Confronting the National Bully

(This is my first post in 2-1/2 years; I must be really pissed about something!)

Apparently, I possess a compulsive behavior that first manifested itself when I was 12 years old and the neighborhood bully showed up below my treehouse wanting to beat up one of my younger friends who was with me; I felt compelled to stop him. He climbed the tree and was trying to pull himself up onto the floor of the treehouse when I threatened to bash his knuckles with the claw hammer that was in my hand. We were 20 feet above the ground and it could have been deadly. We finally opted for fists -- at ground level -- and ultimately, I spared the little guy a beating.

When I was an older teenager that emotion rose again when I spotted a prankster who had stolen the purse of his female friend and was taunting her as she struggled to get it back.  I circled behind him, grabbed the handbag and handed it to the girl without saying a word, then turned and walked away as they both looked after me with surprise, one with a little more appreciation than the other.

Since then and until the era of Donald Trump, I could count on one hand the times I have felt compelled to defend the underdog against a bully, and they have all been verbal confrontations of mostly ideologies, and no more fists... or hammers. 

We now have a president who is the champion of the disrespectful. Donald Trump ran on a platform of scorn for political correctness much to the delight of his fans who cheer and jeer from the sidelines every day as they follow their favorite bully around the virtual playground while he mocks and calls names on Twitter and insults from the rose garden or the political platform and kicks sand in the eyes of the weakling.

In a land of immigrants, he is disrespectful of immigrants, disrespectful of minorities and the underpriveleged and the handicapped and the needy, disrespectful of science, disrespectful of his own intelligence community and medical experts (which has turned out to be deadly in the pandemic). He is disrespectful of the elderly and the unhealthy who can't afford their own health insurance. He is disrespectful of the planet, and that's only the beginning: he is disrespectful of the Rule of Law and desecrates the Office of the President daily. In true bully form, he is disrespectful of just about everything and everybody who doesn't pat him on the back or cheer him on.

Trump is the fulfillment of a dream for right wing conservative talk show personalities.  He is the Fox News president.  Every morning he feeds on the angst from Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and turns it into a demeaning Tweet before breakfast, and they are happy to keep the cycle going.  I'm sure they are aware of the influence they wield over this guy and they are not wasting it with gestures of good will or kindness.

Years ago, I arrived at a construction site when I was in the business, and the workers were listening to Rush Limbaugh on the worksite radio.  I was immediately startled by the sarcasm and disrespectful tone of the commentary.  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have birthed and fed a culture of disrespect for decades.

If political correctness is essentially the struggle for equal rights for all, then they are the bullies who would like to keep that from happening.  Though they want every school child to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every school day with hand over heart, they do not really want liberty and justice for ALL. As bullies they are a powerful and unsympathetic bunch who delight in liberty and justice for themselves and people who are like them but not for others.

A few weeks ago the Trump administration implemented a policy that would deport any foreign university students who had to attend all their classes online due to the pandemic.  There was no good reason for it; it was unfair and unsympathetic (it was reversed three days later). When I complained about it on Facebook, guess what the first reaction of Trump's fans was?  Similarly unsympathetic, even though they knew we've had international students living in our home for the last three years and bullying them into leaving the country one semester before graduation was senseless and mean-spirited.

One of Joe Biden's campaign slogans speaks of "fighting for the soul of America".  So what IS the soul of America and what happened to it?  I'll tell you.  I think good will and common decency and respect are the soul of America. It's the stuff on which a representative democracy runs best. It's the realization that we all ultimately came from somewhere else.

In many of us, it has been squashed by the sarcastic and selfish us-versus-them mentality cultivated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson, and Trump is the ultimate incarnation of their efforts although they didn't create him; he has been a self-made arrogant cutthroat CEO from the start who thrives on firing people.

He would fire the poor if he could.  He would fire black lives.  He would like to fire peaceful protestors.  He would delight in firing immigrants, especially those coming from what he calls poorer "shithole countries". He would fire solar power and electric cars if he could.  That's just mean.

He is our National Bully, and I will stand up to him if I have to. And like Jesus standing up to the religious bullies of His day, I don't have to be nice about it.

