Standing Up to a Bully

On Thursday, December 11, 2025, the Indiana Senate rejected by a vote of 31-19 the mid-decade redistricting plan demanded by President Donald Trump and his cohorts. It was the right thing to do. The federal government has no say in how states draw their congressional map, and the Indiana constitution authorizes only one redraw per decade. Plus, it was unashamedly promoted as a way for the Republican majority to disenfranchise Indiana Democrats entirely in the U. S. House of Representatives. It was a call to cheat.

Now we wait to see what happens next. A very strong school bully said, in essence, "If you don't cheat for me on this test, I'm going to take all your lunch money for the next three years!!" And enough Indiana lawmakers said, "We don't cheat in Indiana" to carry the day. The bully is now enraged. There have been multiple threats against the personal safety of Republican state senators who voted against the plan, along with their families.

Ordinarily, we could go to the school administration and ask that something be done to protect us from this school bully and his thugs. However, our school analogy breaks down at this point. Somehow, our bully has been made school superintendent and the entire administration is scared to cross him. In fact, the teachers themselves urged us to cheat for him and were infuriated when we refused to do so. He has persuaded many parents and school board members he is working in their best interests by keeping riff-raff out of the school. All while enriching himself on the lunch money he is collecting from students too weak to resist him.

What can we do now? Do we wait a year for a new school board election and hope the bully loses power? A year without lunch is a long time.

It was the right thing to do. And doing the right thing always beats doing the wrong thing. It remains to be seen what price there is to pay. What I have heard so far, beyond the immediate threats to lawmakers' safety, are promises to "primary" the holdouts by endorsing Trump loyalists to defeat them in the next election cycle. There is also the question of federal funds that come into Indiana. We have crossed a powerful bully. But that bully is neither all-powerful nor immortal. As Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote during the American Civil War, "The wrong shall fail, the right prevail." It was good to see a majority of Indiana Senators come down on the side of fairness, even after 58% of Indiana Representatives (82% of Republican Representatives) voted to redistrict.

Voting Options

It is interesting watching what is happening in Indiana right now. When President Trump pressured Indiana legislators to redistrict in an attempt to switch the two (out of nine) Democrat U.S. Representatives to Republican in 2026, Indiana voters rallied against the move. Our state senators then declined to meet in special session to push forward the redistricting.

Now Governor Braun has announced he will support challengers in next year's primary election to defeat Republican senators opposed to redistricting. So now we have dyed-in-the-wool Trump loyalists signing on to move Indiana even further to the right.

Maybe that seems like a good idea to you. Or maybe you can help the current office-holders defeat their challengers.

IF, however, these attempts to “primary” our current office-holders in preference of less independent candidates are successful, I hope my most thoughtful Indiana friends will consider voting for Indiana Democrats.

Three things you should know:

1. Indiana Democrats are no more “evil” than those claiming that Democrats are evil. Whatever your position on the depravity of mankind is, it applies equally across party lines.

2. Indiana Democrats are not “baby killers.” I've never figured out what people mean by that. Do they think Democrats set up abortion clinics in their basements and personally perform abortions after hours? I presume not. So are they holding Democrats personally responsible for every abortion that happens whether or not they have any connection to the individuals involved? If we hold politicians responsible for every death of a vulnerable person that occurs due to bad policies they support, we are going to have some serious issues!

3. Indiana Democrats are not “pro-abortion.” I know of absolutely no one who is encouraging young women to practice “unsafe” sex and then “just get rid of it.” Abortion is a terrible form of birth control! The cost is high -- financially, physically, and emotionally. For the woman undergoing the procedure and for those involved in the decision. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

What Democrats are in favor of is diversity, equality, and inclusiveness. I see those as Christian values. It is time to seriously rethink our politics.

Pregnancy and language

Language matters. I propose that we make an intentional change in how we refer to pregnancy. Rather than saying a woman “got pregnant” or “fell pregnant” (per our Brit/Aussie friends), let's say what actually happened. She was impregnated.

Getting pregnant speaks of something the woman did. She got a cup of coffee yesterday and got pregnant today. Being impregnated brings the man into the picture as the one behind the pregnancy rather than the woman.

Even if the woman is a willing participant in the act of being impregnated, she does not do it on her own. A man can impregnate a woman against her will. It's a lot more difficult for a woman to become pregnant without a willing man. It doesn't happen by accident.

Reasons for unwanted pregnancies

There are at least three reasons for an unwanted pregnancy:

1. Ignorance. The woman didn't realize that pregnancy could result from what was happening.

2. Lack of resources. She didn't have access to birth control.

3. Poor choices. In the heat of the moment, neither the man or woman used birth control.

4. Lack of options. A man's “yes” overpowered her “no.” Whether he used physical force or verbal or emotional pressure, he made the choice to have unprotected sex.

Methods for reducing unwanted pregnancies

Education and access to reliable birth control reliably prevents pregnancy for millions of women every day. Every woman needs access to those resources. Every man needs to avoid impregnating a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

Politicians use abortion to manipulate conservative voters into voting for people who will restrict people's rights. The real solution to the abortion issue is to make sure no woman is ever impregnated who isn't ready to bear a child.

What we're seeing currently is that politicians who campaign with promises to limit women's reproductive options are also willing to curtail the freedom of other vulnerable people in our society.

So let's fix our language and work together to make sure all women have the resources they need to avoid being impregnated and that men carry full responsibility for impregnating a woman against her will.

"Ain't It Awful?!"

"Ain't it awful?"

A decade or more has passed since someone first introduced me to the phrase “Ain’t it awful?” We can say, "Ain't it awful?" when talking about what is happening in the church, in schools, in our town, in our world. People don't generally use these precise words, but the phrase is useful to evaluate the words they do use. They are sharing news that shocks and offends them and would like others to agree that what is happening is terrible. A surprising number of people seem attracted to terrible news and almost enjoy calling attention to it. This opens up a market for alarming "clickbait" headlines.

A few days ago, a Facebook friend shared a post containing a screenshot from a Daily Wire article. Among other things, my friend said, "It's so scary that this is actually real life!!" That seems pretty close to saying, "Ain't it awful?" Two other friends commented on her post, agreeing that what is happening is just plain awful.

The shared post

I cautiously clicked on the shared post. The author was a self-described "health activist" with 257,000 followers on Facebook. Her bio says she is a "speaker of truth you don't want to hear but desperately need to know." I scrolled through her posts. They offered alarming news. Her reward for sharing that news is clicks, comments, and many followers. I was now a new set of eyes on her content thanks to my Facebook friend bringing her post to my attention.

Like I said, this activist shared a screenshot of a Daily Wire article. It did not include a link. What we could see was the headline: "Movement Barrels Forward to Euthanize 12 Year Old Children in Canada." There was smaller print about how experts say this validates the "slippery slope" argument.

My first thought was: 12-year-old children, specifically? All of them? If not, how many? Who gets to choose? What if there are 13-year-olds causing trouble in Canada? Or rebellious 16-year-olds? Why is Canada fixated on euthanizing 12-year-olds? Will they need to close their high schools in a few years for lack of students?

The Daily Wire Article

It was time to hunt down the article behind the headline. For that, I needed a search engine. Copying the exact headline into Google quickly led me to the article. I discovered I could read up to seven articles before I hit the paywall at The Daily Wire. I truly appreciate that access.

Click... The Daily Wire gets credit for a hit on Google. And I am offered other clickbait.

Click... The Daily Wire gets a new visitor. And I am offered other clickbait.

Click... The author of the article gets another view. My friend and the "health activist" have delivered one more set of eyes to these internet content providers.

And what did I find? This: "Advocates for assisted suicide in Canada, where it's been legal for just under a decade, are pushing to expand the practice to children." Aha! 12 is the minimum age these advocates are proposing, not the target age. And the subject here is "assisted suicide," not "euthanasia." (Both end in death; the difference is in who makes the choice.)

How many are advocating for lowering the age limit for assisted suicide? The article doesn't say. It zeroes in on one group known as DWDC -- Dying with Dignity in Canada. The article doesn't tell me how large that one group is nor how many of those involved in the group have signed on to this proposal to lower the minimum age for assisted suicide. Nor does it identify anyone outside the group as advocating for this change.

The author of the article goes on: "Experts say the advocacy shows there was merit to the 'slippery slope' argument made against the law from the outset."

