have to become comfortable saying, "No." If we start pealing away all the extraneous commitments, people will begin to notice that the things to which we are truly committed flourish. They will, then, invite us to be committed to their cause. If we aren't comfortable saying, "No," then we will end up in the same situation that we are trying to escape, being overcommitted and burned out.

Research studies have proven that there is a direct relationship between having something to which you are totally committed, and your level of Authentic Happiness (see the book by that name by Martin Seligman, PhD). Research also proves, that the higher number of things we find ourselves half-heartedly involved in has a direct relationship with our level of unhappiness.

If you're like me, feeling overcommitted and on the edge of burnout, join me in this exercise.

1. Make a list of all the things to which you are committed. ALL OF THE THINGS.
2. Prioritize that list, using as a guide the idea that you should be committed to only those things that are consistent with who you want to be as a person. 
3. Recommit yourself to the top few that are consistent with who you want to be.
4. Review the rest and determine the ones you can walk away from with minimal impact on you and the others involved. Drop those immediately.
5. Determine which ones require planning, preparation, and transition. Discuss with others involved your intention to remove yourself from whatever it might be, and make a plan to prepare for the transition. Execute the plan.

Let me know what you think. I'd be interested in your feedback on if this exercise is helpful.

Christianity and Socialism

It is my goal to make both conservatives and liberals uncomfortable with this post. If you find yourself not liking what I’m writing here, I will consider this post a success.

In the second reading at Mass in the Catholic Church this past weekend, we heard these words from St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, “For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. Not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their needs, so that their abundance may also supply your needs, that there may be equality. As it is written: Whoever had much did not have more, and whoever had little did not have less.” (2 Corinthians 8: 9, 13-15)

We have numerous passages in the scriptures like this in both the New and Old Testaments; passages which exhort us to supply for the needs of those who do not have materially what they need. These passages are too numerous even to list, but anyone with an internet can look them up. In this passage specifically, St. Paul is encouraging the people of Corinth to take up an offering to supply another Christian community that is experiencing a famine with food and other necessary material goods. 

We have the example of the earliest Christian community: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.” (Acts 2: 42, 44-45)

If you can hear it, this foreshadows in an eerie way the words of Karl Marx, the philosophical founder of Socialism, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” The fundamental Christian teaching about how to provide for the poor is echoed in socialism’s fundamental principle of redistribution of wealth.

This mandate is a fundamental principle of Christian life. We help those who are in need. That means we have a Christian mandate to give. What are the basic principles of giving. As Christians, we give generously. As Christian’s we give cheerfully. As Christians, we give so that others have what they need.

If you’re conservative, I hope your beginning to feel uncomfortable, because you need to be liberal, at least as far as your offering of time, talent and treasure goes. The confusion between what we need and what we want is not just among the poor. Conservatives often complain that tax dollars are begin given to the poor so that they can have expensive cable plans and expensive smartphone plans. The poor don’t need cable or smartphones, the argument goes, so why should tax dollars go to support that. Why should our tax money go to support someone who owns a Cadillac? 

The fact is the rich don’t NEED cable either. And “back when we were kids,” there were a lot of rich people out there who didn’t have smartphones. They made and managed their money without “staying connected” to it 24/7. Why should someone who claims to be a Christian own an Escalade? Why shouldn’t he or she own a Ford Focus and give the rest of that money to charity? What we need and what we want are two different things.

For Christians who want to follow the example of Christ: “though he was rich, he became poor.” Are we willing to give up our luxuries in order to make sure others have necessities? How radical of a Christian are you willing to be?

Maybe if we were a little more radical in our Christianity, there would be no need for the government to provide for the poor.

I hope conservatives are squirming in their seats right now.

Liberals, it’s your turn.

I’ve just laid out that the fundamental Christian teaching about caring for the poor is echoed centuries later by the socialistic principles of redistribution of wealth, “From each according to his ability; to each according to their need.” This, however, cannot be used to justify a socialist governmental system in which the government taxes the rich so it can redistribute that wealth to the poor. 

First, our Lord’s command to care for the poor is meant to convert the heart, not open the wallet. 

I want to clear up a confusion that seems to occur often when conservatives and liberals argue. The liberal is arguing that everyone should “pay their fair share.” You are right. People should pay their fair share.

Conservatives, however, argue back that it is not the role of government to redistribute wealth, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. And conservatives are right. In the United States, under the constitution that governs our nation, it is not the government’s responsibility to do this.

Nor is it the government’s responsibility to do this under Christian teaching. Christ instructed us to pay our taxes. The apostles taught us to pray for, respect and obey the government authority. But early Christian teaching nowhere defines it as the role of government to take from some and give it to others. The sacrifice of redistribution of our wealth is to be made willingly, through conversion. I would challenge any Christian to find where Christianity teaches that it is the government’s role to force people into charitable giving. You won’t find it there.