_______________________

Okay, so with this post I may have answered the puzzlings of a few of my friends who expressed surprise at the fervor (and language) with which I defended the foreign students a few weeks ago.  It's compulsive behavior with me;  bullying makes me mad, and I will always stand up for the underdog. What that looks like right now is just my venting on social media and my blog; I really don't have any power to stand up to Trump except to vote in November, no hammer in hand.  I hope there are enough voters left who believe in decency and freedom and justice for ALL to finally expel the bully and his sidekicks from the national playground.

And God's Name Shall Be Called "Deoxyribonucleic Acid" (DNA)

But it will be quite disruptive if you address Him that way in your next small group prayer meeting, so I don't recommend it.

All right, this is really about Creation and Evolution. It is an update to my previous update (from 2-1/2 years ago) about my logical problems with Darwinian and Dawkinsian evolution.
_____________________

Last year I read Perry Marshall's book Evolution 2.0 Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design (2015) and it helped supply me the information that was missing from Darwin's The Origin of Species (1859) and Richard Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth (2005).

Charles Darwin was an expert on heredity.  But he didn't know what mechanism was responsible for the changes that resulted from adaptations.  He knew nothing about chromosomes and DNA; they hadn't been discovered yet.

Richard Dawkins is an expert on genetics.  150 years after The Origin of Species, Dawkins fills in the blanks with a comprehensive dissertation on the adaptive abilities of chromosomes.  But he still maintains it is the result of random code within the genes.  He contradicts himself saying "Nature is incapable of planning" and then cites long lists of "phantasmagoric" examples of how nature does exactly that through mutual adaptation and other means.

Neither Darwin or Dawkins supply the answer to what creative forces are at work in the DNA to cause the millions of adaptive upgrades that Darwin called "the tendency toward improvement" and which are essential to get from simple to complex, from nothing to something, from dumb instinct to self-awareness and cognitive thought.

Along comes Perry Marshall in Evoluation 2.0 who takes it to the next level citing a half-dozen mechanisms that are at work within the genes to rearrange their code in adaptive and often improving structures that cause creative improvements in organisms.

And he not only speaks of the elephants in the evolutionary room, he explains how they operate.  

The second one (after "How did life begin?") is, "Where did the first genetic code come from?"

Every computer programmer knows that nothing viable ever comes from random code.  Random code produces noise.  It is impossible for it ever to re-write itself by chance.

But the hereditary code does re-write itself.  Every adaptation (or mutation) is the result of re-written code.

Genes have the ability  to re-arrange themselves in the chromosomes so that upgrades occur within the organism and carry on to the next generation.

Here is the epic change that Marshall brings to evolutionary theory:*

(begin quote)

• Neo-Darwinism says Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution.

• Random Mutation is noise. Noise destroys. 

• Cells rearrange DNA according to precise rules (Transposition). 

• Cells exchange DNA with other cells (Horizontal Gene Transfer). 

• Cells communicate with each other and edit their own genomes with incredibly sophisticated language. 

• Cells switch code on and off for themselves and their progeny (Epigenetics).
• Cells merge and cooperate (Symbiogenesis).

• Species 1 + Species 2 = New Species (Hybridization). We know organisms rapidly adapt because scientists produce new species in the lab every day. 

• #Evolution in 140 characters or less: Genes switch on, switch off, rearrange, and exchange. Hybrids double; viruses hijack; cells merge; winners emerge.

• Adaptive Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution 2.0

• DNA is code. All codes whose origin we know are designed.

 (end of quote)

You see, even if/when the first living cell came to being in some ancient primordial swamp, (Dawkins once called it a "happy accident")  the most important thing it had to do was reproduce.  But it couldn't even live without genetic code let alone reproduce.  Where did the code come from?

The original code had to have been created by an intelligent Designer.  There's no way around it.  Something or Somebody created the code and then wrote within it the ability to adapt itself to subsequent stimuli that bring about subsequent changes.

Apparently God programmed his creative abilities into the chromosome.

And his name shall be called, "Deoxyribonucleic Acid" (DNA)

But if you pray, maybe you should stick with, "Our Father in Heaven".

_______________

So, after all this time, my position if I have one, is essentially the same as it was decades ago and it is still a mash-up of certain elements of both creation and evolution.  I think evolution is really souped-up adaptation.   Organisms are blessed with God-given biological mechanisms that enable them to keep improving themselves.  The first genetic code was designed by an intelligent being.  In fact, information may be the first thing that ever existed.

I am still stuck on whether adaption has the super-biological ability to create whole systems that have to work together like eyesight and digestion and reproduction and a thousand other structures.  That just sounds entirely fantastic to the point of impossibility.  It may be more logical to conclude that those things were created outright. 

