Pope Francis - We Should Take Lessons

I like history.  So, although I do not regularly listen to or read any news, I did, to a certain degree, keep track of Pope Francis’ visit to the US.  And I’m so glad I did.  I got a powerful  view of what Christianity should look like.  I’m not Catholic, but I can certainly say that, from my perspective, Pope Francis’ behavior and words reflect so much more closely the God we believe in than the actions and speeches of far too many of our U.S. protestant leaders.

I’m sure many would disagree with me.  But I challenge anyone to carefully review the assertions of our Christian leaders.  Don’t just look at the issues they speak about; opinions with which you agree.  Look at the entire context of their speech, ignoring the issue or person about whom they are speaking. 

They talk about themselves; what they have done.  They make sure to emphasize how they are badmouthed; how they are mistreated and discriminated against because they are Christian.  With disappointing regularity it’s all about them.  They talk about others or to them in disrespectful terms.  They make statements about others that are glaring examples of a judgmental nature. 

I also encourage anyone to go one step further.  Try and find documentation of how frequently these leaders humble themselves and actually go to those in need.  I’m not talking about at the time/s of some natural disaster or war contrived by a few.  I’m referring to places like those the Pope has taken time to visit. He met with abuse victims.  He went into a prison.

I found that particularly touching and especially illuminating.  Pope Francis  reassured the inmates that “all of us have something we need to be cleansed of, or purified from.”  Wow!  Here is the religious leader of an estimated 1.2 billion (with a “B”) people.  He isn’t just a national figure.  He is a world figure.  AND, he is a head of state.  Nonetheless, in addition to the White House and the United Nations, he included a prison in his itinerary.  I remind myself that this is the same man who imitated his Lord once by washing  the feet of both the elderly and the young.  So, this visit is another demonstration of a man trying to live out his faith .

One of the huge number of people at the Mass in Philadelphia concisely expressed my point of view, saying, “It’s a(n) historic moment...This is a guy who has caught the attention of everyone.  He’s everyone’s pope.  Non-Catholics, even atheists.” 

And another verified my contention that the Pope’s speech and activities do not lift himself up; they mirror the savior he believes in, “We are having a blessed time.  The weather is beautiful, the people are beautiful.  All these Christians who want to celebrate the good news of Jesus Christ.”  

Leaving Church Frustrated and Angry - Over Healthcare

So, the 65 year old mother of one of the guys in my small group at church has breast cancer.  Last week she was admitted to the ICU of the hospital in the Florida community where she lives. 

It has been difficult for her son who lives here, a good 10 hours away.  This is especially true since his father is disabled and in a wheelchair.   When he first learned his mother had cancer he had hoped to get there for a good visit and see what he could do for both parents.  He now has no idea how he can possibly go unless the worst happens.  Why?  Because of medical expenses for his 12 year old daughter.

Several times she was sent home from school due to an acute headache and resulting illness.  At one point in time she had to be taken to the emergency room.  Her speech had become slightly slurred, her vision was somewhat affected and she had some numbness down one arm.  An MRI showed no brain tumor.  However, in due course, she was diagnosed as having severe migraines. 

But surely, medical insurance would pay for most of the emergency room visit and an MRI on a child, right?  Absolutely.  Just as soon as an annual deductible of $3,000 is met.  To those who have always had excellent medical insurance coverage and/or have $3,000 that doesn’t sound horrible, does it?  BUT, some, even with both husband and wife working, simply cannot afford $3,000 per year in medical bills.  And this young family is in this category. 

Later, when I had an opportunity to talk with the couple privately, I asked if they minded sharing with me how a family handles medical expenses that cannot be paid all at once.  Here’s what I was told. 

Previously you received a bill and you paid the hospital whatever amount you were able to each month.  Now, unfortunately, the hospital does not do its own billing.  A third party administrator does that.  AND, you must pay 8% interest on any unpaid balance.  I repeated that in order to be sure I heard correctly.   Sadly, and what I think should be to our extreme shame, I had. 

They went on to say that because the interest on their credit card is less than 8% they had paid the bill in full and now had to work to pay off that credit card balance of $2,800.  Of course, come January 1^st the deductible for their medical insurance would start over at $3,000.  So, should there be any other medical bills in 2016 that are beyond their ability to pay immediately, that amount would have to be added to this balance of $2,800.

Now you know why I left church totally irritated.  Not good, I know.  But truthful.  At issue for me is the fact that, all too frequently, I hear it proudly asserted that we are a “Christian” nation.  We Christians believe we have received grace, although we do not, in any way, deserve it.  We believe in loving others as ourselves. 

I left church wondering just how many of the Christians I know would want to:

·       Have several frightening incidences concerning their child’s health?

·       Worry about not only paying medical bills, but paying interest on any balance?

·       Have that worry while also having a very ill parent?

·       Wonder if they could afford to go visit that sick parent and be unsure, only because of debt incurred while trying to get help for their child?

I dare say none. 

So what has our Christian stance been with respect to healthcare?  We have bought into the very non-Christian idea, promoted by Christian leaders, that some people don’t pay taxes, but want healthcare; that they should have to pay something into the system in order to get something.  (These Christian leaders are referring to income taxes, but fail to make that clear.  They don’t mention that these people pay sales tax; that would weaken their argument and some Christians might not get as indignant as needed.)  We have bought into the idea that we don’t want to pay for these; they really don’t deserve it. 

We have NOT given thought about those who are just like how many of us would describe ourselves:  people who work hard, who are raising (or have raised) good kids, who attend church regularly, who pay income taxes.  The difference is that they have less than we do.  We assume it is their fault.  The unspoken assumption is that others are guilty until proven innocent. 

We do such a pathetic job of using the intellect we believe God Himself gave us.  We don’t stop to consider that maybe some are gifted for jobs that, although critical to all of us, simply do not pay well.  We don’t stop to consider maybe they are helping (or have been helping) parents who are sick and/or disabled.  We don’t stop to consider that in addition to worrying about medical expenses, these families have no idea how they will help their child(ren) go to college. 