We are called, undoubtedly, to give to the poor. I am not called, however, to make sure that you are giving what I consider to be your fair share. Public officials tax returns are open for anyone to see. Isn’t it interesting that the liberals in power, including President Obama and Vice-President Biden, on their tax returns, do not give charitably anywhere close to the amount that their conservative counterparts have donated. Why? When you shift responsibility to the government, you necessarily shift it away from yourself. President Obama and Vice-President Biden believe that it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the poor. If I believe that the government is taking care of the poor, then I don’t have to. The teachings of Jesus make it clear that giving is to be done from the heart. Our tithe is not to be institutionalized by the government.

I wish my liberal friends would hear this: the question is not about should we or should we not care for the poor. We have a mandate to do this in our faith. The question is about what role should (notice, “should,” not “does”) government play in our lives. The purpose of the experiment of the United States of America was formulated beautifully by Thomas Jefferson: “whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” It is fundamental to the American way of life that we believe that we are capable of governing ourselves, of using our freedom responsibly. This includes the way that we freely choose to give to take care of the needs of the poor around us.

Government intrusion into our freedom to give charitably violates what we believe as Americans and what we believe as Christians. The charitable offering is supposed to be freely given. While you can demonstrate that socialism and Christianity have the principle of redistribution in common, you cannot use Christian teaching to justify a Socialist state. 

Christianity teaches that our care for the poor is done freely as a response to the love God has for us. VeggieTales actually expresses this in their story about St. Nicholas. The song that runs throughout the show and eventually inspires Nicholas to become generous goes, “I can love because God loves me. I can give because God gave.” We cannot use that to justify a governmental mandate to redistribute our wealth. That violates the very essence of the meaning of Christian charity. If the government forces us to give to the poor through taxation to fund the entitlement programs, we no longer do it out of love for God and our neighbor, but out fear of prison for tax evasion.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier: maybe if we all were a little more radical in our Christianity, then there would be no need for the government to provide for the poor.

Radical Acceptance Part II

Life is suffering. The first of the four nobel truths of Buddhism. I go back to this again and again, because it is so important.

The Christian equivalent of this is that we are fallen creatures in a fallen world. Pain and suffering were not part of God's original plan of creation. They are the consequence of humanity's choice to sin (original sin). We suffer because original sin separates us from God. We will suffer until we are in complete union with him again. Part of that suffering is death, and that's what I'm reflecting on today.

But not death so much as the reality that my grandfather is going to die very soon, probably within a few days of my writing this. Lesley pointed out that she's never known anyone quite like him. He knows he is going to die. He knows he is going to die soon. Yet, he laughs, smiles, teases, gets out of bed and visits those who have come to visit him. He still remembers to say, "Thank you," when someone gets him something to eat or something to drink or pays him a compliment. He is gracious, despite his obvious physical pain and impending departure.

"Passing away," "passed on," "crossing the bar," and all of the other euphemisms we use cannot capture the same meaning as "death." My grandfather is going to meet death as a friend, another visitor. There's no reason to call it by any other name. He's not "passing on" or "passing away." He's dying. That's the reality.

That's the reality that he has accepted. He told me quite plainly that he's ready to die. "I ain't really scared of it neither," he said. "You have no reason to be scared of it," I responded. My grandfather is dying.

That's the reality he has accepted.

It's a lot harder for some others in my family to accept that reality. He's ready to go, but there are those who aren't ready to let him go. Accepting the reality of suffering and of death is really all we can do, though. To do otherwise is to create more suffering. We often suffer more because we cling to this myth that we shouldn't suffer, or that things shouldn't hurt.

The Dalai Lama put it in perspective for me in his book, The Art of Happiness. He states that when people suffer, they often ask the question, "Why me?" A better question, he teaches, would be to ask, "Why not me?" After all, he continues, what great thing have I done that I deserve not to suffer?

So how do I deal with suffering in my life? Here are 7 basic principles that I have found make the suffering in my life easier to manage:

1. I accept one thing at a time. Not even one day at a time. One thing at a time. I cannot do anything except what I'm doing right now. When I think about all of the things that have happened to my family over the last few years, my brother's motorcycle accident that nearly claimed his life, Nathaniel's near death and all of the subsequent issues we've dealt with due to his hemophilia and lung damage, my grandfather's cancer, treatment, and now immanent death, it's pretty overwhelming. The fact is, though, that there is nothing I can do about all of that. So what do I do? One thing at a time. When I'm at work, I do my work. When I'm in the hospital with Nathaniel, I'm in the hospital with Nathaniel. When I'm sitting across from my grandfather, I'm sitting across from my grandfather. One thing at a time makes it more manageable. What this "one thing at a time" attitude also does is allow me to enjoy the fun things in life. If I'm thinking about Nathaniel's illness, I miss that proud, somewhat self-satisfied smile he gets when he accomplishes something new. If I'm focusing on my grandfather's cancer all the time, I miss him teasing my sister about farting. One thing at a time means that I am able to enjoy the fun moments that come intermingled with the painful ones.