But I could be wrong.  

Maybe genes really are that omnipotent.

________________

*Marshall, Perry (2015). Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design (p. 172 Kindle version). BenBella Books, Inc.

Perry Marshall and his think tank offer $5M to anybody who discovers a naturally occurring code.  Claim your prize here:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/submissions/

Darwin and Dawkins Deficiencies

At the suggestion of an atheist friend of mine, I finally got around to reading a couple of classics on evolutionary theory:  The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859), and The Greatest Show on Earth, the Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins (2009).  A few years ago I expressed My Problem with Evolutionary Theory from a purely logical and scientific viewpoint.  This is an update of my thoughts on the subject after reading these famous scientists' volumes.

My views really haven't changed much and here is why:

I came away dissatisfied with the suggestions and proofs for evolution that these guys came up with.  Mind you, both works were very scientific and very detailed - almost to the point of monotony, and there was a purpose in their thoroughness;  they wanted the facts to be overwhelming.

The problem with the minutia for me is that I am a big picture sort of guy.  While reading these books I still had trouble with a few very fundamental ideas.

Something from Nothing

It is counterintuitive to think that starting from some accident of nature millions of years ago, life could first form as a single cell and through an impossible sequence of chance "upgrades" eventually produce the complex forms that exist today.  Actually, neither Darwin or Dawkins says much about these initial beginnings, since nobody has a good idea of how it actually happened, although there are a few theories.

Darwin describes Natural Selection or The Survival of the Fittest as the series of very small changes (mutations) that accumulate over a very long period of time to bring about the eventual morphing of one species into another species (it is a separate species when it can no longer breed with its predecessors).  These changes have what Darwin describes as a "tendency to improvement".  And improve they must, though nobody knows how.  He says, "Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows... through the continued action of natural selection." (p.210, The Origin of Species)

Did you catch that?  He says the tendency to improve has no proof, but it is essential to natural selection.  That is a very honest statement and very astute, and to me, it brings the entire proposition into question.

Darwin acknowledges that there is a creative force at work in every improvement of a life form.  He is absolutely right.  You can't get here (complexity) from there (simplicity) without creativity.  A creative force is at work in evolution.  Darwin acknowledges the Creator in the final paragraph of his work, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (p.507, The Origin of Species)

In his book, Richard Dawkins assumes but does not acknowledge this creative force, and he never uses the word or any form of the word "create".

Dawkins spends a lot of time on genetics.  Of course, Darwin knew nothing of genes and chromosomes - since they hadn't been invented yet.  Heh.

The creative force that Dawkins assumes but never mentions is at work in the genes.  The changes that come about in any adapting and improving life form are taking place in the DNA.  Chromosomes, of course, are sub-microscopic menus for constructing individual organisms.  But they are incapable of planning.  As Dawkins says, "nature, of course, has no understanding or awareness of anything at all." (p.35 The Greatest Show on Earth) "Natural selection doesn't look into the future." (p.389)

Being the very practical guy that I am, this is a problem I can't get around scientifically.  Evolution, as meticulously described by Darwin and Dawkins, is obviously a creative process.  Yet, atheists, including Dawkins seem oblivious to this and rely on evolution to prove there is no creator.  Hmm.

I see this conflicting assumption of a creative force within the genes while denying the creator, as the elephant in the room of Dawkins and every other atheist.  For theists, of course, it is not a problem.  God is capable of creating in any number of ways, and evolution could be one of those ways - if it weren't so damn unscriptural according to Biblical literalists. (although there are contradictions in the literal reading of Genesis 1, the sun being created on Day Four of creation. What sort of days were the first three?)

DNA is Stupid

I addressed this problem in my analysis a couple of years ago, and these guys have not helped me to understand it any better.  How can evolution come up with complex systems like the sense of vision?  In his section on "Perfect Organs" Darwin hypothesized that perhaps the eye could have evolved from the simple light-sensing tissue that exists in some jellyfish.  Wow, that would require some massive improvements, wouldn't it?

The problem with this is that it requires planning and no small amount of follow-through spanning millions of years of evolutionary process, and as Dawkins conceded, nature is incapable of planning.