And it’s all because we are so afraid someone will get something s/he does not deserve.  And we don’t want any of what we’ve worked for to be taken from us.  Now, although we believe in always giving thanks, we don’t believe it applies to being thankful that we were given the intellect, the right parents, the educational opportunities AND ongoing health to accomplish what we think we have. 

So, if I do a school exercise of comparing and contrasting, just how might we Christians compare to Jesus Himself; the One for whom we say we live; the One who gave up everything for us, although we say we were and are undeserving? 

To get an honest, straightforward answer I think I would like to talk to non-Christians or atheists; you know, the ones we Christians say just don’t understand because they don’t believe in the God we do.  Were I one to bet, I would bet they would see no real similarities between us and Jesus.  But I sincerely imagine they would see our behavior as completely contrasting that of Jesus.   And you know something, I feel very sure I would win that bet. 

But I do know one thing for sure.  I know that no one of any other faith, no one who is agnostic, and no one who is atheist could be more disgusted with Christians than I.  And I include myself.  I do so because I have not been assertively adamant with Christian friends at church or anywhere else about just how selfish we are and about just how NON-Christian we really are.  Shame, shame on me!!!

My Brother's Suggestion

Okay, my brother is like super, super smart.  You know, the off the chart kind of smart.  Just keep that in mind.

So, a while back, I was asking his opinion about programs that type what I am saying, exactly as my Android phone does for texting or sending emails.  I was looking for ways to continue my writing "therapy" as my neck problems now frequently make sitting at the computer really troublesome.  My intent is to do my best to "journal" my journey towards eventual neck surgery, as opposed to the alternative.

So, he explains these programs to me, but says he wants to make another suggestion.  "What's that?', I ask.

"A verbal journal", replies he and proceeds to tell me how to record my voice and send it as an email, post it on Allan's Facebook and/or post it on my blog.  Who knew?

I'm intrigued, of course, being the very techy person I am.   But accepting that I am not the most succinct person, I want to know about editing.  "How would I go about editing?", I innocently inquire.

"Well, that would be difficult."

"So, what does that mean exactly?" I persist.

Knowing it is I to whom he is speaking, he still responds with "I guess you'd really just want to get it right the first time."

I did mention just how smart he is right?

Commentary About Healthcare

Notes:

 ~  I wrote this on August 31st but am just now able to get it posted.

~  This post is reflective of my frustration and disgust with not only our healthcare system, but also the point of view of so many of my fellow Christians.  

~  If you are not a Christian, nor hold any religious beliefs, this post should still not offend you.  In fact, if you are as baffled by and as sick of us Christians as I am, read on!

Sunday morning and I’m ironing a blouse for church.  I recall that just a few years ago Trista spent one summer cleaning houses and for one extremely wealthy family, doing the ironing.  I think back on the various types of work she has done and a recent experience when she was ill that I found especially frustrating. 

Her first job was during her senior year of high school, working at a local pharmacy.  Since that start, before getting more permanent jobs and in between, she did tutoring, taught part-time  at 3 different colleges around the Cincinnati area, provided all day childcare, worked as a waitress, and taught summer classes.  I feel like I am forgetting some job that should be part of that list, but my point is made, I think. 

She worked hard enough during her college years to be offered a fellowship.  So she spent two years completing her master’s degree while teaching classes, and working weekends at Pedro’s Restaurant.  

She spent years teaching at Cape Fear Community College.  Currently, in addition to teaching her own Zumba classes, she is also a Zumba Jammer, meaning she trains Zumba instructors.  She teaches a number of different types of fitness classes at the YMCA and the Hospital Employees’ Fitness Center, has personal training clients, and if necessary, fills in at the desk of the Health Center.

Even if she were not my daughter I would call the person who has been willing to do all this as a hard worker.  So the fact that not long ago she was turned away from an Urgent Care center because her type of medical insurance was not accepted and had to go searching for a facility that would accept her insurance I had found particularly exasperating. 

But not wanting to begin my day on a frustrating note and having finished ironing my blouse, I let it go and discipline myself to stop thinking about what I see as the unfairness of it all.

My small group at church are all younger than I.  We begin “class” with prayer, asking if anyone has a particular prayer request.  Oddly enough, medical benefits are mentioned.  One group member has been offered a new job she would like to take.  But, she is concerned about medical benefits.  Her husband is currently the victim of downsizing and is looking for a new position.  Both she and he are most worried about having medical insurance; the income being secondary. 

Yet another young woman went through a fairly recent employment change.  For her also, the source of anxiety had been medical benefits.  Although literally a “small” group, at least five in the group have been in the same dilemma at some point in time. 

The Small Group ends and I go to the sanctuary to attend service.  While waiting, I once again, like I have so frequently in the past, question the current assertion that we are a Christian nation, built on Christian principles.  I deliberately set aside the instances of hard working people I personally know who have been apprehensive about being without medical coverage.  Likewise, I refuse to consider the man I know, still working after 45+ years, whose contractually provided medical insurance was simply taken away.  He had to withdraw $26,000 from retirement savings for medical expenses. 

I focus instead on just what “Christian” is.  I look around at the symbols of the Christian faith: the cross, the stained glass windows depicting Jesus interacting with others, the Bible alongside the hymnal on the back of the pew in front of me.  I contemplate the words associated with the Christian belief and concentrate on the one most often used to define this religion, “grace”.    When speaking of “grace” we emphasize that it is “undeserved”.  Grace absolutely excludes “merit”. 

On their own, my thoughts drift back to fears of some in Small Group and to Trista’s experience.  I think on the fact that I hear universal healthcare is unfair because some do not pay taxes.  So, if I understand correctly, we, the Christian nation, determine a basic human need on merit, on what a person contributes.  I look back at the cross in front of the sanctuary.  Thinking of our society outside the church, I see, superimposed on that cross, the faces of America’s founding fathers; and the U.S. Constitution.  My thoughts shift quickly to another principle of Christianity; that of our sinfulness.  I get confused. 