What experts? How many experts are saying this? The author of the article quotes one. Extensively. I can't tell from the article if anyone else made the "slippery slope" argument a decade ago and is now saying, “I told you so!”

So what do we have here?

After investing way too much time, here is what I know:

1. Euthanasia is legal in Canada. And several other countries. You and I may not approve of that fact. The citizens of those countries are probably unconcerned about our opinions. Either they are monsters who are fine with their weakest and most vulnerable citizens simply being killed off or this topic is more complex than we can comprehend from this one clickbait article. Maybe more research would reveal that Canadians are less heartless than they appear at first glance.

2. At least a few outspoken people in Canada think "mature minors" should have the option of assisted suicide within a set of guidelines. You and I may think that's an awful idea, that there is no world in which a minor (or anyone else, for that matter) has clear enough vision to choose death over life, regardless of how much pain they suffer. (And even if there were, how would authorities assess someone's maturity level?)

We are allowed to hold that opinion. As far as we know from this article, the vast majority of Canadians agree with us. It is only the scary headline and the concern of the author and the one expert she interviewed that implies anything different. There is no mention at all in the actual article of these advocates making any headway in pushing through their agenda.

Is this thus-far-unsuccessful push to expand the current assisted-suicide guidelines something we "don't want to hear, but desperately need to know," in the words of our health activist friend? As Americans unfamiliar with the history and complexity of life-and-death discussions in Canada, do we need to weigh in on this?

3. Scary headlines get clicks. Clicks pay. They keep digital magazines solvent. They generate more assignments for authors. They give "activists" more traffic. More searches, shares, clicks, and followers lead to more revenue. That may be the truly awful thing going on here. People who make money off our alarm are exposing us to an "awful" world that does not actually exist -- at least not yet. Those who are advocating for the rights of minors experiencing severe suffering to choose death have n    ow had their opinions amplified by "ain't it awful" sharing. You and I have been tricked into giving a platform to voices and opinions we find offensive!

Ain't it awful?

Are there awful things happening in our world? Yes! Do we "desperately need to know" about those awful things? Sometimes. If we care about the lives of 12-year-old children, we need to be aware that in-school fatalities in the U.S. are awful, much worse than in other countries. We need to be figure out why the problem is so much worse here and look for ways to make our public schools a place parents can be reasonably confident their children will find safety and value. Sharing the awful news about school fatalities in the U.S. with care and accuracy might prompt people to take action to reduce those statistics.

What we don’t need is to drive traffic to sites that exaggerate and sensationalize bad news or amplify the voices of a few as though they represent an entire population. Can we work on toning down sensationalism rather than spreading it? If we don't have the time or inclination to dig deeper into alarming stories to find the facts behind them, can we just walk away?

Shame On You, Mike Braun!

After weeks of pressure from Washington, D.C., Indiana Governor Mike Braun has announced a special session of the Indiana General Assembly to push forward the idea of redistricting Indiana mid-decade to weaken the influence of Indiana Democrats

Democrat candidates received 40% of the vote for both U.S. President and Indiana Governor in 2024. That 40% is already vastly underrepresented at both state and federal levels. 20% of the Indiana General Assembly is Democrat and 20% (2 of 9) of Indiana's U.S. representatives. Neither Indiana senator is a Democrat.

I have heard all my life that "Cheaters never prosper." This is blatant cheating. The current legislature has no authority to redistrict the state. The Indiana constitution says:

Section 5. The General Assembly elected during the year in which a federal decennial census is taken shall fix by law the number of Senators and Representatives and apportion them among districts according to the number of inhabitants in each district, as revealed by that federal decennial census. The territory in each district shall be contiguous. (History: As amended March 14, 1881; November 6, 1984).

The General Assembly did its job following the 2020 census. There is no authority and no precedent for a mid-decade General Assembly to set aside that work and redistrict at the cost of Indiana taxpayers.

Will cheaters prosper in this new era of government? I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't.

Shame on you, Mike Braun, for trying to drag Indiana into this cheating scheme!! And shame on the Indiana legislators who are going along with it!

https://apnews.com/article/indiana-redistricting-special-session-braun-63f3447efcc34529dfc363a96a763b6e#

The Abortion Issue

One strategy the Republican party has used to secure the loyalty of committed Christians is to advocate for a complete ban on abortion (and to label Democrats as "baby killers").

The cry goes out, "We must protect unborn babies!" This appeals to people who paint all abortions with the same brush, as infanticide by selfish women who want to enjoy sexual freedom without facing the consequences. From this viewpoint, the Democrat message is, "Have fun! Don't worry about getting pregnant! You can just get rid of the problem."

Let's look at this more closely. There are at least three types of abortions. 

   a. spontaneous -- the fetus is expelled by the woman's body prior to full development. (Is this an act of God?)

   b. elective -- a woman who finds herself pregnant requests that the pregnancy to be terminated. This generally happens as soon as possible after the pregnancy is confirmed so the woman can get on with her life with as little discomfort as possible.

   c. medical issues -- early delivery of a baby because of severe health issues involving either the mother or child. These are the late-term abortions that get so much press. Women in this last group have accepted, even embraced and celebrated the pregnancy until something dreadful changes their course. This dreadful thing comes in many forms and each case needs careful counsel by professionals.

Anti-abortion laws tend to be a blunt force solution aimed at women in the second group, but they also affect those in the first and last groups. Offering medical care to those experiencing some form of spontaneous abortion can be a liability under strict anti-abortion laws. Inducing labor for a fetus that has died in utero or been shown to have abnormalities incompatible with life is also a liability. Sacrificing the life of the baby in order to save the mother is a tragedy for all involved, as is sacrificing the mother's life in order to save the baby. These scenarios involve excruciating choices far more complex than any law can anticipate.

A recent advertisement for a pregnancy test shows the relief women experience when seeing their results. As viewers, we are not shown the results and don't know which women are overjoyed by a negative result -- 'Whew! I'm not pregnant!" -- and which are overjoyed by a positive result -- "I'm pregnant! How wonderful!" Nor do we see the tears when the result is the opposite of what is hoped for. But we get the message that pregnancy is a big deal! Barring complications, it is the beginning of nine months of major physical changes followed by the bittersweet trauma of childbirth and the emergence of a helpless human baby bearing the combined DNA of both partners.

It interests me when people say, "If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she should simply give it up for adoption." This is where cultivating empathy can help us. This choice requires the woman to set aside nine months of her life nurturing and birthing a baby she doesn't want or is maybe unable to care for. How will she explain to her family, friends, coworkers, and curious bystanders the circumstances of her pregnancy and her choice to give the baby away? Instead of explaining, will she drop out of life and "disappear" when her condition can no longer be hidden? Will she then let go of the baby she has birthed at such cost as though she were simply a surrogate? Few of us have walked that road. Can we imagine what it is like to do so? This "simple" solution is far more costly than we often acknowledge.**

One aspect of unwanted pregnancies that isn't often addressed is the fact that there is always a man involved. 100% of the time! No exceptions! That man may be a romantic partner or spouse, an acquaintance, a relative, or a stranger -- welcome or not -- but he is always present for the conception and is often more focused on his own desires than on whether the woman he is with would like to give birth to a child if he impregnates her. He is likely physically stronger than she is. We like to think unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor choices on the part of the pregnant woman, but how free is she to make good decisions in light of her relationship with and possible subjugation to the man?

What we need are better ways to avoid the NEED for abortion. The traditional Republican solution has been abstinence. Women who don't engage in sexual activities don't end up pregnant. This has not proven to be an effective method to avoid unwanted pregnancies, however. The human sex drive is incredibly strong!

The Guttmacher Institute reports that the U.S. abortion rate has increased slightly since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, even though many states now have strict laws against abortion. That number doesn't include illegal (unreported and unregulated) abortions. It seems to me that we really need to move beyond laws limiting access to safe and legal abortions and focus more on ways for young women to avoid unwanted pregnancies. After all, what woman would choose having her insides scraped out as her preferred method of birth control if she had a less risky and invasive alternative at hand?

As a Christian from the Baby Boomer generation, I value marriage and sexual fidelity, but I know many in our nation make different choices in terms of sexual relationships than I do. Expecting the risk of pregnancy to rein in people’s passions has resulted in far, far too many unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions, particularly since men often push for and even demand sex while women are the ones who end up pregnant. A vote to ban abortion does not lead to greater morality. What it does is disproportionately punish impoverished and oppressed women who have less independence and access to all forms of birth control by forcing them to bear babies against their will while those with more resources enjoy sexual freedom. That is not righteousness on the part of those passing laws (which seldom effect their own lives). Nor is it the path to every child being welcomed and treasured by their parents. It is oppression of poor women. 