And this is still a big roadblock to my understanding of how sexual reproduction could have evolved. You cannot evolve if you cannot procreate.  But you cannot procreate unless all of the essential parts exist in a viable form.  One of the earliest ancestors of mankind and other higher life forms was apparently the slime mold which reproduces by the production of spores which can be asexual (the products of mitosis) or sexual (the products of meiosis).  At some point, as things progressed, there was a fundamental biological change-over to a much more complex sexual reproduction.  But that required a huge creative advancement in a moment of time, or else no subsequent offspring would be produced.  Could organisms continue to reproduce via spores while also evolving a penis, vagina, and everything else that goes with sexual reproduction?  Neither Darwin or Dawkins attempted a hypothesis on this. I guess if they thought of it, it was better not to bring it up.

Adaptation on Steroids

As I stand back and look at the big picture as presented by these famous scientists, it looks to me like they have taken the process of adaptation to a whole new level.  They have made it capable not only of crossing from one form of species to the next -  and back again, but also of devising entirely new systems and structures.  Incredible.

Darwin described in detail the structure of a certain orchid that is pollinated by a very specific bee.  The bee needs the nectar and climbs inside the orchid to gather it, but in so doing, it falls into a pool of water in the lower part of the flower.  Its wings now wet, the bee struggles to climb out - and finds to its delight - that there is an escape tunnel exactly shaped to fit its body.  Crawling out through the tunnel, its wings rub on the roof of the tunnel where it gathers pollen, then flies off to the next flower which it inadvertently pollenates as it climbs around inside.  Dawkins revisits this scenario, calling it a wondrous sort of co-evolution.

Really?  The orchid adapted to the bee and the bee adapted to the orchid, and they must have somehow kept each other mutually satisfied - that is, reproducing - while all of this adaptation was taking place.

Sorry, I don't think so.  I am too practical a thinker for that.  Give me some intelligent design so I can resolve these impossibilities in my mind.

Throughout their books these scientists cite innumerable instances of spectacular relationships that must have co-evolved.  They are detailed in their awed descriptions of advanced and miraculous instincts and behaviors and life forms that came to be the way they are through this painfully slow process of natural selection.  (Dawkins even called some of them "phantasmagoric" in his chapters on genetics. p. 250)  Apparently, "We are fearfully and wonderfully evolved." (Psalm 139:14... sort of)

In his chapter on the fossil record and the absence of missing links, Darwin suggests that the penguin may be a living example of a transitional species.  The flippers may have been leftover wings from when it was a bird.  Then later in the same book he suggests that maybe it was evolving in the other direction and would eventually leave the water and fly again.  

Again, I am stuck with the necessity of some sort of intelligent volition for this to take place - in either direction.  Genes have no brain and can't hold a thought long enough to initiate the most essential of changes that would make a bearing on the next generation, let alone hold that thought for the millions of years it would take to develop lighter bones, feathers, aerodynamic shape and so on, that would be needed for a used-to-be penguin to take to the skies.

Faith in Evolution

I am struck by the amount of speculation that exists in evolutionary theory.  Darwin and Dawkins are full of it.  But that doesn't seem to be a problem to them.  Darwin says, "It is impossible to conjecture by what serviceable gradations the one could have been converted into the other, but it by no means follows from this that such fractions have not existed."  Paraphrase:  "Just because we can't imagine how evolution takes place, doesn't mean it's not true."  Not very scientific-sounding is it?

Well maybe it is true.  But if so, it is nothing short of miraculous.  And it defies logic.

Evolutionary Creationism

I have never been more the skeptic of natural selection than after reading Darwin's and Dawkins' books.  But just because I have serious doubts doesn't mean that my questions will never be answered.  It is early in the game.  Scientists are collecting more data every day.  I am really interested in what DNA mapping might disclose about the connections of all  species in the future.

I believe in adaptation, and at this point, I am not ready to categorically reject evolutionary theory, but for now, I cannot embrace the evolutionary scenario that Darwin presents as theory and Dawkins presents as fact.  Not without some creative force at work in the middle of it to give those essential boosts that each species needs to get from one level to the next.

I don't know if that makes me an Evolutionary Creationist, an Agnostic Evolutionist (agnostics have a "wait and see" attitude), or simply a Creationist with an open mind. 

And really, it doesn't matter that much to me.  God is no less God if he created by means of evolution.  In fact, if he did, it indicates a long-term and continuous attention to the  inhabitants of earth as he zapped various species at strategic moments in time to fabricate a wondrous and spectacular existence for all of us.  Not exactly a six-day creation, but more consistent with the ageless existence of God.