We, as a “Christian” nation, rather than use the person of Jesus and the foundational principle of grace to define Christianity, we use the persons who founded our country and the document they conceived, to determine our actions.  And in wanting to punish those we judge and perceive to be undeserving, we also mistreat those we probably would count as worthy and eligible were we not so busy pridefully touting our Christianity and using as proof our heritage born from men; men who Jesus, when looking down from that cross, saw them just as He sees us, as flawed and sinful people totally undeserving of anything.  

I’m still confused.  But I am glad to be in church where I can glimpse what true Christianity looks like; every human equally loved and appreciated, everyone being of equal status and our realization of the truth that God does not categorize any of us as deserving.  

A Conversation with Natalia

NOTE:  I wrote this on June 2nd and am just now getting around to posting it.  The governor of Texas has since signed into law the right of gun license holders to carry concealed handguns on public college campuses. Some of the state's top universities opposed the bill.  So the law does allow for college presidents to designate "gun-free zones".  Our own state of North Carolina had already passed a law allowing guns to be taken into bars and public parks. 

If you are a gun rights advocate, please do not bother to leave a comment should you stumble upon this post.  I ask that because if you read what I have written you should see that I am sharing another way to look at an issue.  If that does not work for you, just remember I have the right to express my point of view.  

If you are not at all religious, just skip the last two paragraphs.  I left my opinion about some Christians and their view of gun rights last because it doesn't have to be part of the post.  I just wanted to express my views about that issue as well and thought it worked out okay by adding it at the end.    

I awoke this morning thinking of the tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary. I assume that is because today is the first National Gun Violence Awareness Day.  I began to think about conversations between grandparents and grandchildren over the growing up years, conversations the grandparents of the little victims will never get to have.  The following is one I would like to have had with Natalia once she was able to understand abstract concepts.

Grandma, did you know today is the first National Gun Violence Awareness Day?

As a matter of fact, Sweetheart, I did.  But how do you know that?

I saw it on the internet when I was going to Facebook to see if Grandpa had posted anything new.  It made me remember how hard you cried when those little kids were shot at Sandy Hook Elementary.  That really upset you, didn’t it?

Oh my goodness, yes.  And it still does, Natalia honey. 

I had dinner at my friend Erica’s house the other day.  Her dad was complaining about people who want more laws for gun control.  He said that guns don’t kill, people do and that if gun control is increased it won’t prevent criminals from having guns.  That’s actually true, isn’t it, Grandma?

It is absolutely true.  However, from my perspective that is not how we view other laws.

What do you mean?

Well, I can give you a couple of examples.  Let’s start with background checks.  Before I could volunteer at the hospital they had to do a criminal background check on me, right?  The hospital needed to know that they were not putting anyone at risk of harm by allowing me to help work with very sick babies. They have that responsibility.  So I had to go through an application process that included checking on my background.  That provided valuable information about whether or not it was appropriate for me to be given the opportunity to volunteer. 

I have to say that I just do not see any difference when it comes to waiting periods and background checks for gun ownership.  Shouldn’t we expect that, as a society, we have the responsibility to attempt to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who simply should not have them?  Perhaps I’m wrong, but honestly, sweetheart, I cannot think of another area in which we throw up our hands and say laws should not be in place because either those who do not obey the law anyway will just find a way around it or that it is taking away the rights of those who do obey the law.

Like what kinds of other laws?

We can’t get a driver’s license without proof of a certain level of competence to drive a vehicle and knowledge of road safety.  We have speed limits, road signs and lines on the road in order to protect drivers, passengers and pedestrians.  We have reduced speed limits in school areas.  We have laws against driving under the influence.  It is my understanding that all states have what is called a “dram shop law”.  That law says that a lawsuit can be brought against an establishment that serves alcoholic drinks if a patron of that restaurant or bar gets drunk and is in an accident.  Depending on the evidence, the establishment can be held accountable.  The danger to others of a driver impaired by alcohol is understood and there is an attempt to prevent harm and or loss.  

Another example is found in the pharmacy.  We realize that some medications can be addictive so we have laws that restrict their use.  The Drug Enforcement Administration regulations put responsibility on doctors for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled drugs.  But regulations also address the responsibilities of the pharmacist who fills the prescription.  The pharmacist is to be vigilant to verify that the medication is for a “legal medical purpose”.  Since it was discovered how to use decongestants like Sudafed to make hard core drugs, I am required to show ID and sign a form in order to purchase a bottle of Sudafed.  Law compels a pharmacist to ensure this process is followed.

Let’s use just these two examples and apply the logic that is the basis for argument against gun regulation.  Given the very true assertion that a person, not a gun, actually kills, then isn’t it also true that neither a car involved in an accident, nor a decongestant used other than according to directions are not at fault for killing or injuring?  Isn’t it true that the person driving a car or the one who is making hard core drugs must accept responsibility?  How often, in reality, honey, is a person NOT going to be involved?  Perhaps in very infrequent occurrences like being hit by lightning.  So, how is it that stating such a very obvious, widespread truth is considered a valid defense against some gun regulation?  Why is it not the basis on which decisions are made regarding legislation for or against just about everything else? 

Of course, the response to that question, Natalia honey, is going to be that cars and Sudafed are not protected by the Second Amendment.  Like we’ve said, true.  However, the fact that we have had additional amendments to our Constitution over time certainly indicates how dynamic society is.   We’ve had to address very major issues such as slavery, the right to vote, succession to the Presidency, etc.  We have had to view our Constitution as a dynamic document, one to assure freedoms and protect rights as society changes and injustices and unaddressed issues have been identified.  Why do we not see that accepting the changes in “arms” since the addition of the Second Amendment and responding accordingly does not have to mean the right is taken away?  Why shouldn’t we recognize the peril to everyone when a gun is sold to anyone without an attempt to determine how suitable that person is to possess a firearm?  If we expected that, how would we be treating the person selling the gun any differently than we treat the bartender, the doctor and the pharmacist?   How would that be taking anyone’s Second Amendment right away?