2. I accept all things with a spirit of deep gratitude. The next breath I take is a gift from God. I have nothing that has not been given to me in some way or another. I am so grateful for it all. What right do I have to make a demand on anyone for anything? It's all a gift. Gratitude becomes a way of life. My fundamental belief that everything is a gift frees me from a sense of entitlement. Lesley does not have to be married to me. My children do not have to love me or treat me with respect. My friends do not have to be my friends. These are all gifts. I don't deserve Lesley's love. I don't deserve my children's respect. I don't deserve my friends. Everything is a gift, and I am grateful for it all. If we don't understand that a gift is something that is freely given, we miss the point of this. We do not earn gifts by giving gifts to others. A gift is something freely given. I cannot demand a gift from somone. I should not have the expectation that someone will give me a gift. Here's a nugget for you: being grateful is the secret to true happiness.

3. I accept that suffering is a part of life. I don't fight it. That doesn't mean that if I get a headache, I won't take some advil. My brother said one of the smartest things I've ever heard, "Sure Jesus slept outside with a rock for a pillow, but I bet he looked for the softest rock he could find." Suffering is a part of life. Accepting that reality doesn't mean doing nothing about it. It just means that I'm not going to approach it with a sense of victimization. I'm also not going to take my suffering out on others.

4. I accept life on life's terms. I'm not in control of anything in this world except me. The winds (and sometimes storms) of life are going to blow where they will. Sometimes they will blow from behind me, pushing me forward. Sometimes they will be headwinds, making me have to work harder to get where I need to be. I can't change the direction of the wind. I accept it. I also accept death on life's terms. I cannot control death, either, but it  is a part of life. People and things die. What good is arguing against it?

5. I accept that people are fallible (including me). I am a fallible, struggling, ignorant person. And so is everybody else. (No offense intended.) People screw up. I screw up. My friends sometimes don't call me when they need to cancel. Sometimes I don't call. My wife sometimes doesn't think about how a decision she makes might affect me. Sometimes I don't think how something might affect her, too. The person on the road sometimes cuts me off in traffic. I've cut others off. None of us are perfect. I don't expect people to be. I don't expect me to be either. So, I'm going to be myself around you, nothing more, nothing less. I also will let you be yourself around me. It really is ok to be yourself, smiles and warts, pimples and posies and all.

6. I accept that God is God, and I am not. This means two things. First, I am not the center of the universe. The world does not revolve around me. Second, it means that I am not in control. I've already said a lot about that. I am not in control of the world, so it is not going to be the way I want it to be.  

7. I also accept God as God. Accepting that God is God and accepting God as God has an important distinction, and both are necessary. Accepting that God is God means that I do not think I am God. Accepting God as God means I do not want him to be anything other than who he is. Many people say that they accept that God is God, but then go on to attempt to define God according to their idea of who he should be. The fact is, there is no pretense in God. He cannot be anything other than himself. I'm pretty sure he knows more about things than I do, so I'm just going to let him be who he is and try to get to know him, rather than try to remake him according to the way I'd like him to be. Since the end of all my suffering will be when I am one with God, I want to make sure it's really God with whom I am seeking unity, and not some image of God that I've made up. I let God be himself with me.

So, it all boils down to acceptance...Radical Acceptance. I've written about this before, but I've been thinking about it more with the death of my grandfather fast approaching.

Have Spirituality, Will Travel (or Why Bikers Make Good Gurus)

I’m reading a really good book referred to me by my good friend Fr. Tom Pastorius called, “The Spirituality of Imperfection.” The authors Earnest Kurtz and Katherine Ketcham explore how the fundamental principles of recovery that were expressed by Bill W. and Dr. Bob, the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous, are rooted in ancient Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim spiritual traditions. The book uses stories about and sayings from the spiritual masters of these traditions to deepen the understanding of such principles of recovery as rigorous honesty, release, gratitude, humility, tolerance, and forgiveness. I’ve gotten a lot out of it.

The authors do a really good job of describing different paradigms of spirituality, describing spirituality by the use of different images. The image they like the best is that spirituality is a pilgrimage. In our spiritual lives, we are pilgrims in the ancient sense of the word. We are trying to get to a holy place where we will experience total healing of all of our defects. We are not there yet, and so we still struggle along the way. And since none of our companions on the journey are there yet either, they still struggle along the way, too. Being patient with my struggles and the struggles of others is essential for the success of the pilgrimage.