As Richard Dawkins says, "Phantasmagoric!"

________________

  

Read my earlier post on My Problems with Evolutionary Theory here.

And the follow-up,  Evolution on Steroids here.

Happy Rebellion Day

It is Independence Day and I am reminded again that independence is rooted in rebellion. Early American protest turned to resistance, then subversion and then rebellion and war.  And it ended with freedom.

I came to this awareness on the first July Fourth after my exile from the church.  I had protested bad decisions that my church leaders were making.  They said I should submit to authority.  I said, "Which authority, you or God? "   "You or the by-laws of the church? " 

I gave my friends permission to protest their church leadership in accordance with provisions of the church constitution.  My actions were seen as subversive and rebellious, and they were.  I was asked to leave.

To me it just seemed really silly - if not hypocritical - for one Protestant to tell another Protestant that he must not protest.  Huh?  Where did we get the title "Protestant"?  Protestantism is rooted in rebellion.  But the end of it was only partial freedom.  Freedom from the old Catholic oppression and bondage to the newer Protestant oppression.

Anyway, I am a free man today.  Free from institutional oppression by government and religion.

So, happy Rebellion Day, everybody!  Enjoy your freedom.

Free Range Believer - What it Means To Me

Jim Palmer took the words right out of my mouth with his recent Facebook post describing Five Things Not to Feel Guilty About on Your Spiritual Journey.  These five things accurately describe my journey since my exodus from inside to outside the walls that began abruptly six years ago.  In the header of this blog I tag myself as a Free Range Believer.  I think this describes what I mean by Free Range.  I believe in Jesus, but I am not an advocate or participant in any organized religious entity.  I am a man without a religious country and enjoy freedom I never would have imagined before.

Palmer says:

"As people shed religion and walk in freedom, they can feel guilt about the changes they are going through. Thinking about this I identified 5 things not to feel guilty about on your spiritual journey."

"1. You may discontinue your active involvement in a church or religious organization. This doesn’t necessarily have to be some sort of judgment or condemnation against the church or organization you were part of, but a choice you make because your involvement no longer relates to or supports where you are on the journey, or may be an obstacle and hindrance to it."

"2. You may grow weary of incessant God talk. It’s possible there will be times when you grow sick of the constant theological discussion and debate, and the never-ending wheel of new and improved concepts, beliefs, understandings, teachings, etc. At some point it all might sound like, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…” You might fall dead to the need to be constantly figuring out things with your mind or in your head. One day you might wake up and say, “Okay, I’m done!” Don’t feel bad about this. It actually may be a very important milestone in your spiritual journey. In my view, theology is not even the best way by which God and spiritual truth is known. It may be that subject of “God” as a whole feels a bit overdone and boring, but this is only because you were taught to equate God with all that blah blah blah stuff."

"3. You may find that the very people your religion judged and condemned are the people you find the most interesting and enjoyable. Once you come out from under the judgmental labels, views and stereotypes you learned through religion, you start realizing how much you truly like and enjoy the people you were taught to hate. This is a good and liberating aspect of shedding religion. For too long you were shut yourself off from a lot of beautiful and extraordinary people in this world to enjoy and learn from."

"4. You may find and express a rebellious or defiant part of you that has been dormant. Don’t feel bad about this. Too often religion turns people into nice, complaint, repressed, timid, inhibited, mannerly, obedient, fearful, amiable, submissive people. By the way, I would not use any of these words to describe Jesus. Here’s the deal, you can be a loving, compassionate, respectful and kind person AND be a rebellious, defiant, passionate, disobedient, subversive, nonconformist, mischievous, self-willed, fully expressed, freethinker, heretic, and free spirit human being."

"5. You may find less fulfillment in religious things, and more satisfaction in human things. It’s okay and good to be human, and to enjoy each moment of your human journey. Religion caused many people to create a false division between “sacred” things and “secular” things. There is no such line. All of life is sacred, spiritual, and divine. There’s no need to defend, theologize, or spiritualize your human experience. Just live it! That is enough. Life is made complete by you living each moment. There’s no need to maintain a running commentary about how God is part of it. God IS part of it. Life and God are inseparable. End of story. It’s okay to enjoy life, experience delight and pleasure, do the things you enjoy doing, and that breathe life into you, whatever those things may be."