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I want to vote for the oppressed to be set free not further oppressed. (See Luke 4:18) How can we legislate less and care more for the well-being and freedom of every woman, rich or poor, to choose if and when she will lovingly welcome an infant into her arms? How can we best make sure that every newborn baby is enveloped in love?

——- **If you would like to step into the story of a pregnant teenager and the difficult choices she faces, I recommend the movie "Juno" from 2007. It is rated PG-13 and currently available on Hulu. A good book from the Christian fiction shelves is The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers.

The Making of a Christian Democrat

Becoming a Republican

When I first registered to vote at age 18 in 1976, I was surprised to be asked what party I wanted to join. After a flash of panic, I remembered my parents were Republicans. That must be our party. 

It took several more years to gain enough knowledge about the respective platforms of Republicans and Democrats to feel a true sense of loyalty to one party over the other. Democrats were in favor of social programs to share the wealth. The idea was to tax people in proportion to their income and provide support to those less willing or able to find and keep a job. In contrast, Republicans valued individualism and low taxes. Each citizen needed to support themselves and their family, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, if necessary. Republicans were willing to fight for our freedom. Republicans had strong moral values and respect for law and order. Yes, I could sign on to that. It was obviously the best fit for a Christian like me.

Evolving views

Despite being a card-carrying Republican, I wasn’t one to vote “straight ticket” over the years, often splitting my ballot. After all, Indiana Democrats such as Evan Bayh, Indiana’s governor from 1989-1997, tended to land on the conservative end of their party on social issues. However, it wasn’t until Barack Obama came along in 2008 that I first cast my ballot for a Democrat to be President of the United States. That choice had less to do with well-studied political views than simply liking what Obama had to say and how he said it. And I liked the idea of electing a Black man as President. That year, Indiana’s electoral votes went to Obama. Looking back from 2025, it’s hard to believe Indiana went blue in 2008, but I was part of it.

After voting for Obama again in 2012, I was less Republican than I had ever been. It didn’t take much exposure to Donald Trump to decide I would not be voting for him. I was shocked when he won not only the Republican nomination in 2016, but enough electoral college votes to move into the White House. I was even more startled to learn that friends and family I thought shared my values voted for him. Over time, many became passionate defenders of him. I have seen people from less conservative areas suggest that voting for Trump is a sign one isn’t a “real Christian” (while my more conservative friends and neighbors often have the opposite view), but these were indeed “real Christians” — pastors, church leaders, people who study the Bible and know it well, committed followers of Jesus Christ. I couldn’t understand it.

When, after a four-year respite under Joe Biden, Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2021, I realized that I no longer wanted to be associated with the Republican party. If Republicans support what Trump stands for even after lengthy exposure to his bully tactics, I need to find a new party. But am I ready to call myself a Democrat?

Considerations

One motivation to reconsider my politics was observing how the Republicans have changed over the years to the point where they support the policies of the current administration. We are far from the days when President George W. Bush talked about “compassionate conservatism.” 

Another consideration is how I have changed over the years. I am no longer convinced that people who have better jobs or more money are somehow of better moral character than those who have less. I have realized that not everyone has bootstraps with which to pull themselves up. In short, I have more empathy for those who have been pushed aside by society. I care about those who struggle to catch up from a disadvantaged starting place. The idea of offering such people tax-funded assistance has a lot more appeal to me than it once did.

Another attractive aspect of the Democrat party is how much more diverse its leaders are in gender, religion, and cultural heritage. DEI – diversity, equality, and inclusion – has become a concept openly rejected by Republican leadership. But I want to be inclusive. I love the diversity I find in all of creation, including within humanity. I regret the fact that some people have fewer open doors in their lives than others based on differences having to do with gender, socioeconomic level, culture, skin color, country of origin, age, sexual identity, or disability.

In recent days, empathy has been described as a weakness and even a sin by some Republicans. But I actively cultivate empathy in my own life by exposing myself to the stories of people not like me through books, movies, social media, and a variety of cultural experiences. I am willing to walk into those stories to become more aware of views other than the one being born white in rural America gives me. I still discover prejudices within myself, but I am trying to set them aside rather than embracing them.

Does that make me a Democrat in our two-party system? This is a question I have wrestled with as Trump’s second term has threatened the very foundations of the American experiment.

Faith and politics

Republicans like to think of themselves as the Christian party, based, as much as anything, on being against abortion and homosexuality, but Jesus never addressed either issue. Instead, he called us to a life of love and compassion. He reached out and drew in people whom others excluded. He treated women as worthy partners in conversation. He asked questions and listened to people. He touched the untouchable. He offered healing rather than harm. He told us there is blessing in being merciful, in being peacemakers, in humility. He called us to a life of generosity; to give food to the hungry, care for the sick, and welcome the stranger. He offered grace to those others pushed aside.

It is not in spite of my Christian values that I can no longer be associated with the Republican party, but because of them. Compassion and grace toward the poor and oppressed are virtues I seek to cultivate, not devalue.

It took a while to get here, but I truly believe that, as a whole, the Democrat party values are more “Christian” than those of the Republican party. That doesn’t always come through in individual leaders. Power and authority in this world have never meshed well with the values of the Kingdom of God. And I know many good Christian people remain loyal to the Republican party. Still, I feel like the pressure on the Republican side is to be less compassionate, less merciful, to emphasize the “Thou Shalt Not” of the Ten Commandments while pushing aside as weak and impractical Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, whereas the pressure on the Democrat side is more toward the compassion and generosity Jesus taught.

Beyond the question of which political party in the U.S. is a better fit for me as a follower of Jesus Christ is the question of whether I should align myself with any nation or political structure in this world. IF I am going to do that, however, I want to choose the one I feel has a better grasp of Christian values. And right now, I am convinced the values of the Democrat party better reflect the life of mercy, compassion, and grace to which Jesus calls us.

I'm Ag'in' It!

 "I'm ag'in' it!"

My first memory of encountering this colloquialism was years ago at a school board meeting. An improvement to the school facilities was being discussed and one board member made his opposition clear. The phrase struck me as useful. Clear, settled opposition, not open to discussion. I tucked it away to pull out as needed.

As it turns out, I haven't found much use for the phrase. Unlike that old farmer, I don't find all that many situations where I am inclined to firmly set my jaw and declare my opposition to a proposal for change.

In the past few months of attending Democrat party meetings in my area, I have been reminded of that phrase again. Democrats are an endangered species locally, and I appreciate those trying to breathe new life into the local organization, but the main rallying message I have heard thus far revolves around being against what is happening around us. The current administration? We're ag'in' it. The conservative evangelical director of a local after-school program? We're ag'in' 'im and don't want public funds to go to his program. Businesses failing to hang onto their DEI initiatives under pressure? We're ag'in' 'em.

When a proposed highway through our part of Indiana came up as the latest target for our protests at a recent meeting, it was too much for me. The meeting had lasted plenty long already when the topic was introduced. I decided I was done for that round and left.

Since when do Democrats take a uniform stand against infrastructure improvements? Wasn't President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan a major accomplishment for his administration?

I know the issues involved with the proposed highway. They are the same ones I heard against the I-69 extension through southwest Indiana three decades ago. Among them: Highways consume private property and destroy farms. They bypass small towns and their struggling business districts. They cost millions or even billions of dollars. These are valid points. But they aren't the only factors involved in the road decision and don't represent one political party. If they did, I would expect the Republicans to be the ones taking the position of less government interference and greater concern for individual rights, not the Democrats.

The role of government is to collect resources and provide goods and services for their citizens. Where would we be if transportation depended on individual landowners laying asphalt on their own property and tying their section of roadway in with their neighbors' roads? As it turns out, the only way to have roads is for the government to acquire lengthy ribbons of land and bring in construction crews.

The question then is, "Do we need another road?" Apparently, the answer is "no" for my Democrat friends. They are "ag'in it" and that is fine. I just wish they would conduct their anti-road protests apart from the Democrat party. I have no strong opinion on this latest road project, but generally see good transportation options as a positive thing. However, discussing the Mid-State Corridor project is not the purpose of this post, so I will move on.

