Some Random Thoughts On The Bible and God…

I had some new thoughts on Thanksgiving about the Bible and God that I want to share and see what everybody thinks. They don’t really fit into neat little categories like why God exists so I thought I would just bunch them together. I would especially be interested in what some of my new internet buds think. These are certainly not revolutionary so don’t think that I think I have come up with something new here. But I don’t really think that I have understood well how to read the Bible. So my thoughts….

The Bible was written 2000+ years ago. That is well before the Enlightenment era of the last 200 or so years when humanity has become all about reason and evidence and proof. This should mean that to then read the Bible from a purely Enlightenment worldview, I would be reading into the text things that are not mean to be read into it. Or I would be interpreting in ways that were not meant for it to be interpreted. In the end this would mean that the Bible is not meant to be used as an ethics text. It is to be viewed as a gradual revelation of God that culminates fully in Christ.

If there is a creator God (and I believe that there is) then that God would also be resonsible for creating science and reason. This would therefore make science and reason improper tools for proving that this God exists. For that matter, anything would be inadequate for proving he exists. The best we can hope for is evidence from his creation that points to his existence. I have said this elsewhere but felt that it fits well in these random thoughts, especially in light of my next thought.

If I am only willing to believe that for which there is proof, then I am going to be closing myself off to a lot of stuff. If my only tool for believing in something is the rational and the empiric, then I am making myself unreceptive to truth which may lie outside of the empiric. If I can prove that there is no truth that lies outside of the empiric, then this stance is fine. However, this is certainly far from proven and likely never will be as I see it. Until we can see we understand everything, there will be truth that lies outside of the empiric. I need to be open to that. And if God created the empiric then knowing him would best take place outside of the empiric.

The Old Testament was written for the Jewish people to lead them to God’s full revelation of himself in Christ. That does not mean that it is unrelevant for me. But it does mean that much of it is not directly applicable to me, and I should not try to make it so. It should be read in the context of God’s full revelation in Christ as a God of love. It is not an ethics text.

That’s all I’ve got right now.

The Countdown Is On Again

Getting ready for round 2…..

361 DAYS
HR – MIN – SEC
23 : 17 : 35

Ford Ironman Arizona 2009 Participants

6 records found in “LAST NAME” that contain “LEWIS”:

BIB NUMBER	LAST NAME	FIRST NAME	AGE	SEX	CLASSIFICATION	DIVISION	CITY	ST/PROV	COUNTRY	COUNTRY REP	OCCUPATION
NA	LEWIS	JEFFREY	42	M	AGE	M40-44	CHANDLER	AZ	USA	UNITED STATES
NA	LEWIS	DOUGLAS	40	M	AGE	M40-44	ANDOVER	KS	USA		PHYSICIAN
NA	LEWIS	TONYA	36	F	AGE	W35-39	LEXINGTON	SC	USA
NA	LEWIS	KENNETH	65	M	AGE	M65-69	SCOTTSDALE	AZ	USA		ENGINEER
NA	LEWIS	KAREN	38	F	AGE	W35-39	PHOENIX	AZ	USA
NA	LEWISS	JASON	39	M	AGE	M35-39	AUSTIN	TX	USA

Why I Believe God Exists – Part 3: My Trouble With Evolutionary Naturalism

My intent here is not to open up the Creation/Evolution debate. That would be a topic for a completely different post than this one. And I would say that my personal beliefs about that debate, the side on which I fall, isn’t really all that much of a factor in the evidence that I see for God’s existence. Let me say that I fall most firmly on the Theistic Evolution side of things. Far from having it all thought out and in a nice little package, I still have holes that need to filled in over time. But I will say that I think a God of the Gaps approach is dangerous, Intelligent Design has been rather soundly knocked down, Irreducible Complexity is very shaky, and I think that Natural Selection is powerfully active in the world. I know that some of you could probably rip me to shreds and get my head spinning with a bunch of contradictory arguments, but that is not what I am interested in here. Those are my current positions. I am always willing to consider other arguments and evidence. I remain open to changing my opinion based on good evidence and have done so in other areas including my spiritual, political, and scientific thinking. If you care to enter into a discussion in this arena I will do my best to engage each one of you in the comments section. But do not expect a discussion of it within the post.