- End Jim Palmer quote

Find Jim Palmer's blog here.http://jimpalmerblog.com

We Are the Anti-Christ

Was Jesus wasting his time by coming to planet Earth?  Is the condition of the human race any better now than it was in his day?  Was God's plan to redeem mankind an exercise in futility?  Did he really change anything?

Nothing Has Changed

The nature of mankind has always been one of selfishness.

First, we compare, then we compete, then we hate, then we are in conflict, then we are at war.

Always and forever.  It was that way from the beginning when jealous Cain killed his brother Abel, and it is that way now.

Jesus was called the friend of sinners and was critical of self-righteous religious leaders whose prevailing theme was legalistic judgment and condemnation.

He spent his life and ministry teaching a better way:

• "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39)

• "Treat others the way would like to be treated." -  The Golden Rule. (Luke 6:31)

• "Do not judge, or you will be judged." (Matthew 7:1)

• "I don't condemn you," he said to a woman caught in an act of sexual immorality. (The sentence according to the old Mosaic Law was death by stoning, the same as with homosexual offenses.)  He chose mercy. (John 8)

• "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7)

• "Be merciful just like your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36)

• "Forgive others... If you do not forgive others, your heavenly Father will not forgive you." (Matthew 6:15)

• "He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked." (Luke 6:35)

Today's religious followers of Christ are not kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

2000 years later, most everything is still backwards from Jesus' teachings.  His followers still condemn their "wicked" neighbors rather than loving them.

His houses of worship still put burdens of legalistic rules upon their constituents.  They encourage bigotry and prejudice against those who are less holy than themselves.  Verbal stonings issue from their pulpits every Sunday.

It seems that what goes around comes around.  After all this time, the Pharisees still exist and are making new prejudicial laws against "sinners" in the state of Indiana.

You would think that political leaders in one of the most "Christian" locations in the world, would have a better understanding of the way of Christ.

The way of Jesus is all about humble service.  It is about redemption.  It is about love (respect).  It is about considering others better than ourselves.  It is about not judging.

It is not about refusing to serve those who don't conform to our standards of morality.

Business owners who refuse service to gays have joined the ranks of the Pharisees and hypocrites.  They are as anti-Christ as their ancient predecessors who crucified him.

Have not all believers been the recipients of undeserved mercy and grace?  Yet they will not extend it to others.  They extend judgment instead, exactly as Jesus said not to.

Just as in Jesus' day, the religious world is run by condescending hypocrites.

But Jesus still says, "Do not judge, or you will be judged."

The Coming Persecution

A dozen or so years ago a friend of mine predicted that when Christians finally lose their freedoms in America, they will have done it to themselves by their unholy treatment of gays.

I can now begin to see the wisdom of that claim.  The backlash that has resulted from the adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration law in Indiana (and 19 other states) may be a foreshadowing of things to come.

Christianity in America is viewed as hateful, judgmental, bigoted, anti-gay, and too political.  

At some point the masses will likely become fed up with the hypocrisy and lack of goodwill from Christians and will start to limit the legal rights of the religious.

Christians will have become the architects of their own demise.

All along, they will think they are representing Christ.

They are not.

It may be time for another purging of the religious temple.

There Is Still a Better Way

If Christian leaders in America will humble themselves and return to the way of Christ, this downward slide can be reversed:

• Christians should re-read the gospels taking special note of the red letters, the words of Christ.  Let love be our prevailing guide.  (The rest of the Bible should be filtered through the cross and the redemption of Christ.  This is essential if you want to maintain a redemptive view of the Bible).

• Christians should consider quitting political activism unless they can do it in a Christ-like, respectful manner that champions the rights of all Americans, not just the righteous.

• Christians should consider tuning out political talk-shows that promote prejudice and hatred.  They do not represent the way of Jesus, they represent a biased political platform.

• Christians should give up the idea that America should be a Christian nation.  Jesus never had that in mind.  He already has a kingdom, for he dwells in the hearts of  men (Ephesians 3:17)  He does not need or want an earthly political state to rule over.  Again, God does not want America to be a Christian nation.  Throughout history, in every country that has ever declared Christianity the state religion, there has followed a collusion and then corruption of the faith.  It's the same here.  Government and religion should never be in bed together.  Their love child will be a deformed monster.  (I can see its ugly head emerging already in America.)