I have concerns about a lot of things happening in our world, but my preferred stance is to highlight and support the good rather than highlighting and protesting the bad. If I manage to make any contribution to the local Democratic Party organization with my limited resources, I hope it will be to support initiatives that will bring positive changes. I would like to see more support for local immigrants and minority groups, more DEI initiatives, more support for literacy and educational initiatives. These are goals that stand in opposition to our current President and his administration, but I see them as having more opportunity for local initiatives that make a difference.

On a recent trip to Washington, Indiana, I saw a sign promoting the Rotary Club, highlighting their positive contributions to the community. I just caught a glimpse of it in passing and didn't catch all it said. I hope to revisit that sign soon and snap a picture of it. Positive community involvement is a goal I would like to pursue, valuing and uplifting all people in the community. Maybe the best way to do that is to join the Rotary Club, but I don't live in Washington and have limited time and energy. I still have hope that involvement with the Democrats can bring similar opportunities, both locally and on a broader basis.

That Sinful Woman

Recently, the Lectionary calendar brought us to John 12:1-8 about Mary of Bethany pouring nard on Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair. For our Sunday School discussion about it, I did a side-by-side comparison of the four gospel accounts of this event -- from Mark 14, Matthew 26, Luke 7, & John 12. It seems obvious to me that this is one happening and, like other gospel events, the story just varies in each. However, the conventional interpretation seems to be that there were two events -- one in Bethany involving Mary, the godly sister of Martha & Lazarus, and the other in another time and place involving an unnamed woman "who lived a sinful life" One source suggests that John confuses the two events and brings details from the "sinful woman" into the Bethany story. That writer says that someone as respectable as Mary of Bethany would never let her hair down in public.

My question is: Why? Why don't people simply accept that Mary of Bethany was the woman "who lived a sinful life" and wiped Jesus' feet with her hair? Is it because they can't accept that Jesus' best friends might have had scandal connected to them?

I mean, the parallels are too many to discount so easily. Let's look at them:

Mark, Matthew, & Luke all identify the host as a man named Simon. Mark & Matthew identify him as "Simon the Leper" from Bethany, Luke says he was a Pharisee named Simon. John just says the dinner was given in Jesus' honor in Bethany and that Lazarus was there and Martha served. In all cases, a woman anointed either Jesus' feet or his head with perfume. Mark, Matthew, & Luke all say the perfume was in an alabaster jar. Mark & John identify the perfume as nard. Only John identifies the woman as Mary, but both Mark & Matthew tell us it happened in Bethany. How many women were there in Bethany who would do such a thing?

If I let my imagination go, I wonder if there is something beyond the small-town connection between Jesus' sibling friend group and Simon the Leper/Pharisee's household. If Simon had leprosy, does that mean his wife might have moved back home with her siblings? Could Martha have been that wife? Was there something wrong with Lazarus that precluded him from having a family? Was Mary a social outcast because of her sinful past who lived with her brother and sister? Was she able to let her hair down at Simon's house because she was with family there? Is that the reason she was able to show up at the dinner in the first place? (And, yes, I've heard about the public nature of these events and that anyone could enter certain areas, but the family connection idea seems to fit better.)

When I shared these thoughts with my seminarian daughter, she offered a new perspective. Traditionally, we have seen the "sinful woman" as sexually immoral. But then and now, women have been categorized as "sinful" for so many other offenses. Think of all the things that bring rebuke to women and girls even in our current society. Interrupting men. Being 'bossy.' Dressing in ways others find offensive -- and there are SO MANY ways to offend others by what women wear or don't wear. Acting "uppity." Taking on leadership roles in the church. Not being submissive enough to authorities. The list goes on.

Moving back to Jesus' day, there would have been many more ways for a young lady to be condemned. Maybe Mary declined to enter the marriage her parents arranged for her. Maybe she sat in the room with the men instead of working in the kitchen. (Oh, right, we already know that is the case from Luke 10.) Maybe she spoke when women were supposed to keep quiet. Maybe she didn't keep her hair up. Maybe she insisted that the expensive perfume she somehow acquired was hers to use as she pleased.

In all this, I am always asking the question: Why does this matter? It seems much of the cultural background and language study that people love to insert into Bible study isn't all that important to the overall message of the gospel. But if Mary was the woman Luke tells us "lived a sinful life," that strikes me as huge! It means Jesus didn't just interact with "tax collectors and sinners" in a ministry role, but that he counted broken people who were social outcasts among his closest friends. He liked them better than more socially acceptable people. They were the people he turned to at the end of the day when he wanted to just relax and not be "on." He was so non-threatening to Mary that she could let her hair down in his presence. Simon the Leper/Pharisee may not have been thrilled having her around and wondered why Jesus let her touch him, but Jesus did let her touch him and let her sit at his feet while he was teaching and Martha was so busy with lunch preparations. As someone who struggles to fit into the traditional roles of women, I love the idea that Jesus loves spending time with outcasts.

The World Before Me . . .

It has now been years since the day I changed the words to the old song “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus.” One of its multiple repetitive verses says: “The world behind me, the cross before me.” As we sang it one day during a church service, my evangelical training kicked in and I wondered, “Why have I turned my back on the world again? Shouldn't I care about 'the lost' out there? Shouldn't the “cross” (i.e. the church) have my back as I head out to make a difference in my world?” So I sang instead, “The world before me, the cross behind me.” It was a spontaneous thought, but one I haven't changed my mind on since. It is so much more appealing to head out into the world to make a difference than to turn my back on all the blessings, opportunities, and even the dangers to be found there.

More than a decade ago, I posted to a forum that no longer exists some words I titled "A New Direction." Having struggled with ministry options in the church, my proposal was to seek alternative opportunities out in the community. I was working at a small public library where I had contact with many people in need of God's touch on their lives. I did my best to meet them where they were, but dealt with a continuing lack of encouragement and support for such efforts. From the viewpoint of church leaders, all my efforts at the library and in the community were of little or no consequence, and I faced relentless pressure to better support church programs planned by other people. For someone raised in evangelicalism, the crippling blow of being dismissed as lacking commitment and being unsupportive is powerful. None of my attempts to make a difference in people's lives came up to the standards I was being measured against.

A few years later I added Reggie McNeal's 2015 book Kingdom Come: Why We Must Give Up Our Obsession with Fixing the Church – and What We Should Do Instead to my to-read list. The list is long and my reading progress slow, but eventually I procured the ebook and, after even more delay, started reading it. It always amazes me when others can take what I think and turn those thoughts into marketable words. McNeal's answer to furthering the Kingdom of God is for Christ's followers to go out into the world and find ways to connect with people and make a difference in their lives. Not to leave the church behind, but to work in the world while drawing encouragement and spiritual nurture from the church.

Meanwhile, my church setting has changed, and I no longer work at the public library. Even if I did, the dynamics there have changed with evolving technology. Consequently, my own community connections are weaker than they once were, but still there.

At one level, I wish I had read this book back when I was more connected, but less supported. But that was then, and this is now. I am not without opportunity. And I am in a better place to value the connections I have left and can continue to form in the community.

The world truly lies before me with countless opportunities to show kindness and compassion to those hungry for the love God offers. For my own spiritual well-being, I need frequent reminders to turn my face to the needy people outside the church doors. I am thankful for the times I find support and encouragement from the church behind me as I strive to make a difference in the world before and around me.

On "Lars and the Real Girl"

I am not one to watch a lot of television series or movies. If my entire viewing time in a week adds up to three or four hours, that is a lot. Which, of course, leaves me way out of the loop on shows others are binging. One series from fifteen years ago that I am finally slowly watching is NBC's Parks & Recreation. After all, it is set in Indiana, which gives it a little extra appeal.

One of the supporting cast members in the first two seasons of the show is Paul Schneider. I wondered what else he has done and did a Google search. When I found a movie from 2007 with him and Ryan Gosling as brothers, that was enough to pull me in. It took a few sessions to get through it, but I have found myself mentally revisiting the plot since I finished it.