Instead, I want to point out what I feel to be the most glaring hurdle for me in accepting a position of pure Evolutionary Naturalism. Probably one of the most easily understood and concise explanations of this hurdle that I have read recently is found in Tim Keller’, The Reason For God. I know I have referenced this book in my other posts on the evidence for God, but please don’t make the mistake of assuming that I am just using his book for blog posts. I am not. Each of these ideas have been held by me and considered prior to this reading of his book. However, he does do a good job of succinctly laying out much of what I have come believe. I think his chapter on “The Clues of God” follows along very nicely with what I have come to believe independently. So now on to the point……

For those who don’t know, Evolutionary Naturalism is the belief that everything about us as humans, and all of nature for that matter, including emotions, morals, religious beliefs, bodies, etc, is the result of Natural Selection. Some may have heard this described as “Survival of the Fittest.” Basically, those qualities that give an organism a survival advantage will be selected for while other less advantageous traits will die out with the organisms that possess them. Over time, as the strongest and most advantaged repeatedly survive, organisms evolve, the evolutionary tree branches, and we have the diversity of life. I have no problem accepting that this is a force that is very active in nature. In some cases it can even observed before our very eyes. The problem that I have is in believing that it explains everything about us.

Strict Evolutionary Naturalists such as Richard Dawkins propose that a belief in God is just a by-product of adaptive behaviors that were selected for because they offered a survival advantage. An example of this could be given as our early ancestors being more keenly aware of things that might jump out of the bush and devour them than others who were present at that time, maybe even so keenly aware that they sensed danger in the brush when it wasn’t there. Over time and cultural changes, this belief could then make us more likely to believe in something that wasn’t there. That thing could be God. I realize that this is an over-simplistic description of the actual arguments that have been presented by Dawkins and Dennet and Harris, but I think it describes the point.

So if Natural Selection is all about survival advantage and not necessarily about what is reality, how can I completely trust the intellect and reasoning skills that it has handed down to me through the ages? If a belief such as that outlined above is accurate as it has been suggested to us, then we should have reason to question much of what we are because Natural Selection is not concerned about giving us beliefs and values and skills that are true but only that what offers a survival advantage.

I recognize that this does not prove God’s existence. In fact, it is far from it. In fact, if I can’t trust what Natural Selection gives me in the way of intellect and skills of reasoning, then I shouldn’t be able to trust what it tells me about my belief in God either. But the point is that I don’t see either side being able to take the clear advantage. And when I consider the other evidence that I have given such as the anthropic principle and a common morality (which I now think is better described as a common human dignity), a belief in God, at least at this point in time, seems to explain it all better than just blind chance. So in the end it supports the evidence that shows me God as real in the world. I realize that many atheists will argue that I am adding a faith element that doesn’t have to be there and therefore violating Occam’s Razor. As a brief rebuttal to that argument, it seems to me that faith in a God or faith that there is not a God are one and the same, faith.

Just Had To Link To This

I discovered this from a friend a couple of years ago. I just had to get it on my blog. One of the funniest things I have ever seen. Enjoy…

Flight Of The Conchords – “Business Time”

Why I Believe God Exists – Part 2: Common Morality

I originally read Mere Christianity in college. At the time I was too immature to really deeply consider what it meant. I did what I needed to get an ‘A’ on the test but didn’t really consider its meaning. But I was in the throws of a rather narrow way of thinking, not really ever having considered the questions of God’s existence or that pieces of truth may exist outside of my sheltered little evangelical and somewhat fundamentalist world. I just believed what I had been taught. It wasn’t until the last decade that I seriously began to wrestle with those questions, the last 2-3 years of which have been the most intense for sure. I have described my process of doubt in a previous post “…that same old place again….” In many ways, it was a re-reading of Mere Christianity,along with Dawkin’s The God Delusion ,which prompted my most recent intensive search. I have read Mere Christianitya couple of times since and refer to it often, not necessarily because it gives great answers so much as it asks great questions. But there is one item with which CS Lewis deals that in my view is best interpreted as evidence for God’s existence. That idea is what Lewis refers to as the Moral Law. In my conversation I feel that “common morality” is a bit more descriptive for me so I tend to use this terminology. The word “law” has a certain finality to it, and I don’t want to imply that I am closing the door on the evidence by using that word. I certainly want to remain open to reconsidering errors in my own judgment and thought processes and be able to incorporate new discoveries and new arguments as they become available.

So first, a quote from Lewis in Mere Christianity that sums up the common morality idea fairly well:

“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?”

I especially like the last line, “Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?” As I state in Part 1, it is not possible to prove beyond doubt that God in fact exists just as it is not possible to prove that he doesn’t. And this entire quote speaks to that. If there is a creator behind all of this, he is outside of the natural world, which makes the tools of the natural world not fully adequate with which to learn about him. The best we can hope for using natural science is evidence that points to his existence. The observed existence of a common morality that largely crosses cultural and religious lines and has been consistent throughout much of known history, at the least, “…arouses our [my] suspicions.”