There is one description of this idea of pilgrimage, however, that I would change. They describe our spiritual journey as being “open-ended.” By this, they mean that there are so many turns in the road and various events along the way, that as people on the spiritual pilgrimage, we can’t ever be locked in to one way of experiencing things or one way of doing things. I believe this is true, but I would not use the word “open-ended” to describe this concept.

Open-ended suggests that there is no identifiable end or goal to which we come on our spiritual pilgrimage. There is, though. The end or the goal is spiritual unity and integrity. A person may be Buddhist, and seeking the emptying of self to find ultimate unity with all things through the cycles of birth and death. A person may believe in one of the 3 monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In this case, the person is seeking union with the divine. The end of our spiritual pilgrimage is unity, so the idea of the spiritual pilgrimage as being “open-ended” doesn’t quite fit.

I think the idea that our spiritual pilgrimage occurs on an “open-road” better describes our journey than the idea that the journey is “open-ended.” Biker’s understand this concept, which is why bikers make good gurus for the spiritual journey.

When a biker plans a road trip, he looks at a map to make sure that he is going the right direction. From Missouri, he figures he needs to go northwest to get to Hollister, CA. He wants to make sure he’s going west. He figures on how fast he wants to get there, and that helps him decide whether to stick to the state highways or hit the super slabs (interstates). So he picks a road going in the direction he’s headed. The biker knows, though, deep in his soul, that he can’t control the road. He can’t control what may or may not happen to his bike along the way. He can’t even control whether or not he’s even gonna make it.

The biker accepts this reality. He doesn’t try to control what he has no power over. The deer jumping out of the woods. The idiots in their cages (that’s a biker term for cars, trucks, anything that you ride in and not on) who “just didn’t see him.” The mechanics of his bike as they vibrate and rumble down the road.

Oh, there are things he can do to help him as he goes along. He’s mindful of not just the road in front of him, but of all the beauty and dangers that lay along the side of the road. He’s constantly scanning all around him. This allows him to see any dangers along the way, but it also opens his vision to the amazing beauty that most people drive right by. He’s aware of the other drivers on the road, especially the ones who are cooped up in their cages, busy texting, flipping through the radio stations, or nodding off because they’re so comfortable. He lets these other drivers be distracted and tired and hurried. He isn’t interested in changing them, but he may need to react because of them. He learns the mechanisms of his bike and carries the basic tools he needs, so that if something does happen to his ride he can do at least a quick fix on the side of the road until he can get someplace where a more serious repair can happen.

There’s a poem I wrote sometime ago that catches this concept:

Grace

I now accept the road and all it sends:

Its rocks and sand; its potholes and its bends.

I now receive the sun and rain and winds.

Reluctantly, I, too, embrace its ends.

I put my faith in this machine I ride.

On these two wheels, there is no place to hide.

It lives in me, and I in it abide.

In bolts and gears, rod and shaft I confide.

I know me, like a too familiar song.

I know just how far I can ride, how long.

I know the places where I can go wrong.

I know myself, where I am weak and strong.

When road, the ride, and rider become one

Are Peace and Grace and then the trip’s begun.

The biker accepts the reality that while he can plan the trip, he has no control over its twists and turns.

The biker lives in a constant state of spiritual pilgrimage:

Accepting life on life’s terms, and don’t try to make it into something its not.

Honesty…bikers usually aren’t afraid to tell you what they think, and reject automatically anything that is insincere, which they can smell out like a pig sniffing truffles.

Integrity: you’ll find in the biker community, a person’s only as good as his word.

Release, because it’s useless to try to control those things over which I have no power.

Humility…bikers are usually “what you get is what you see” kind of people.

Gratitude for the journey. If you listen to any biker story about a biker trip, you will hear that deep, ineffable kind of gratitude for everything that happened along the way, including the hardships encountered.

Tolerance…Biker’s live by the words, “Don’t tread on me.” Bikers will be the first to go to battle for your right to do whatever you feel like you need to do. They get a little testy when people try to limit or draw a box around them. Bikers recognize that people are both free and fallible, which makes them pretty tolerant of others.

Forgiveness, a biker may never speak to you again if you break his trust, but he won’t hold on to that resentment. He just won’t deal with you at all. That’s not unforgiving, it’s accountability.

The principles of spirituality outlined in “The Spirituality of Imperfection” come naturally to bikers, because they touch the very heart of the biker culture. Reading this book, I felt that harmony that truth resonates in our deepest hearts when we hear it. It put words to things that I was thinking, and gave clarity to some of my aspirations.

This is a good book for anybody on the spiritual pilgrimage of life.