In the show, Ryan Gosling plays the part of an extremely socially awkward young man. A co-worker is looking at life-size sex dolls on the internet and tries to interest "Lars" in them. Lars then secretly orders one and when it comes introduces "Bianca" to his brother and sister-in-law as a missionary from Brazil whom he met online. He asks if she can stay in their guest room while they are getting to know each other and if she can borrow some of the sister-in-law's clothes. They, of course, are concerned about him treating this doll as a real girl and immediately make an appointment with a doctor/therapist for him. The doctor advises them to go along with Lars's delusion that Bianca is a real girl and schedules regular sessions to treat Bianca for some health problems, sessions Lars attends as well, chatting with the therapist during Bianca's treatments.

Here is where the plot gets interesting. The brother is greatly embarrassed by this odd behavior on the part of his brother, but agrees to follow the doctor's advice. Not only do he and his wife accept Bianca into the family, but Bianca also goes to church and the entire congregation cautiously welcomes her in. When Lars's office has a social event, he takes Bianca in her wheelchair and everyone has been clued in ahead of time and treats her like a real person. The church ladies find opportunities for Bianca to do volunteer work, including as a reader at the local children's hospital (with a "talking book"). Some take an interest in styling her hair for her. As time goes on, thanks to the church ladies, Bianca slowly develops a social life of her own while Lars is at work. And when Bianca has a severe health crisis, the ladies bring their needlework and sit with Lars to comfort him.

Of course, this is a completely unrealistic plot. There is no world in which an ambulance would be called for a life-size doll and take her to the hospital where doctors and nurses would install her in a room and pretend to take her "health crisis" seriously. Nor is everyone associated with an office environment likely to go along with it. Someone will surely feel obliged to speak the truth.

More than the coworkers and the health professionals, however, my sense of realism completely balks at the idea of a congregation playing along with this delusion. Church people, of all people, would insist that Lars face the facts: his girlfriend is NOT A REAL GIRL!! She is a doll! A sex doll, no less. Maybe a subgroup of compassionate people in the congregation could be persuaded to go along with this delusion, but not the entire church. I kept waiting for that one person to show up who would insist that Lars face the reality of his "relationship," but no one ever did. Every single member of the community allowed Lars to live in his alternate reality for as long as he needed to do so.

I don't know how I feel about this. "Bianca" is obviously important to Lars in overcoming a difficult childhood. By allowing his therapy to proceed unhindered and extending extraordinary Christian charity, the church congregation played a major healing role in his life. Bianca's "charity work" through the church gave her a dimension beyond Lars' personal therapy doll, rounded her out as a "real girl" with a life beyond being Lars's girlfriend.

Anyway, like I said, I don't know how I feel about this, but it is at least a little sad that I find the church's support for Lars and "Bianca" the least believable aspect of the movie.

On God, Flag, and Country

Someone recently told our new pastor I would not be at church for the Veteran's Day service. I was a little surprised since I had forgotten Veteran's Day was approaching and no one had said anything to me about it. How did someone else know the plans I had yet to even consider? I guess they were looking at my history. I did miss the Sunday closest to Veteran's Day a year ago because I was at a conference that weekend. The conference had nothing to do with Veteran's Day, but I will admit I wasn't disappointed by the timing. I tend to miss Memorial Day weekend because my mother was born on May 30th (Memorial Day's date before the Monday Holiday Bill set it adrift in 1968). We have a long family tradition of gathering for her birthday. This year I could have left after the Sunday morning service to visit her for her 92^nd birthday celebration, but chose to miss. I was at church for the Independence Day service in July, but apparently my absences for “God, Flag, and Country” Sundays speak louder than my presence. As they probably should. The unnamed person making a definitive statement concerning my plans for this fall was perhaps a bit presumptuous, but not far enough off base for me to take offense. And there is a possibility the second-hand version of the statement that came back to me contained more certainty than the original.

Will I be at church for Veteran's Day? I don't know, but probably. Church attendance is a habit for me whereas conflicting conferences are rare. I have concerns, but probably not enough commitment to them to make alternative plans for the day.

My concerns:

1. War is ridiculous. The leaders of two or more countries find themselves in conflict so they gather up a large number of young men in the prime of life, give them weapons, train them in the art of death and destruction, and see who can inflict enough death and destruction to prompt the other side to give up. How is this still happening in our times?

But, wait, there is more. The warriors, along with their parents and grandparents and lovers, are persuaded that God is on their side of the conflict and that they are defenders of righteousness, truth, and freedom. They must inflict death and destruction for the sake of their families back home, for God, flag, and country. The parents and grandparents and lovers lift up their young men as heroes as they dish out death and destruction on those on the other side of the conflict while the leaders who initiated the military action sit safely in their war rooms. Sometimes civilians are also killed in this process, but this is accepted as a cost of conflict. The young fighters are still heroes. This is seriously messed up!!

If you don't believe me that this is messed up, check in on the mental health of war veterans. The survivors, of course. But not those who serve behind the frontlines. Look at those who walk away with indelible images of war carnage haunting their days. See how they are doing. After the American Civil War, they called such people “shellshocked.” After Vietnam, we just recognized them as messed-up Vietnam vets. Now we have letters to describe it: PTSD. It's still the same. Killing other human beings and watching people die violent deaths has a terrible impact on the lives of those involved. As it should. We are made for protecting human life not extinguishing it, and we overcome that natural bent to our own peril.

2. The glorification of war and war “heroes” bothers me anyway, but even more so when it enters the church.

When I was a young adult, I started my campaign to protect our worship services by taking on the Easter Bunny. Not because I dislike the Easter Bunny. I think colored eggs and candy and bunnies are delightful symbols for celebrating spring and fertility and new life. (Rabbits are my favorite animal!) Outside the church walls. Inside the church walls, Easter/Resurrection Sunday is only and always about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Easter bunny can hop to and fro everywhere else, but can we keep this one sacred place sacred? It is the ONLY place where the focus is on God's power to overcome death with new life as demonstrated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why would we distract from that focus? There is wondrous beauty in the empty tomb that many struggle to grasp. Why would we interweave light-hearted myths and magic with it? Enjoy the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy! They are great!! But can we please refrain from inviting them into sacred spaces at the most sacred times of the church year?

I gave up on reforming the church long ago. Now I am content to simply not participate when secular interests get folded into worship. But even that is difficult. Even if I could close the church doors in the face of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, I wouldn't want to shut out those who have served in the U.S. military. And the idea that God supports America's warriors and we must do the same by honoring our troops, current or past, as part of our Sunday morning worship is drilled into us from a young age. It is almost sacrilegious to question it. I can disappear on such Sundays, but that exposes me as someone who doesn't support the men and women currently or formerly serving in our armed forces, a serious offense in the eyes of many! Or maybe someone who doesn't understand that the military invites God into the midst of war by means of chaplains and prayers.

The bottom line is that I find war disturbing beyond words. I wish there were alternative paths for serving God and country that didn't involve training young men to kill and maim. I wish we as a country supported and honored service in the Peace Corp and similar programs like we support and honor military service. I wish, if military service remains a necessary evil because our leaders find it impossible to come up with civilized means for conflict resolution, we could at least acknowledge each enlistment as a sign of unspeakable failure on the part of those leaders.

But that isn't where we are. My pastor reminded me that the military supports chaplains and prayer. I didn't remind him that, regardless of those prayers, causing the violent death of another human does permanent damage to the psyche of those doing it. The wreckage on both sides is beyond comprehension. But I had no words to convey that conviction, nor to explain why it bothers me so much to see those involved in the military put on a pedestal rather than wrapped in arms of healing and compassion and begged for forgiveness for whatever extent they were subjected to the horrors of war.

I don't have answers to the incredible puzzle of war still existing in these times. And I certainly can't change the mindset that God is honored when we honor those offering their lives to the service of leaders with such limited skills and imagination for peacemaking that they resort to sending “the boys” out to kill and maim each other in order to “settle” international conflict. I can't fix it. I just wish I didn't have to be part of celebrating it. But even those noting my opposition to such celebrations have shown no interest in hearing my concerns. So I share them here in the blogosphere. And so it goes. . 

Not that anyone has actually asked me, but again I ask myself: Will I be at church for the Veteran's Day service? Probably. I too am part of this country that believes more in military might than the peaceable Kingdom of God. And I am part of a congregation that supports this worldview by honoring war veterans on Veteran's Day. I am too worn down and worn out to stage a protest. And so we will have God, flag, and country. My convictions will be simply one more (admittedly minor) casualty in a long string of casualties. 

The flag I will be waving is the white flag of surrender and defeat. 