So laws would treat different dangers to all of us the same way, right?  That seems fair.  That wouldn’t take away the right of people like Erica’s dad to have his gun, would it?   Well, guns.  He has a couple. 

No, I don’t think it would. 

So, Grandma, why aren’t people like Erica’s dad okay with having background checks required for anyone who wants to buy a gun, no matter where the gun is being sold?  Wouldn’t that be good for them, all the people who would have no problem getting a gun even after they are investigated?  Wouldn’t that be something they should want too, to at least not make it easier for criminals to get guns?

That makes sense to me. 

And Grandma, what about guns that can shoot a lot of bullets really fast? 

What about them? 

I understand all about the Second Amendment and all that.  But when the Constitution was written they didn’t know how powerful guns would get.  Just like you, I’m not saying that people have to give up their right to their guns.  I’m just wondering why they insist on having the kind of gun that was used to shoot all those little kids at school?  If there hadn’t been that type of gun for sale in the stores or at shows, maybe not so many kids would have been killed. Isn’t that something else that would be good for all of us, especially if they don’t make people go through background checks?  The criminals or the poor people that are sick and need help at least wouldn’t be able to harm or kill as many people at one time.  Wouldn’t that be another way we could compromise?  So Erica’s dad could still have every right to guns, he just wouldn’t be able to have one like armies use.  But our army would have them, so really I don’t think he would be able to say he needs that kind.  And if they aren’t sold he would be on an equal ground with everybody else who has a gun. 

Natalia, sweetheart, some people really believe that they have to protect themselves against the army and the government.  So for them, your solution would be the last thing they would agree to. 

But Grandma!  Really?!  Do they think they could right now win a fight with the army?  They don’t have drones, rocket missiles and tanks.  No way could they protect themselves against that stuff.

What you say makes a lot of sense.  I don’t know if they would consider your thoughts, though.  But tell me what would be done with all the high powered guns on the market now? 

Well, I can think of something. 

.

Like what?

No one who already has any of those kinds of guns would have to give them up.  That’s too complicated and everyone would just argue and not agree anyway.  They could keep them.  But no one could buy anymore.  Instead, the army would buy them.  The army could also buy those that are in warehouses or are just now being manufactured.   No one would lose money that way.  That’s a solution.

Well, any change has to start somewhere.  That sounds like a good beginning and a fair one.  Can you think of any reason why that wouldn’t go over?

Maybe the gun manufacturers make more money on those guns?  I don’t know, but wouldn’t they cost more than regular guns?  So, if they do, companies who make the guns wouldn’t like that idea, would they?

I certainly doubt it, sweetheart.

I’m only one person.  And I’m just a kid.  Maybe if a lot of people tried to think of ideas together we could come up with something. 

But, there is one other thing that I REALLY, REALLY don’t understand, Grandma.  You know how we Christians talk about Jesus on the Cross?  I’ve been thinking about it.  Didn’t Jesus have every right to get down and not die?  If He chose not to; if He was willing to give up His life, why do so many grown-ups who are Christians talk so much about their rights to have guns, whatever kind they want and as many as they want?  We’re supposed to be like Him and love others more than we love ourselves.  So why won’t they give up even just a little?   Wouldn’t they want to see people be willing to do at least something to try and make little kids safer at school if it were their kids or grandchildren who died?  Wouldn’t that be a loving, unselfish thing to do?  I just don’t understand.

I’m afraid, Natalia honey, that I don’t understand either.  Not at all.

Facing A New Stage In Life

Somewhere along life’s path of the last few years I found I have a number of cervical spine issues.  I was initially told I would be a very poor candidate for neck surgery; that the result would be limited mobility afterwards. A recent check up with the doctor found I now also have a number of problems in my lower spine.  I was told I am slowly, over time, becoming paralyzed.  I asked about a time frame, but was told there is no way to tell.  So, it is now suggested that I meet with a surgeon in order to make an informed decision regarding surgery; that perhaps limited mobility might be preferable to a loss of strength and stamina.  Of course, I am hoping the surgeon will see things differently.  In the meantime, I have to decide what to do about continuing to work, how to spend my time and energy, etc. I am doing just fine.  However, about two weeks ago I could not go the hospital for my volunteering shift.  And I wanted to go see my babies!  That’s when discouragement set in.  So, I had to give myself a pep talk, which was very helpful and just what I needed.  The following somewhat summarizes my thoughts and is an attempt to see where I am and how life might change for me.

Allan and I were once at the beach late in the afternoon, during the off season, just enjoying a walk.  We lost track of time and failed to pay attention to how quickly the sun was setting.  It seemed that all of a sudden it was difficult to see where the beach ended and the ocean began.  The access path appeared hidden to us; the entire beach and ocean seamless to our eyes.  Given that it was the Fall of the year, there weren’t any property owners in residence who were turning on house lights.  Scary!

I awoke this morning thinking of that experience.  Within a few minutes I got a mental picture of the ocean and beach as reflective of exactly where I am in life.  I see myself caught in a rip current, one that was unpredictable to me.  I saw none of the signs.  There didn’t appear to be any foam on the waves.  I didn’t see a strip of the ocean water that was different in color from the surrounding waters; nothing.  I just didn’t see it coming.    

So, I am currently swimming parallel to the shore, as I should; all the while assessing the situation in order to know when I might begin to swim towards shore.  The rip current all of a sudden seems too wide and I am getting tired.

The sounds of the ocean, the surf, the birds overhead, the swaying of the beach grass on the various mounds; all of them seem to be a chorus singing to me to stop struggling, to accept the tide; to let it take me where it will.  As if that harmony were not enough, I see that twilight is on the horizon.  This foreshadowing is frustrating and I am trying to figure out how to change the story; how to get back to the coast. The powerful wave of discouragement washes over me.  That’s when I realize my physical struggle is not as dangerous as the mental and emotional battle I might be facing.  

