my gray matter

church & state

i guess this is a continuation of my previous posting, but with a more specific question in mind. i’m trying to better understand the separation of church and state. I know that i believe in the division of the two, but have been unable to define what, if any, relationship should exist.

every church, regardless of that church’s religious beliefs, can more freely live out their self-defined principles when there is no line connecting that church to the government. some of the recent tone of politics has concerned me. the ever-growing game of “i’m more spiritual than my opponent” isn’t necessarily good for our governmental system. first, because it causes people to decide which candidate is in fact “more” moral, which is a hard decision, given how little we actually know about the heart of a candidate. and secondly, because it causes us to define a moral hierarchy, a practice that religious subculture has been implementing for a long time. an example of this hierarchy is what causes many people to believe that christian = republican. this equation is mostly a derivative of the issues of abortion and the rights of homosexuals. those two issues, as an example, rank high on the morality scale to many christians. conversely, christian democrats might suggest that these moral issue, however important they might be, are not inherently more important than a culture of greed, the abandonment of the marginalized and poor, or the misuse of the natural resources of the earth god created. i think the bigger question is: to what degree do we depend on the government to govern our individual morality? if it is in fact morality, does it require the support of a governmental system at all, or is morality so integrally connected to a personal, internal conviction that structural, or law based, morality has no real authority over it?

H.W.J.V.

i was reading the chicago sun-times this morning over a short-stack of the world’s greatest pancakes at salt-n-pepper diner, and came across an interesting article. i’m a somewhat politically interested person, so i was immediately drawn to an article about the recent senatorial race in illinois between barack obama and alan keyes. i’ve followed this particular race closer than most because i have been very impressed with barack obama. from the moment i first heard him speak, he struck me as an intelligent, principled man who cares deeply for his family. all of these qualities are important to me when picking a political leader. his demeanor stood in sharp contrast with that of his opponent, alan keyes. mr. keyes talked a great deal about character throughout the campaign. in fact, the entire article i read this morning was about how mr. keyes would not call and congratulate mr obama for winning the seat in the senate, because he believed that mr obama’s political agenda would only lead to the further moral decay of our society. one could argue whether any senator truly has the power to govern the morality of a culture, but that’s a completely different blog for another day.

the most amusing point of contention in the senatorial race happened about 3 weeks ago. both during their televised debate and in a news interview, alan keyes stated that, “jesus wouldn’t vote for barack obama. he would vote for alan keyes.” this statement begs the question: h.w.j.v.? how would jesus vote? if only i’d thought of this sooner i could have mass-produced bracelets that could have been worn to the poles last tuesday, and christians everywhere would have been reminded to vote correctly. [please read the above sentence with a moderate tone of sarcasm to accomplish the writer’s intent.]

i’m tempted to launch into a few more paragraphs outlining why jesus wouldn’t have voted for alan keyes, or even if he would have voted at all, but that too is for another day. i will say this: to assume that you are worthy of leading jesus, and of receiving his vote, could suggest a lack of true understanding of who jesus is. if you read through the new testament of the bible you actually find that jesus spent his time with people who didn’t think themselves worthy of his unfailing belief in them. people who would have never expected his vote and who were amazed by his love. and, upon receiving that love, they would have never thought themselves “more holy or deserving” than any other person. because, compared with him, no one measured up.

so, h.w.j.v.? all i know is that he probably wouldn’t vote for me.

south of the border

i will be spending the next week at an orphanage in mexico. check back in a week for new info and thoughts. i'm sure that the next week will lend itself to many thoughts about the world we live in. jon

freedom

i found this image online last week and have been unable to get it out of my head. it’s an image of an iraqi father carrying his injured son after a u.s. bombing campaign. regardless of your political affiliation, or your general belief about war, you can’t deny one thing in this image: the pain in the eyes of the father. as i mentioned, this image has gripped me all week.