On Generosity

This week I added one more book to the backlog on my Kindle -- The Paradox of Generosity: Giving We Receive, Grasping We Lose by Christian Smith & Hilary Davidson. Even the little I have read thus far in the introduction says what I have already discovered with the help of the Bible and a few decades of living: a generous life is a blessed life.

Having just purchased the book, it was fresh in my mind today as my husband and I headed to WonderLab Science Museum in Bloomington, Indiana, with our grandchildren. We had never been there and took advantage of the availability of children during their fall school break to legitimize our visit. As one might guess from the name, it's a Wonder-full place, full of hands-on science of all types, from simple toy collections to the mystery of a mind challenge game where two people wearing headbands with forehead sensors compete to direct a small steel ball to one goal or the other using only their minds while their brain activity is shown on a screen. (The three-year-old won this game!)

One of the simplest stations was an area with a large collection of plastic cups donated by a local pizza joint. Our fifth-grader started stacking them into a tower, as did his little sister. Of course, they were frequently knocked over as kids came and went, but after a while it was just the two of them building and one kid, maybe 7 or 8 years old, who would periodically plow through the area knocking everything down. The grandkids were getting frustrated by this and my (grand)mother bear instinct kicked in, prompting me to position myself as a shield between this "wrecker" and the tower under construction. He then settled onto a stool at the station next to the cup area and didn't try to get past me as the project was completed.

After photographing the finished creation with its architect, I quietly asked my grandson if it would be all right to let this other kid knock it down. He was a little surprised by the suggestion, but his generous nature prevailed and he agreed. The "wrecker" was even more surprised when I asked if he wanted to knock it over, but after double-checking to see if I meant it, he sent the cups flying. My grandson then wandered off, but the 3-year-old and I stayed. The "wrecker" also stayed and started building his own tower, the first attempt to build instead of destroy I had observed.

A bit later, the other kid had moved on again and my grandson returned with the aspiration to build the biggest tower of all. He was a little discouraged, however, by how precarious all this building was. Then inspiration hit. We decided to stack the cups against the wall. Now both grandchildren started working together and soon the other kid came back and started to help. Being an oldest child, my grandson was a bit critical of the work of both younger children, but I persuaded him they were being careful and doing well and the project quickly grew to the point where I had to take over because it was above the reach of the children. The other kid pulled over the stool from the neighboring station and climbed on it to help me with the highest row either of us could reach. We took a photo and I started a search for a taller person to move us up further, having doubts about the acceptability of standing on the stool myself. Help arrived after a while in the form of an employee who stood on the stool and added two more rows before we ran entirely out of cups. (I had not observed it, but the kids noted that the "wrecker" had stomped on and broken several cups. It was fine, though. We had the exact number needed to do the highest row even the employee on the stool could reach.)

It was a wonderful accomplishment. Multiple people had a chance to admire the masterpiece before a toddler did what toddlers do. Moving faster than his mother could follow, he ran over and pulled a cup out of the tower at his toddler level, sending all the cups to the floor in a magnificent crash!

Such a simple building opportunity in a place with many more sophisticated stations. And such a simple act of generosity that turned our "enemy" into a coworker. Instead of ending the day thinking that kid did nothing but destroy our work, we became partners.

One thing that lay behind my decision to buy the book by Smith & Davidson was watching an example of the opposite of generosity. Someone left a faith community after a church vote didn't go their way and over the course of a few weeks collected up and carried out every item they had apparently "loaned," rather than donated to the church during their many years of membership, leaving empty spaces all over the church building. There was talk of changing the locks, but I was glad to hear later no such action had been taken. Responding to miserliness with heightened security simply spreads the lack of generosity. If someone excelling in the “rules” of Christianity as they understand them (including the commandments against theft) is that injured, they probably need to be allowed to do what they feel justified in doing. And as it turned out, someone else was in a position to replace many of the missing items. Both the congregation and the new donor enjoyed the blessing of generosity.

A quote I have seen phrased different ways and credited to different sources says, "We are not so much punished for our sins as by them." When I think of the former church members sitting in their home amidst the clutter of “undonated” items and think about the bridges they burned behind them as they exited, I am reminded again that just as generous, grace-filled living brings joy and blessing, miserly and graceless living brings misery.

Jesus once commented about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the kingdom of God. I think the difficulty of being generous is a big part of that. Being open-handed is especially difficult for people who excel at hanging onto money and material goods, generally a requirement for accumulating and retaining wealth. It is difficult to have the generous and gracious spirit that characterizes kingdom living while clinging tightly to material wealth.

Sometimes we are positive examples. Sometimes we are examples of where the wrong path leads. I don't always make the most generous choices, It is easy for me to cling too tightly to things I could easily give away. Because of this, I try to remind myself often (and find reading material to remind me) that I virtually never regret being generous.

On 8,000,000,000 People

In Genesis 9:1, after the flood, God instructed Noah and his family to increase in number and fill the earth.

I think it is safe to say that we have done it. The global population is fast approaching eight billion people. That is 8,000,000,000. According to Wikipedia, there are around 75 people per square mile in the part of rural America where I live. In the world's most densely populated cities that number rises to 75,000. That level of density is beyond my comprehension. Obviously, the people in those cities are not able to grow enough food to feed themselves. Earth is showing definite signs of stress from the burden of sustaining such a large population. We are full up.

One question to ask is: Will someone (Someone?) or something eventually put the brakes on? Whether one believes in God, natural evolution, or fate, it seems clear something needs to change if earth is to remain habitable for future generations. Whether it be a global pandemic or war or starvation or genocide, it seems inevitable that we must somehow control earth's human population growth in order to thrive and leave room for other species as well as agriculture.

Along those lines, I have been pondering a "what if ..." question: 

What if whatever Force or force is in charge of capping earth's human population brought multiple resources to the table? Would some of those tools involve lowering the fertility rate of humanity? Contraceptives could be a start: various means to prevent human sperm from reaching human eggs. But maybe that is just one part of the solution. Maybe human sexuality needs a total rework. Either less of a sex drive or alternative means for sexual satisfaction that do not result in conception.

It seems to me we are seeing this sort of force (or Force) at work. Fertility rates are dropping in many areas. There are multiple reasons for this. One factor is an increase in homosexuality. The human sex drive remains strong, but it no longer automatically seeks to unite sperm with egg.

What if this is a natural response to an over-populated planet? What if there is no "sin" involved? Even if those who see biblical sexual mandates as applying to monogamous unions between consensual adults in the 21st century are right -- and there is much room for debate there even among those who view the Bible as the inspired Word of God -- they were given in a time when the world population was less than 200 million. Is it possible we are in a completely different age now in terms of what is good for humanity and our host planet? Do we need to be open to a new view of human sexuality?

In John 9, Jesus' disciples questioned him about the source of sin in a man born blind. If the parents sinned, why was it their child who was punished? On the other hand, how could one blame the man if he had no opportunity to sin before being struck with blindness. The part of the puzzle they did not question was that blindness was punishment for sin. Jesus' response was that neither the parents nor the son was to blame for the blindness. There was no sinful act behind it.

Today we know there are many different causes for blindness. Some people are born blind, others develop diseases of the eyes, others become blind due to accidents or poor choices by themselves or others, but blindness in itself is not seen as a sign of moral deficiency. It is a physical issue, not a moral issue.

I am left-handed. The Latin word for left is sinister. In many times and places favoring one's left hand has been seen as a sign of being sinister -- rebellious, out of step with society, even evil. I am relieved to have never encountered that view as a child, partly due to the full acceptance of my left-handedness by my parents. If I had run into such prejudice, I would be no less left-handed, but I would certainly deal with guilt and self-doubt, something that has never plagued me in this regard. Being left-handed has always been something I see as making me part of a fun subset of the population, even when inconvenient. In a crowd, I often look around to find my fellow "lefties." (The 1 in 10 ratio holds pretty true. In a crowd of 30, I expect to find at least two other lefties and usually do.)

What if we could view those outside the cisgender population in that same light? Maybe being left-handed has made that easier for me to do. When I recently discovered that a young man I took a liking to several years ago is gay, I thought to myself, "I KNEW there was something special about him!" It occurred to me that even though I am fully heterosexual, I seem drawn to young people who fall outside the norms. I like their nonconformity and flair. They are part of a special subset of the population that appeals to me.