So, I fight the urge to abandon hope.  I need and want to see clearly what I must do when I reach the shoreline.  I must first of all accept that my life won’t be like getting to walk the firm ground near water’s edge, at least not very often.  It will more often probably be more comparable to plodding my way through the deepest part of the sand.  That walk is so much more tiring and so much slower, but it is walking nonetheless. 

As I trudge my way I will have to search the sand underneath my feet for shells that I would previously have passed over as I was walking with energy and stamina.  I will have to be looking for shells that are broken, but are still beautiful and special; shells that can make a handful of gathered shells more lovely and interesting.  I will need to think about how I can make my handful as lovely and pleasing as possible.   

   

I will have to accept that I am walking the beach at dusk; not sunrise.  And sometimes I might find myself feeling lost and unsettled just as Allan and I did that late afternoon.  I will have to wait until someone reaches out and helps me find my way.  Or I will have to wait until a light appears to show me the way.  I will have to stay focused on the fact that I can still walk somewhere on the beach.  There is still something of beauty to appreciate and enjoy.  And maybe most importantly of all, I will have to remember that those of us who are higher up on the beach can wave and encourage loved ones who are still totally immersed in the water or running with strength along its edge.   Come to think of it, further up on the beach is where the lifeguard sits, isn’t it?       

Letter to Franklin Graham

NOTE:  In the following letter I necessarily had to refer to Biblical references.  I see no other way to challenge the actions of a Christian leader without doing so.  However, the purpose of this post is not to force a religious viewpoint on anyone.  It is to voice my frustration at the behavior of an American Christian leader; to voice my opinion that we should expect actions and words to match professions of Christian faith.  It is my hope that the letter also points out what I see as a danger in allowing religious leaders, from whatever persuasion, of attempting to downplay dialogue, of portraying one viewpoint as correct and another as ignorant, and even attempting to influence the voting process.  

April 17, 2015

Mr. Graham,

I have neither expectation nor hope that you will ever see this letter.  I write it anyway.  I will feel better for having done so.  I want to be one of what I hope will be many Christians who decide to stand against how you live out your faith.

For quite a long time now I occasionally stumble upon news about you while searching for something else entirely.  And I have been both put off and baffled by your “conversation” and actions.  You speak so much about Jesus Christ.  But based on the only view I see, that of your public persona, I struggle to see any resemblance of Jesus in you.  I am trying very hard not to judge your faith as readily as you seem to judge that of others.   So I am not saying you do not have faith.  I am saying that although I might technically agree with much of your theology, it is my hope that I am living my life in such a way that it reflects the exact opposite of what you appear to stand for
.  
I recently learned that you were the guest on a talk show I do not watch and never intend to watch. However, wanting to listen for myself and form my own opinion, I googled the segment in which you took part.  In response to the question why do you think the world will not unite to stop ISIS, you stated that Muslims have infiltrated governments, especially in Washington, and are advising the White House.  When asked for the names of these Muslims your response was that you could get them, but that you did know they are there, that you had been told that by a number of people.  You quickly said that you were not saying “they” are whispering in the ear of the president.  You then continued to say they are in the halls and influence, are talking to staffers.  At that point you were interrupted by the show’s host so I do not know what your explanation/clarification, if any, was going to be.

Mr. Graham, making statements and accusations without being able to give supporting evidence is questionable, at best.  But as Christians do we not take seriously the Biblical admonition against bearing false witness?  While I am most certainly not saying that you are doing so, my question to you is still, how do you know “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that what you say is fact?  And if you cannot substantiate what you say, why would you take the chance of inadvertently bearing false witness by going on national television without unequivocal substantiation of what you say?  I further ask how and why you have contact with people in the White House?  Do these people just call you up to give you information about what is going on?  If so, why do they do so?  Or do you actively solicit reports?  And for you as well, I would ask, why?

Yet another observation I would like to make, Mr. Graham, is that you and others seem to be in the habit of confusing deductive and inductive reasoning.  Your broad, all inclusive statements about Muslims are an excellent illustration of this.  You take individual, specific examples of something and make broad, general conclusions.  In this case, you take the existence of one group of Muslims and make observations about that group applicable to all Muslims.  But such reasoning (I admit to having difficulty using this word in conjunction with such closed minded, intentional and self-serving conclusions as I believe yours to be.) can be very faulty.

To put it in other terms, Mr. Graham, let me give you an example of applying inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about us Christians.  Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas, by its name, aligns itself with the Christian faith.  According to their website’s home page, they believe “...the modern militant homosexual movement to pose a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God...”  Inductive reasoning could make untrue conclusions.  One might be as follows:  Westboro Baptist Church is a protestant church located in Kansas.   They believe homosexuality is the most obvious and present-day, at hand (clear and present) threat to America.  Using the inductive way of thinking I could easily determine that all protestant churches believe homosexuality (not terrorism, not ISIS) to be the threat we face.  A second, equally incorrect judgment based on only inductive thought could be that all Baptist churches believe homosexuality to be the imminent peril America faces.

I imagine you understand, Mr. Graham, that other resulting inductive conclusions could be made; about protestant churches in Kansas, about Baptist churches in Kansas, about protestant churches in the Midwest, etc.  I can only assume this pattern of thought is why, when asked about ISIS you answered about Muslims.  The two are synonymous to you.

I’d like to suggest that, just as vinegar added to a glass containing baking soda results in expanding bubbles, inappropriate use of inductive logic also expands, filling up the “container”, which in this case is the human mind.  But, unlike the bubbles in the glass which indicate a reaction that can be an excellent cleansing agent,  the “explosion” of thoughts resulting from such mistaken use of inductive theory can be destructive and corrosive in nature.

Your answer cast aspersions upon all Muslims, their religion, their purpose in life and their integrity. These are but a few of the negative undertones about Muslims evoked by your response. I mentioned earlier that I have difficulty seeing Jesus in you.  Here is a strong example of why I make such a bold statement.  Rather than use his public teachings to berate those scorned by the more “religious”, like the tax collectors, He ate with them.  He went into their homes.  In fact, those that He berated most often were the Pharisees, who thought they alone exemplified faith in God.