• There is no political party that exists in America at the current time that honestly and truly represents the way of Christ.  Christians should not imagine that there is.

If you want to represent Christ, you may have to do it entirely on your own and without the help of a political action committee.

You may even have to remove yourself from the sounds of the voices of those who claim to be doing something for Christ.  His way, from the start, is the way of the minority, the un-powerful, the non-political, the non-influential, and the underdog. 

His way is more of an undercurrent rather than the mainstream.

It is more of an invisible life-giving stream, an underground movement flowing along on the bedrock of love.

If every American Christian would simply love (respect) his neighbor - whether saint or sinner - as Jesus suggested, we would calm the unrest in this country in a short time. 

_____________

So, back to the beginning:  Did God waste his time trying to redeem a fallen human race?

The answer comes down to you and me.

What god are we representing in the world?  The god of an imagined Christian nation?  Or the God of love for all human beings, whether or not they have faith or creed or morality?

They are not the same.

Choose wisely.

And Above All... Be Nice!

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1) so there is no list of rules for believers to live by, but if there were it would be a short one with only one directive, and it is this:  Love your neighbor.  Paul said that the entire Law was summed up in this single command.(Gal. 5:14)  Or as I would paraphrase it...

Be nice. (St. Robert 1:1)

It's a really simple concept that we try to teach our kids before they head off to kindergarten.  Treat others the way you would like to be treated (Matt 6:33).

Yet, many of us, as we get older and more mature in the faith, become less nice.

That's partly because there are doctrinal and religious operatives that come into play that have a mitigating effect on our kindness.

Kindness Killers:

1. "Accountability"  It's a buzzword in the religious world right now, and it turns nice people into confrontive "truth speakers" who are taught that their destructive openness with their mentorees and wayward friends is legitimate and necessary as part of the discipleship process.

The unfortunate truth about accountability is that confrontation rarely ends well, at least for the confronted.  The confronter may move on after a confrontation feeling righteous and satisfied in his ability to speak the truth in love.  The confronted withdraws with a sense of injury and defeat.  The hurt may linger for a long time and effect their sense of self-worth and spiritual well-being going forward - maybe for a lifetime.

The discipleship concept of Accountability is a destructive idea that needs to die a quick death.  Let's not offer our advice unless it is strongly requested, and then, only in the gentlest manner.  "A bruised reed will he not break." (Isaiah 42:3)  

Be Nice.

2. Submission to Authority in the Church  This doctrine is a widespread and deep-seated practice that has caused untold destruction to millions of believers across the world.  Good and godly leaders turn into inadvertent tyrants and evil manipulators as they legitimize their actions through contrived scriptural methods.  I have said a lot about the evil of this orthodoxy in other posts, so I'll let it go at that for now (See "Harmful Hierarchy" or "Submission to Authority" in the left sidebar for more on this).

Be Nice.

3. "Hating the Sin" (but loving the sinner, of course).  This idea is used to rationalize mean behavior as a form of "loving the sinner".  The rationalization goes something like this: "I know that my job is to love people, but how is it loving if I don't tell my gay friend that he is destined for an endless eternity in hell?"

The problem here is that truth-tellers are doing the work of the Holy Spirit when they point out sin in their friends.  The one job of the believer is love.  Not conviction and not judgement.  Not even truth.  Just love.  It is the Lord's job to bring conviction if he wants to.  We should leave that work up to him.  "Hate sin" in your prayer closet and nowhere else.

Be Nice.

4. Church Discipline.  This is another endemic belief that causes a lot of destruction among believers.  Thankfully, it is not implemented very often, but when it is, it is often applied for unnecessary and illegitimate reasons.

 I know of a man who was excommunicated from his church because he was financially irresponsible, an unfortunate byproduct of his bipolar disorder; when he was manic he would spend money irrationally.

 Excommunicated.  Seriously.

 Another dear missionary friend of ours in the Mennonite Church told us that he was called home from Thailand to answer to the church council why he wasn't teaching a dogmatic compliance with the ordinances on head coverings for women, and the wearing of jewelry.  Really, the church spent thousands of dollars to fly him home for this.  Unbelievable.

Church discipline is a denominational weapon too often used to strategically remove non-conformists ("purging sin") from the local theological domain.

Be Nice.