At this point I am not trying at all to say that a creator, if he exists, is the God of the Christian bible. There is an entirely different set of evidence to be considered there, which I will get to down the road. All this evidence can hope to point to is a creator who is responsible for the existence of the universe. But one of the things I like about this piece of evidence is that it does not make the Christian bible responsible for morality. Morality is something that exists deep within each and every one of us because of who we are as humans, not because of some arbitrary book. Atributing morality to the bible is problematic for me on several levels. It means that I have to believe that book to be true before I even consider if a God exists or not. Well, if I believe the book to be true then there is really no reason to try and discover evidence for God that lies outside the book. That feels rather circular to me. As AC/DC would say it “Who Made Who”. In order for me to believe the book, I first have to believe that a God does exist who could have been responsible for the book. And if a common morality is a pointer to God’s existence, it also has to lie outside the book because it has to be part of who that God is. Any book that exists would have to be a description of that God and his nature rather than that book being the source of his nature.

Now someone who is coming at this evidence from a naturalistic stance will of course be able to reason against it, and many have done just that. But their reading is not more or less reasonable than what is outlined above. Many have argued that morality was incorporated into the human genome because altruistic behavior toward an organisms own clan would result in a larger rate of survival for that clan. It is a stretch, however, to expand this to a larger community. It is my observation that while in nature an organisms immediate clan is favored, neighboring clans are considered hostile. Yet we humans still have a strong sense of obligation to help even our enemy as the right thing to do. It doesn’t make sense to me that this trait would be passed down through naturalistic evolution. It would seem that in the name of survival, this trait would have died out long ago.  I have had a couple of different atheists explain to me that a common morality is exactly what you expect to see if natural selection was responsible. I just don’t see it. Please feel free to enlighten me further. If this concept is expanded a bit into the concept of human dignity or human rights, I feel that there is no way to account for this by naturalistic evolution. Nature thrives on violence and predation in the name of survival of the fittest. That stands in startk contrast to the idea that every organism has inherent value. I do not know of any way to end up at human dignity from purely naturalistic processes.

Timothy Keller in his book, The Reason For God, probably gives about the best easy to understand explanation of common morality as evidence for God that I have seen recently. I will be discussing some other principles from his book in future posts. Francis Collins in The Language of Godalso gives this idea a fair discussion and explains how it was personally impactful for him. And of course Mere Christianity is a fine source. If you are an atheist or agnostic reading this, please do not dismiss what I have to say because I have made reference to Francis Collins and CS Lewis. I know that these circles do not feel like much of what these two men have to say is all that spot on. But I see both of them as putting forth their interpretation of the evidence that they see around them, and I respect that. There is really no way to say which side of the argument is more valid than the other. It is reasonable to interpret it either way.

Thanks for reading. Comment away. Pound me if you like. I’ll do my best to respond.

Why I Believe God Exists – Part 1: Anthropic Principle

After a long blogging hiatus I had planned to get back into regular writing by posting a series that kind of follows the path that I have been through over the last several years to get to where I am today. The political season brought some significant changes that I found myself working on, however, and that took a great deal of time and energy. But I am ready to get back to my plan. I posted a few weeks back on “…that strange same of place again…” and mentioned that I find myself cycling around through stronger faith and then doubt and then back. As I have followed the cycle a few times now I find that each time I come from doubt and back around that the steps are very much similar and because of that repeated trial and testing have found them to be relatively stable and solid. Each time through I find a new little piece of evidence that supports my reasons for faith. It is those steps that I want to share, mainly for my benefit as much as for anyone else. I am honored that you have decided to share my story with me. Thanks.

I read a quote in Triathlete Magazine today by David Grayson. It is the December 2008 issue on page 115. “Happines, I have discovered, is nearly always a rebound from hard work.” I love that quote because it speaks to a principle in life which I believe to be very true. We don’t get better without struggling for it. You don’t become a better athlete by thinking about it. You have to work hard, extremely hard if you want to be great. You can’t change a bad habit with a New Year’s Resolution. You have to do the work. You don’t have a better relationship with your wife by watching TV. You have to engage her and talk to her and nuture her and that is work. You don’t learn something at school by sitting there. You have to put out the effort to read and understand and grab concepts. You can’t rid of the crap in your life by ignoring it. You have to work, acknowledging that it is there and then facing it. All improvement involves some sort of struggle. Ridding your life of struggle invites deterioration and death. Now don’t take that to extreme and claim that I am saying it is all about work. That is not what I have said nor is it what I mean. Rest is just as important and necessary. But I think you can understand what I am saying.

I have been doing at least some of that work spiritually for some time now, really trying to find the truth behind what I believe, claiming that truth, and then getting rid of the junk. And it has been hard. I think some of my friends and family think I have gone out on some whacked out crazy tangent. I’m OK with that because I am in a much more solid place than I have ever been with God in my entire existence.