I have done my best, Mr. Graham, to ascertain whether or not you have reached out to Muslim leaders in your own country with the purpose of spending time with them in genuine discussion.  Thus far I have only found confirmation that “they” have invited you to engage in dialog; you have not approached them.  In fact, in remembrance of September 11th, 2001 Christian and Muslim leaders met in September 2002.  You were not there.  So, I have to say that I do not understand that.  Jesus, in His sermon on the mount, said “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

I believe I know what a possible response of yours would be.  You might say that immediately after that He said “Blessed are those who are persecuted for doing right.”  That is true.  However, I think, taken together, the two make sense.  I can be one who promotes peace, who encourages people getting along.  I might be persecuted for doing that.  If I am consequently victimized in any way for fostering peace, I can take comfort in the fact that I did what was right and therefore the reason for my maltreatment is commended by God.  I do not see where the verses infer any particular notice and approval by God if I am persecuted for doing the exact opposite, for doing nothing to pursue peace.  I personally think the full meaning of the message of these two verses is best seen when viewed as a causal relationship; my doing something good in the eyes of God might cause me to be discriminated against and intimidated.  It seems to me that you must see it from an entirely opposite point of view.  To me, your actions and speech give the impression that a Christian should attempt to avoid persecution by going on the offensive, by maligning one particular group.

Sadly, Mr. Graham, deciding to write this letter was not a result of just the interview to which I have been referring.  Two other actions of yours made me feel like I wanted to express my feelings towards your behavior.  One was how you responded to the shootings, both of blacks by policemen and of policemen in an apparent retaliatory action in the last year.  Your March 12th contribution to the public debate began as follows:  “Listen up - Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and everybody else.”  Although the subject matter about which you intended to speak is of critical importance, I wish to comment on only this portion of your opinion.

Do you really have no idea that beginning an opinion or thought with “Listen up” would, in many, if not most cases, immediately put people on the defensive?  Unless speaking to subordinates, such language is ill-chosen.  Used to address other adults over whom you have no authority is dismissive, condescending and insensitive.  I personally will go so far as to say that I find it arrogant, pompous pontificating.

As Christians we should know a number of Biblical principles cautioning us about the impact of our words, admonishing us to handle what we say with great care.  James 3:5-6 says “It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire.  A careless or wrongly placed word out of your mouth can do that.  By our speech we can ruin the world, turn harmony to chaos, throw mud on a reputation, send the whole world up in smoke, and go up in smoke with it, smoke straight from the pit of hell.”  My opinion seems fairly mild and generous by comparison, does it not?

Verse 17 in that same chapter three defines wisdom for us.  “Real wisdom, God’s wisdom, begins with a holy life and is characterized by getting along with others.  It is gentle and reasonable, overflowing with mercy...You can develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy its results only (emphasis NOT mine) if you do the hard work (emphasis mine) of getting along with each other, treating each other with dignity and honor.”  I like this verse best as translated in The Living Bible.  “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure and full of quiet gentleness.  Then it is peace loving and courteous.  It allows discussion and is willing to yield to others; it is full of mercy and good deeds...”  Verse 18 describes the result of adhering to such wisdom. “And those who are peacemakers will plant seeds of peace and reap a harvest of goodness.”  Mr. Graham, if I think of your “Listen up” approach, it simply does not fit the Biblical description of wisdom.  I don’t see courtesy.  I most certainly do not see mercy towards those whose loved one was shot.  Whether you view the shooting as just or unjust should not be a factor.  Do we Christians not believe one of the attributes of God is mercy?  Is it not a quality that God also requires of His people?

That being my understanding and belief, let me take a look at the question of a shooting being just or unjust.  I’ll first assume you deem a shooting, any shooting, to be justifiable because the deceased did not stop, did not heed what the police were saying.  Let me even suppose that live video shows that the deceased person did, in fact, resist arrest; did attempt to flee.  So the family sees what you see.  But let me also make clear that the suspect carried no weapon.  Can you truly not imagine how that complicates the family’s grief?  In addition to loss, the family has to feel frustration and, at times anger, towards the loved one who, had s/he listened might be alive.  And, as a parent, wouldn’t it be fairly normal to wonder if you could have done anything differently so that the result of a confrontation with police would have your child, grown or not, able to walk away?  Wouldn’t it seem more appropriate then for a Christian to want to sit with those parents; to listen when they talk about the one they have lost; to cry with them?  Isn’t that what you would want if you were in the shoes of those parents?

Now let me consider the other scenario, a scenario that unfolds like that of Eric Garner’s.  There is a video that provides indisputable confirmation that an encounter with police results in an unjust death. The family’s grief is likewise complicated by frustration and anger; those feelings directed towards authority.  And, different from the first set of circumstances, the family wants to know what can be done to redeem the value of the life lost.  They can do something.  In such a case your chastising inflicts grief upon grief, frustration upon frustration and anger upon anger.  A national voice, a Christian voice of influence, ignores an opportunity to be a peacemaker; to offer consolation regardless the situation; to promote healing; to provide wisdom and guidance for discussion.  Instead that voice disdainfully implies the fault to lie with the deceased and / or the family.

 I wish I thought you would pause and consider this, Mr. Graham.  But, straightforwardly, your comments seem so hardhearted that I am not sure you would even give my questions a fleeting thought.  

I’ve already stated that I personally do not see how your comments in any way parallel the Biblical description of wisdom.  Let me anticipate the argument of some.  They are going to say that the book of James was written to Jewish Christians.  My understanding is that is true.  However, does not the description of wisdom sound exactly like how Jesus conducted Himself?   The book of James describes it.  Jesus lived it.