there’s heated debate on each side of the issue of war, more heated than it would be without the impending election. i’ve heard prolific arguments for and against the war efforts in iraq. necessary or not, war is evil. i would hope that we could agree on that. maybe i should expand… war is evil because not just the bad guys get hurt. as this father rushes his son to receive medical attention, i wonder what his thoughts are about the prospect of freedom. and i don’t mean that rhetorically to manipulate you into thinking a specific way. i genuinely wonder whether he’s thinking it’s completely worth the sacrifice, or whether he’d rather deal with oppression and have his son unharmed. i guess you could argue that his son’s future health and the prospect of his son’s children are dependent on that freedom. but that’s a moot point if the child didn’t live past the day this picture was taken. my insides are a mess trying to figure out the cost of freedom. or, is there a better way to attain it?

any given sunday

it’s sunday afternoon, about 50 degrees outside, and i’m watching football. it’s hard to think of a better way to spend my day. i’m usually not an advocate of watching television. it rarely fits into my life, and i’d rather spend my time with friends, playing my guitar or reading, especially with the quality of television today. i must be in the minority because i can’t stand reality television. but all of my disdain for television vanishes when the kick-off takes to the air. i love watching football. the competition, the sportsmanship, the hard work and effort. you may think that i’m undeservedly glamorizing overweight men running around, jumping on each other. but what i’m talking about is the essence of sport. walking on to a field, giving everything you have, either winning or losing and walking off the field knowing you were a part of a team. i think there is something honorable and glorious about it. this battle on a playing field isn’t a new idea. tens of thousands of romans would fill the coliseum for an event. you’ve all seen gladiator. you know what i ‘m talking about. and at least we no longer kill each other for the sake of sport. now, we simply compete, and leave the playing field as friends. respectful of what each team sacrificed and gave for the sake of the game. i love football.

words with meaning

i was reading a book today by henri nouwen called, “the way of the heart”. the books info is available in my “books i’m reading” section. on page 56 nouwen writes:

“a word with power is a word that comes out of silence. a word that bears fruit is a word that emerges from the silence and returns to it. it is a word that reminds us of the silence from which it comes and leads us back to that silence. a word that is not rooted in silence is a weak powerless word that sounds like a ‘clashing cymbal or a booming gong’."

the section of the book that i’ve been reading today talks about the power of silence, and that our words only have worth if they come out of silence. his thoughts, which i totally agree with, feel so counter cultural to all that goes on around me and in me. i’m not sure if you had a chance to see any of the presidential debates the last few weeks, but i did and found it completely fascinating. not the debates themselves, but the little lights on the front of each of the podiums. these small green, yellow and red lights indicated to the speaking candidate how long he had remaining to talk. i was fascinated by the fact that they never ended their comments early. even if they were finished answering the question they had been asked, they simply filled the space with other banter until the red light illuminated. at first i was fascinated, but eventually it just became annoying to me. i started to feel like they were simply talking for the sake of their voices being heard. this practice doesn’t just take place in the presidential debates. every billboard, tv show, advertisement, and song encourages me to fill my life with words, and to fill the world with my words. that my opinion should be shared is not necessarily the best approach to life. what if i walked through each day apprehensive to make my opinion known, but eager to listen to the views of every person i encounter. that notion is somewhat scary to me, because i think it also requires me to investigate why i am talking in the first place. the answer is simple and shameful. i think what i have to say is important. so important that i should inflict it upon anyone who will listen, so that they might be as enlightened as i am. like i said, it’s pretty shameful and scary to acknowledge. i’m not an intentionally arrogant person, but when i realize thing like that it’s hard to deny that it creeps in, whether i like it or not.

i guess i don’t have to completely abandon talking. as nouwen writes, “a word that bears fruit is a word that emerges from the silence”. maybe the words that i think have worth now, could actually have worth if they came from that silent place. i think i’ll be quiet and think about this for a while.

the pressure is overwhelming

my first posting. i had no idea the pressure would be this great. palms sweating. mouth dry. i've never done this before. how am i supposed to know what's cool? i have to be smart. i have to be witty. i have to live up to the countless other bloggers filling the internet with their thoughts. i guess with so many thoughts out there, mine could potentially go unnoticed. oh good. the pressure is off.

join me in the dialogue that is to come.