5. Politics.  There has been a marked increase in political activism in the church and by believers since Jerry Falwell founded the "Moral Majority" in 1979 following a speaking tour of America during which he reversed the long-standing Baptist practice of the separation of church and state.  Consequently, the increased political rancor that has infected Congress has likewise infected the church as a sense of nationalism grows. 

Sensationalist talk show hosts have shouted angry partisan rhetoric and conspiracy theories in our ears starting virtual fires everywhere. 

Otherwise loving and thoughtful believers have taken to posting inflammatory messages on Facebook and love and respect have become a thing of the past.

The church podium has become a militaristic bully-pulpit in the worst way.

Where's the love?

Let's bring back a humble respect for another's point of view.  Let's quiet our own political and religious rallying cries and re-instate an atmosphere of goodwill.

And let's remove political campaigning from the church; people will vote their values without any reminder from the pulpit.

Be Nice.

6. Submisson of Women   Though liberal churches accomplished this a long time ago, there are many places in the religious world that have not yet eradicated the oppressive teaching that makes the church an unsafe environment for women.  Perhaps appropriate in an ancient Middle Eastern culture when the New Testament was written, this idea is out of place in our modern Western world.  It is a monster that can give license to misogynistic men who dominate their wives - and their constituents - with a so-called scriptural mandate. (Any big-name bullies from Seattle come to mind?)  I've mentioned this in other posts so won't say more here (Look for "Submission of Women").

Be Nice.

7. Preaching  Public discourse - homiletics - became an art form that was developed by the ancient Greeks.  The spreading of religion (and politics) has forever been riding on the back of this valiant steed.  It is an attractive mount to people who love to hear the sounds of their own voices, including all kinds, most of them honest and motivated by a desire to change the world.

The problem is that there is no good method of screening out the others:

 - those who are insecure and cannot be questioned due to their position of leadership

 - those who have a proverbial axe to grind

 - those with psychological or emotional issues (that manifest in their sermons)

 - those with abusive tendencies (they love to preach submission)

 - those who are uneducated or gullible and who believe outlandish conspiracy theories.
 - those with a mean streak (they love to preach hellfire and condemnation)
 - those with controlling tendencies (they have a directive for every detail of their constituents' lives.)

 - and so on.

 Any of the above are hard to challenge; If you question them, you are "rebelling against God".

 Just about anybody can start a church or ministry in the USA.  And that makes preaching a dangerous proposition for the listener.

Be Nice 

8.  The Business of the Church   Man-made denominations and independent churches are businesses.  They are built with organizational structures and business models that determine their day-to-day operations.  And so they must manage their staffs.  Unlike the New Testament church, they hire and fire workers.  And this is where countless thousands of Christian employees are destroyed every year.  The careers of mega-ministers are built on the backs of their paid staff and their volunteers.  It shouldn't be, but the business of the church is a dog-eat-dog world.  A grievous amount of unkindness is perpetrated every day - whether intentionally or inadvertently - through this ungodly system.

Beliefs determine behavior

I think it comes down to this, folks:  If your beliefs or orthodoxies (methods), whether political or religious, are causing you to be unkind, then there is something wrong with your beliefs and practices and it may be time to re-examine them.  This may be hard to do when you are still sitting under the teaching of a convincing preacher in a conservative environment.  

(Yes, there is an underlying message here:  Unfortunately, the conservative religious environment is one of the most likely places to erase your kindness, explaining it away through "timeless scriptural principles".)

It is possible, although a challenge, to think for yourself and study the Bible on your own and draw your own conclusions even when you are surrounded by voices that claim to be speaking for God.  I did it.  Millions have done it.  You can do it.  (But it's easier if you first remove yourself from that environment.)

Here's the thing:  There are thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations in the world.  They all have their own doctrines that differ from the church down the street.  They all believe that theirs is the correct interpretation of scripture.

But they can't all be right.  In fact, they are all wrong at some points.

Knowing this, give yourself the freedom to question your local religious "authorities".  If there are teachings that somehow propagate an atmosphere of unkindness, consider removing yourself from them - or at least removing them from yourself.

Kindness is the thing.

Be Nice.

Disclaimer:  Jesus was nice to sinners and the ungodly.  But he wasn't nice to self-righteous religious bullies.  And you don't have to be either.  What tone of voice do you suppose He used when he called the Pharisees "sons of their father, the devil"?  I don't think he was sweet about it.

So, be like Christ:  Stand up to bullies.  But to everyone else...

Be Nice.