There are several other actions of yours, Mr. Graham, that have nothing to do with your theology.  Before I mention those I would like to cite one last Bible verse, James 1:26.  The NIV and TLB are somewhat less direct because they use the third person.  “Those who consider themselves religious yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves and their religion is worthless.” (NIV)  “Anyone who says he is a Christian but doesn’t control his sharp tongue is just fooling himself, and his religion isn’t worth much”. (TLB)  I think New Living Translation says it best because it speaks directly to us, the reader:  “If you claim to be religious, but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself and your religion is worthless”.  (Emphasis all mine.)  Regardless of which translation, it is clearly stated that there is a direct correlation between the usefulness of one’s religion and his/her speech.  To my way of thinking this verse goes hand in hand with the warning about potential destruction caused by our words.  On the one hand our speech can render our beliefs fruitless, of no help to anyone.  Our convictions will be viewed as flat, hollow nothingness.  On the other hand, our choice of words, the timing of our words and the tone of our words can go far beyond this.  Our speech can take our faith from ineffectual to destructive.  In my opinion, Mr. Graham, you appear to be working hard, not at getting along, not at pursuing peace, but in creating a path of hurt, misunderstanding, and fear.  You are actually planting seeds of war.  How?  By predicting that it is coming to us and encouraging Christians to be ready for it. You are setting the stage, when you could be helping to write a whole new play with dialogue reflecting wisdom and goodwill.

Although it has taken considerable time and effort to write to you, I do still have a little more to say, things I know will never be seen by you, much less read.  But I feel a need to take a stand.  I want to separate myself from you and other Christians who seem to be conforming to the political world just as it is and has been.    Notice I said political world.  Should there not be a distinct difference in the manner in which Christians engage in the political process and those who do not profess to be Christians? Be assured that I am not referring to the choice of a political party or a political point of view.  The what, the political philosophy, of course can be very different from one Christian to another.  I am questioning how a political stance is taken.  When you give political commentary on Muslims, Mr. Graham, I fail to ascertain any difference whatsoever between your speech and conduct and that of the elected officials.

 I am sad to say that I truly believe if all of your voices were altered electronically so as to be unrecognizable, I would be unable to distinguish whose voice was whose.  I think I would hear exactly the same rancor.  But your “voice”, Mr. Graham, ought to stand out, not necessarily because of difference in philosophy, but in manner.  Your tone, your language, your entire explanation should be markedly dissimilar.  And that should be the case only because you profess your Christianity, not owing to your standing as a national figure or one known internationally.

 How else should your presentation be notable, regardless of the topic?  Your assertions should be easily verifiable.  Again, as Christians we are told not to bear false witness.  So we must take the time, do the research, and use our intellect to make sure we are sharing truth.  We hear it said well in our courts, “...the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

I understand, Mr. Graham, that you are planning a “Decision America Tour 2016”.  You announced this by saying:

 “America is in trouble. At 62 years of age, I’ve lived long enough to learn that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can turn this country around; no political party or politician is the answer.

The only hope for this country is Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Next year I am planning to travel to all 50 states to conduct prayer rallies—we are calling this the Decision America Tour. I want to challenge Christians to boldly live out their faith and to pray for our nation and its leaders. I want to encourage Christians to get out and vote, and to cast their ballots for candidates who uphold biblical principles.

I want to strongly urge Christians to run for public office at every level—local, state, and federal. We will not be endorsing any political candidates, but I will be proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel in every state. More details will come later. I hope you will start praying with us now.”

Wow!  Where to start?  I guess to say I see this as a poorly disguised attempt to do several things:

1. Use the tax exempt status of your organization, in reality, to influence voters.  The wording regarding the purpose of your tour, to challenge Christians to:   be bold in how they live, to pray for our leaders, to get out and vote is so well defined as to basically mimic the IRS code regarding what is allowable to 501(c)3 organizations.

However, you begin your announcement by saying that no political party; no politician is the answer to our country’s problems (as identified by you).  You say the only hope is God the Father and God the Son.  So if that is true, why bother including anything about elections and voting in your tour?  Why not just have an evangelizing tour such as those your father conducted?  Why not focus only on that which you say is the answer?

2. To use prayer as a cover up for political activity.   You say you want to challenge Christians to pray for our leaders.  I cannot, Mr. Graham, find any instance in which you asked Christians to pray for President Obama.  If I am wrong, I hope to find it out and I will write you to correct this statement.

I definitely agree with you that we should pray.  I HAVE prayed for a former president with whom I pretty much disagreed on everything.  (I found it a difficult task.)   Based on your own words, it seems to me that you question most all of what the president says, including his religious faith and his nation of birth, and you oppose much, if not all, of what he intends to do or wants to accomplish.  And that is definitely your right.  But to have failed to pray even once, publicly, by name, for him (unless you have and I cannot find it in print) does not give credibility to this recent avowal of the importance of praying for leaders.  

3. To use the Christian faith to directly influence the result of a vote.  You say you plan to encourage Christians to “...cast their votes for candidates who uphold biblical principles”.  The mission statement for your tour unequivocally maintains that you “...will not be endorsing any political candidates”.  Yet, you are.  No, you are not naming names; that is true.  Nonetheless, you are endorsing candidates, specific candidates; those who agree with your theology, or at least say they do at election time.

In summary, what this says to me is that you are exploiting your organization’s classification as a charitable entity, as well as your prominence.  And that your intention is to manipulate the vote by use of your religious beliefs.  And what an awful shame it is.

As distressing as I find all of what I have written about thus far, none of it compares to how you speak to Muslims.  As I’ve said, you say a lot of harmful things about Muslims.  But what is particularly disgusting is that prior to being incredibly insulting and saying disparaging things you always begin by saying you want to assure Muslims that you love them, that you pray for them, that Jesus loves them.  And that, in your mind, makes it acceptable and “Christian”?  Prefacing anything harmful you want to say with such a claim is not comparable to an E-Z Pass, Mr. Graham.  You can’t just slow down before saying despicable things and give yourself a green light by mentioning your love for those you are about to malign with varying slanderous statements.  When you do this you demean not only the Islamic faith but the Christian faith as well.