Different? Yes. Sinister? Not at all. And perhaps just what we need at this stage of human development. The earth is full already! Why would we call what seems to be naturally increasing within humanity in an overpopulated world "sinister" or "evil"? Especially when the people outside the norms have so much to offer? My world is a better place because of them! AND they never have to worry about unintentionally adding to earth's population count.

Just some thoughts.

On Truth and Grace

Recently, a thirty-something young man shared his pain with me. I could tell he was deeply wounded, feeling shut out of the inner workings of an entity that mattered to him. He was not only representing his own pain, but also that of others. 

I managed to listen with little comment, mostly asking questions to better understand. I could tell his points were well-rehearsed: I was not the first to hear the list of injustices he has endured. Apparently, talking about them previously has done nothing to lessen his sense of injustice, more to hone his points. Now he has practiced his delivery one more time.

Listening is a skill I am still working on. It is an act of faith, believing there is power in it, that I don't have to somehow come up with words of wisdom in response to a flow of words coming my direction in order to make a difference. On this occasion I did better than sometimes. While I am aware of perspectives that place others in a better light than he casts them in, he was not open to hearing words to that effect and I managed to refrain from sharing them.

A few days earlier I had a very different conversation with another young man around the same age. In that exchange, I was defeated by my companion's well-developed debating skills multiple times. He asked me pointed questions, rejected my responses as not answering those questions, and then shot down my subsequent attempts to respond as evidence of my flawed thinking. And I let it happen. I was not up to verbal sparring at his level, and I didn't care if he "won." I have no need for his approval of my "truth."^ I like that he finds me a worthy opponent for the verbal jousting he so obviously enjoys. And the fact that he sometimes attacked a position I had not taken in the moment let me know my influence goes beyond what I actually say. Whether he was harking back to previous exchanges or had simply built up a caricature of my worldview in his mind, he wasn't far enough off from my actual thinking for me to protest. He set up "truth" on my behalf and then shot it down as false. But -- and this is an important point -- actual Truth was unmoved by his arguments. Truth is enduring. It's not as though God flickers in and out of existence depending on the strength of atheists' arguments. 

I don't know how valid my own "truth" is, but having someone shoot down that "truth" as logically flawed doesn't seem to have harmed it any. Rather, I am pleased that my young friend is aware of someone in his world who doesn't accept the "truth" taught in the bubble where he mainly dwells. Because I am part of his life, even though our paths cross infrequently, he has thought about why he believes the way he does and why I am wrong. That is not a bad thing from my point of view. Next he needs to figure out how I continue to believe as I do despite his bullet-proof arguments.

This morning I read in Titus 3 advice for believers "to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone" (verse 2) because "at one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived, and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures" (verse 3) I have thirty-plus years on my recent partners in conversation. I have been where they are: angry at being excluded; convinced that I could change someone's "truth" to better reflect my own through logical arguments. I don't want to go back there. At this point in my life, I need to focus more on being peaceable, considerate, and gentle toward everyone.

An article from evangelicalism I read recently talked about the struggle to balance truth and grace. Too much truth without grace is hard and unkind. Too much grace without truth is mushy and useless. We need to find the delicate balance between the two. (There was no delineation between capital T Truth and each individual's grasp of "truth" in that article. Rather, the author spoke of "objective truth," which is apparently knowable, but still somehow not accepted by everyone.)

The concern for balance between truth and grace may be valid, but it leaves out the fact that grace without truth is almost, if not completely, impossible to offer. My personal "truth" slips out in various ways as I live my life. For example, people may listen to my words and notice my vocabulary doesn't include "coarse language." They may then presume I am opposed to such language and assign that "truth" to me whether it fits or not, because it fits other people who have schooled them in this area. There is no reason for me to verbalize my ambivalent and changing views on the topic. That is not a conversation they are looking to have. 

Whatever my standards for my own speech, that doesn't mean I am bothered by the language others use.^^ I may be full of grace on the subject, but people can still think I am judging them in my mind and respond to me as though I had spoken the words they have heard from others whom they think are just like me.

I have no idea how much "truth" in such areas people pick up as we interact. I am confident, however, that enough is transmitted that focusing my intentional communication completely on grace to the best of my ability will still land me farther from the grace end of the truth-grace continuum than I would like to be. Not only does my own life and speech lean naturally toward "truth," but also, as a Christian in the Bible belt, I tend to get lumped in with the rigid "truth" that tends to characterize all religion. People presume they know what I believe as a Christian without bothering to ask questions and truly listen to my answers.

True grace is not an easy, spineless response to others. It requires considerable effort to see people, accept them, and forgive them. There is a reason God's grace has so frequently been described as amazing.

Titus chapter 3 goes on to say that "when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy." Kindness and love, not truth-telling and judgment. And mercy! I am not there yet in living exclusively in kindness, love, and mercy, but it is a goal worth pursuing.

^Disclaimer #1: I am mostly putting "truth" in quotes here. I believe in absolute truth -- Truth with a capital T. I do not believe that I have a handle on that Truth. My "truth" and every other person's falls short of that absolute Truth, which I see as approachable, but far beyond human comprehension.

^^Disclaimer #2: All exchanges described here, real and potential, are between adults. One of the most freeing moments of my life was when my youngest child moved into adulthood and I realized I was no longer responsible for parenting anyone, including policing the language of others.

Homosexuality -- Where I Stand and Why (from March 2014)

Note: I posted these words to the forum called NazNet.com in March 2014. I am reposting them here with only light grammatical editing for the purpose of preservation and reference. Eight years later, my thoughts on the subject are basically the same. The biggest difference is more extensive exposure to members of the LGBTQ+ community who are faithfully serving God and their faith communities. I have greatly benefited from the spiritual insight I have found among them.

From March 2014:

I have been asked several times to provide biblical support for my position on homosexuality and gay marriage. This post is intended to address that issue.

First, I need to clearly state my position on the matter: I believe that the question of sexual ethics for 
Christians experiencing exclusively same-sex attraction can be answered only from within the community of those experiencing such attraction. The larger Christian community must refrain from trying to determine God’s will for people whose experiences they have never experienced. So, to the question, "Are same-gender sexual relationships a sin?" my response is, "I don't know. It's not my sin; it's not my temptation."

Second, having exposed myself to the words of those living in this tension, I am seeing a rising number of Christian gays concluding that God can and does bless committed, monogamous, loving, same-gender relationships – marriage. In keeping with my previously stated position, I respect the long, difficult journey that has brought them to this place and support them in this conclusion.

But, people ask, what about the Bible? Are we to set aside clear biblical teaching that 
homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord simply because some people who obviously are unable to 
take an objective viewpoint are willing to do so?

Yes. We already set aside clear biblical teaching. All the time. Leviticus? We already pick and choose 
among the many regulations there. We keep those that make sense in our current times and set aside 
those that don’t. And that practice started before the canon was even closed. In Acts 15 Peter said to 
those trying to press the levitical law on new believers, “[W]hy do you try to test God by putting on 
the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” The Jerusalem church then boiled the law down to four regulations, one of which -- consuming meat "polluted by idols" -- Paul later addressed with a "live and let live" approach. They didn't even include the most long-lasting sign of covenant with God on the list -- circumcision.

The thing is, the law of God is summed up by Jesus as containing two central elements – love God; love others. If you do this, you are fulfilling the law. It is a message repeated throughout the Old and New Testaments. Is there any lack of love involved in eating bacon? Not toward others, as far as I can see. Toward God only if you see O.T. dietary restrictions as essential to demonstrating love for God, a litmus test, so to speak. But Genesis tells us, and Romans and Hebrews repeat, that what pleases God is not rule-keeping but faith and trust. “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Sometimes such belief includes a faith that God cares about a lot of other things more than bacon. And maybe even more than the anatomy of sexual relationships. (A question which, again, I would leave to those for whom this is a personal issue.) When works are considered as a basis for judgment in the Bible, as is often the case, the question almost always boils down to how one treats "the least of these". (If you need specific scripture references here, there are plenty.)

One needs to ask, Does gay courtship and marriage violate the law of love? If so, in what way? It offends the sensitivities of many people. Does it show a lack of love toward those offended by it? Do we all need to live in such a way that our freedom never offends another person? Is that even possible? At what cost should people avoid activities that offend others? That is a question each of us must prayerfully consider concerning our various choices.

But what about the New Testament? people ask. Even after Christ was resurrected and salvation by faith was fully established, the prohibition against homosexual relationships continued.