You might have noticed that I have consistently referred to you as “Mr.” Graham rather than “Reverend” Graham.  I have done so because I cannot bring myself to use that term as it should be used, as a title of respect.  I don’t believe just because you have completed a theological course of study and have the degree to prove it means much.  I choose to reserve the designation of “Reverend” for those whose words and actions are, from my perspective, worthy of it.

Note:  I did sign my name.  That is only right.  AND I made sure my address was available.  That is only right also, in case anything I have said should be corrected.  

Back Again, Hopefully

Here I am.  It's been 18 months since my last post.  I really did not intend to stop posting.  But so much "life" came at us that very often I didn't manage to do what I wanted.  I have written some things, but never got around to posting anything.  Maybe I will eventually.  I'd at least like to update the World Vision contributions and share some book titles I have enjoyed.  

In the meantime, let me just start somewhere.  Following is something I wrote early on Christmas morning 2014.  I have no idea why this comes to mind but since it does....

Christmas Journal 2014

It’s Christmas morning of 2014.  I’m enjoying my coffee.  I am using my “Abuela” (grandmother) cup.  I use it every Friday morning and on special occasions.  I’m obviously wondering what Allan and I would have been giving as our special grandparent surprise this year. And I feel sure that there would have been enough activities that I would have had to step in and offer to buy a dress for at least one occasion. 

Oh my goodness, what fun that would be! I know because my mother took Trista shopping when she had just turned 4. Grandma wanted to buy a dress, whichever one her granddaughter picked out.  We were not in JC Penny’s very long before Trista picked out the dress she wanted.  It was a “party” type dress.  Trista didn’t see it as such.  She told Mom that was the one she wanted because it was like a princess dress.  My mother had as much fun as Trista did!  I can see myself doing the same.   

But I refuse to debase the message of Christmas by just thinking about my family.  I’m wondering how my NICU babies are this morning. I’m thinking about the parents who had so hoped to have their baby at home for his/her first Christmas.  I’m thinking about those who are facing an eventual loss.  Some know it.  Some have yet to realize it.  I’m thinking about the nurses and the 12 hour work day the 7a -7p shift will soon start. 

I’m not sitting here enjoying the sunrise any less because some wished me “Happy Holidays” over the last number of weeks.  Instead, I’m wondering why, if Jesus could be so gracious as to eat with those horrible sinners, those scorned by the Pharisees, I shouldn’t also be gracious and respond in kind to someone who is wishing me well? 

Nor am I bemoaning the fact that some public buildings can no longer display a manger scene.  I’m wondering why churches that have no manger scene don’t purchase one to display in the yard on whichever side of the church gets the most traffic?  I’m wondering why Christians who do not have a manger scene for their front yards don’t simply take some of the dollars they planned to spend for Christmas and buy one?  I tend to think that if those two things were done the result would be a lot more exposure for, and commentary on, the meaning of Christmas than a few mangers on public property or inside public buildings many of us, or probably most of us, have no need to visit at this time of year. 

From what I understand, certain nationally known Christians are urging us to be sure we understand just where these types of “attacks” on Christmas will lead, unless we stand up for the Christian religion now.   I, however, simply do not perceive any friendly greeting as anything but just that, a gesture of good will.  And I see the push against manger scenes in public places as an objection, nothing more, nothing less;  straightforward disapproval of using tax dollars for anything that might appear to favor a particular religion.  

So, I personally am not worrying about any future persecution of Christians that, according to some, is foreshadowed by the addition of “Happy Holidays” to “Merry Christmas” as a seasonal greeting.  And  I reject any speculation on what anti-Christian discrimination can be expected in years to come because some citizens want our public spaces to remain completely neutral; to remain as places used only to conduct municipal/civic matters.   Or, as in the case of public gathering places, some want such areas to be void of any religious or political statements; to be places of relaxation, safety and refuge from the normal, everyday matters of any kind.   

But, apparently, I should be concerned about these things.  In a fairly recent commentary a very vocal Christian “leader” vehemently insisted that Christmas, therefore Christ, is under attack.  He gave at least a couple of “flagrant” examples of government attacking Christmas.  He wrote, “We should not be taken aback, then, when a day that should be devoted to meditating upon the marvelous virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ is instead treated in a scandalously secular way that denies His deity and saving work.”

What I seem unable to comprehend this Christmas morning is why I have not also read or heard this “religious leader” address the “scandalously secular” way Christmas is treated by hyper commercialism.  I believe that might be one powerful distraction from meditation on “the marvelous virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ”.  I researched some statistics.  From what I have investigated, it appears the United States retail industry generated over 3 TRILLION  U.S dollars during the 2013 holiday season.  My study showed holiday retail sales in the U.S total 619.9 Billion dollars.  U.S retail e-commerce holiday season sales total 72.41 Billion dollars.  The average total spending for Christmas gifts is 781 Billion dollars. 

Such staggering figures made me ask what true “Christ-like” good could be done with just one percent of that?  What amount would be available if all of us Christians decided to spend 1 percent less on gifts, with the intention of giving it to those who are sick, who are without, who know what “being attacked” really means?  Unless my math is wrong, one percent of what I see as really treating Christmas Day in a “scandalously secular” way, would generate $7.81 BILLION dollars.  I would think that amount should go a long way in doing some human “saving work”.   The question is, would we be willing to spend 99 cents instead of one dollar?  Instead of spending $100 would we be willing to spend only $99?

I don’t know.  But I am questioning what would happen if we stopped talking about how horribly we Christians are being treated, about what the founding fathers intended and instead thought of how to better love others?  I am imagining that those Christian leaders who are so troubled and anxious might be wonderfully surprised.  I have real doubts that those who are suspected of wanting to destroy Christmas would stand a chance of succeeding.  The people we Christians would be helping at Christmas time would all be on our side and would very much want Christians to continue celebrating Christmas.  I think this would be especially true about parents whose children we might help.  One thing I feel sure we can agree on is that very, very few parents would fail to support those who loved their children.  And, from my point of view, Jesus would see that as an appropriate way to be “meditating” on Him, of focusing on the concept of giving in great love, which is what we say we believe He did.  It is why we say we celebrate His birth.