My response to that is three-fold.

1. There are multiple instructions in the New Testament epistles that Christians don’t follow. In our 
own (Wesleyan) tradition we ordain women for ministry. And we are soft toward the sin of divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus clearly defined it as adultery. With or without Old Testament support, we set aside clear instructions from the New Testament. To choose this one issue as the "last stand" against compromise is more indicative of our personal prejudice than any true Bible scholarship.

2. There is no definition offered as to what is meant by homosexuality in the NT passages. Was Paul talking about a committed, mutual, monogamous relationship between two adults? Or did he have in mind a practice that victimized and dehumanized the weak?

3. There is no reference to exclusive same-sex attraction as an issue for believers. But today this is indeed an issue. We have many testimonies of young people who were raised to believe that homosexuality is a choice and a sin and were devastated to discover same-sex attraction within their own beings, completely unbidden and without remedy. This goes way beyond whatever Paul so casually dropped into his lists of obvious sins. This is unbidden desire in place of the desire Paul regarded as normal and to be addressed in non-sinful ways by Christians – “it is better to marry than to burn,” as the KJV renders 1 Corinthians 7:9.

Once those asking questions explain why I’m wrong on the biblical front, they pull out 2,000 years of church tradition. How can I discount all that history? Can the church possibly have been wrong for that long?

I don’t know. We seem to be dealing with something unprecedented – young people who make a commitment to God long before puberty gradually realizing that not only are they Christian, but they are also gay. Where are the stories of this happening all through the last two millennia? Where was 
this dealt with in the early church councils? In the Reformation? In the 1950s? When did the homosexuals “out there” suddenly become “our kids,” trying desperately to figure out what’s the matter with them, how they ended up in such a situation?

I am reminded of the passage from Isaiah 43:18-19:

“Forget the former things;
do not dwell on the past.
See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the wilderness
and streams in the wasteland. (NIV)

There does seem to be at least a little precedence to setting the past aside when dealing with the possibility that God may be doing a new thing in our midst.

On the Power of Nice

In the past few years, I have left behind much of the evangelical guilt that for so long crushed my soul. Whether it was a stated goal of “making more and better disciples” (sending a clear message that whatever level of discipleship we were at wasn't good enough) or frequent calls to pray more, read the Bible more, evangelize more, or attend church more, the overriding message was that whatever we were doing wasn't enough. Never enough.

Of the many blog feeds I read on a regular basis, only a handful are connected to that old evangelical world of guilt. A recent article from Relevant magazine had me checking the source. It seemed out of step with the typical message from that editorial team. In this case, the “not good enough” message was that simply being a good person – kind, even loving – would never attract anyone to Christ.

This is, of course, not a new message for me. In a world where nothing is ever good enough, being a nice person certainly isn't going to earn any gold stars, and the writer of that article is far from the first person to explain this to me. His words stirred up all the internal protests of old.

What is the basis of this conclusion? The author notes that when someone is kind, even loving, toward him or his family, he thinks it's wonderful, but he doesn't tag that person as a Christian, just as a nice person. If he personally doesn't associate kindness with Christianity, why would anyone else?

It is interesting. For many years, I fretted over my inability to be a “soul-winner.” I tried my best to witness and swing conversations around to spiritual matters. I found it impossible to do without coming across as beyond awkward and alienating people. Maybe that is because I am a terrible Christian. Maybe it is because I am not comfortable with making other people uncomfortable and sabotaging my relationships. (If I were a better Christian, I suppose witnessing to others would not sabotage my relationships, but despite all my best efforts I could never get there.) 

In all my life, I have just one memory of someone introducing me to another person as a “real Christian.” It surprised me since I had never discussed my faith with that person. All I had ever done was express an interest in his life, in his pain and grief. That's it. I was nice to him. And I tried to speak  with kindness to and about other people in his presence.

At the time of the introduction we were standing in an evangelical church. This man and his friend were waiting in line to pick up a box of groceries. I was simply hanging out with the people in line, not particularly contributing anything to the food distribution effort. There was an implication in his words that not all who are involved in that church or maybe any church are “real Christians.” Not that there are sinners sneaking in, but that those who profess to be saints might not be the genuine article. Why would he doubt the genuineness of active church members and label me as the real thing? What was the difference? Certainly not my ability to verbalize my faith! The only possible difference I could think of is that he saw kindness and compassion in me that he didn't see in those whose Christianity he doubted.

I have been thinking about the Relevant article for a couple of days. As it has hovered in the back of my mind, I have noticed again how mean Christians are on social media. Someone in a Facebook group is struggling in her marriage. The other women in the group rally around her and say, “Walk away from that bum! You deserve better!” I can't imagine the disgust that would come my way if I gently pointed out that the marriage might be worth fighting for. Yes, it's a rebound relationship and maybe progressed too quickly, but it seems there is good there, that maybe my Facebook friend is being a little overly sensitive, and maybe counseling could help. Is it kind to advise someone to throw away their marriage without encouraging her to step back and see if there is something salvageable in it? No one in the group knows the husband personally. How can they so easily discount any efforts he might be putting into the relationship? It hasn't been so long since we were hearing how wonderful he was. And her current complaints don't strike me as signs that the marriage needs to end. Why does the group have so little compassion for the husband and hope for the marriage to survive and thrive?

In another FB group someone is unhappy with the conservative church they are attending. The group comes together and shouts, “Walk away! These losers aren't worth your effort! Drive however far you need to get from your local community to find a more progressive faith community!”

On Twitter someone tells a story of a seminary professor making offensive comments about a Bible passage. Progressive Christian Twitter takes up arms to drive that professor out of Dodge. “Report him! Such comments are horrible! He must be a horrible person! Who is he? I'll take him out myself!”

A friend once said, “Never underestimate the power of nice,” but the author of the Relevant article doesn't associate “nice” with Christianity. The message is that a person encountering niceness wouldn't know what lay behind it. I wonder. Is the article perhaps also a commentary on how unlikely people are to associate Christianity with kindness?

Jesus told his disciples that people would recognize their connection to him by their love. (see John 13:35) Why do people assert that love will never be enough to make people think we are associated with Jesus, that we're obviously going to have to tell them (even if they don't ask) or they'll never know?

There are several questions here: 

1) Can people be consistently loving, good, and kind without knowing Christ? 

2) Is genuine loving kindness rare enough for people to be surprised by it and wonder what lies behind it? 

3) Can people know Christ and still show a marked lack of love and compassion in their lives?

I would say “yes” to the first question, but find it unlikely in anyone who hasn't gone deep spiritually. It requires a certain level of faith that life works best when we focus more on the interests of others than our own interests. That is what Jesus taught. Some have discovered that truth by taking other paths, but it is rare even in Christianity. The drive to look out for our own interests at the price of harming others is strong.

The second question is one we can each assess in our own world. How many people do you personally know who are characterized by kindness and consideration toward other people in their words and actions – to those present and not present? I have occasionally been surprised when a Christian I have seen as consistently kind and gentle exposes, in an unguarded moment, a deep vein of bitterness in their soul toward someone. I blink a couple of times and hold my tongue, but it throws me. Does everyone have areas of rancor in their innermost beings? Is there hope for healing in those areas? My friend who noted the unexpected “power of nice” may be onto something. “Nice” that permeates someone's entire being may be rare indeed. Sometimes I wonder if it exists anywhere? When I do run across love and compassion, it makes me think the one showing it, whether intentionally or not, is validating the truth found in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As for the third question, I'm not the one to pass judgment on the connection others have to Christ. I will let those outside the church assess the attractiveness of such Christians while treasuring that one moment when someone described me as a “real Christian” based on how nice I had been to him and others. I pray I may live up to such an assessment. Having walked away from the guilt-laden atmosphere of evangelicalism, I am willing to let my life speak for itself. Jesus said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” I have concluded that the act of following is my first and best strategy for making a difference in my world.

Do I talk about my faith? Uhm, well, that's what I'm doing right now. If you have made it this far, I presume you are interested in such matters. Faith is one of my favorite topics, right up there with books and gardening. But part of putting other people's interests ahead of my own is talking about what interests them! And many people don't want to discuss religion, particularly those who aren't religious.

Faith is part of who I am, an essential part. I read about it, write about it, talk about it. But I no longer try to talk about it to someone who doesn't want to discuss it. I'm nicer than that. And one should never underestimate the power of nice.