It always seemed strange to me that growing up I never really heard anyone talk at all about how we even know the Bible is the right collection of books. Some dudes got together 1700 or so years ago and decided on what the canon of scripture was going to be, and we just trust it to be true because those behind us did it. Even at a Christian college in bible classes was this not explained to me. I find that amazing that so many people are just willing to accept this fact and base their lives on it without questioning if the very thing they claim is so trustworthy is really that trustworthy of a thing at all. Shouldn’t you be sure of that before you base everything you do on it? I say yes, but that is for another post because my questions and doubts go back farther than the Bible.

I need to know if God actually exists. At times I find myself wondering if this is all real, this spiritual stuff, or is it just a bunch of mind games that humans came up with over eons of time to deal with certain issues that were not easily explained. And you really can’t use the Bible to speak to the question of God’s existence, at least not in a purely reasoned sense. So I have repeatedly, on my cycle, gone over evidence for God’s existence that lies outside the Bible. If I get that question answered for myself then I can move on to whether or not the Bible is what it claims to be. So I start outside the Bible looking for evidence in the world that God exists. I will go at them one per post, and this time I chose to briefly look at the anthropic principle.

Before we get to the specifics of this let me say something else. It is not possible to absolutely prove that God exists. The best for which we can hope is to find evidence that points to God’s existence. And much as in a court of law, the more evidence the greater the possibility. So don’t expect to find absolute proof that God exists. It doesn’t exist. All of these arguments for God’s existence can be reasonably argued in a different direction. If there is a creator God who is responsible for all that exists, then he is bigger than his creation, therefore, making it impossible to use the products of his creation to prove that he exists. But his creation can point to his existence. On the flipside, it is also not possible to prove that God does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins, an outspoken proponent of atheism, uses the language, “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,” to title one of the chapters in his most recent book, The God Delusion, which I have read. I just find that wording interesting. He even states on page 51, “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” So it can’t really reasonably be proven either way. It is up to how one interprets the evidence.

So, the anthropic principle….This principle is the idea that the universe is so finely tuned for life that it could not have come about by chance. There are certain physical constants such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the strength of weak and strong nuclear forces, and a host of others (15 total) that have very precise values which fall into a vary narrow range. A change in one of those constant values by one part in a million would have resulted in a dramatically different universe than the one that we currently  inhabit. Matter would not have been able to gather, and there would be no galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project who himself converted from Christianity to atheism largely based on his reading of the scientific evidence for God, states in The Language of God, that, “The existence of the universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.” Other scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson, and Paul Davies have all made similar remarks in reference to the anthropic principle. However, these same scientists also see the other side of the principle which I will get to in a bit.

Alsiter McGrath, a counterpart of Richard Dawkins at Oxford, is a Christian theologian with a PhD in molecular biophysics and has just published a work called, The Open Secret, which is a vision for natural theology, in essence an explanation of how science and Christianity support each other. I am in the process of reading it now and will likely use it as a source in subsequent posts. He discusses the anthropic principle and points out, as I have above, that it is not proof of God’s existence. But rather it can be reasonably interpreted as evidence for God’s existence and is perhaps best understood within the perspective of Christianity.

Now it is true that this anthropic principle as evidence for God is rationally avoidable. The leading rebuttal is something known as multiverse theory which states that we are one of any number of universes and that ours is obviously tuned for life because we are here to observe it. In fact the argument could be taken a bit further. It can be argued that if a universe is not tuned for life, such a universe cannot exist because there is no life there to observe it. I might point out thought that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of alternate universes. Is it, though, a reasonable theory. Yes.

There are also different aspects of the anthropic principle such as the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle which really go beyond the depth that I care to go in this post. However, if anyone would like to bring them up for discussion in the comments I will be happy to engage. Some of the guys from the de-conversion site, if they end up checking on me here, may want to discuss these aspects. At this point I will let it be sufficient to say that I believe that the anthropic principle as evidence for God’s existence is a reasonable interpretation of that evidence.

So there is part 1. Feel free to say whatever you want. Feel free to step on my toes. Feel free to challenge me however you see fit. I welcome it.

Saddened By The Vitriol…

I sit here watching Obama’s acceptance speech. And it is an amazing thing. I voted for him today. My wife voted for him today. And I am proud of the countless hours that we spent toiling over our decision. In the end we made a decision to vote for a man who puts forth a vision of bringing healing to the broken, the poor, the weak, the neglected, not just in America but in the world, in a way that America has not known in recent decades. And tonight, I am more proud to be an American than perhaps at any time in my life. Just perhaps we have shown each other and the world that we are ready and able to come to the table of the world community with a different stance, a different agenda.

But I am also saddened. As I have sat hear watching the election coverage I have seen nothing but gracious words of honor and respect from both sides of the media, from Senator McCain himself, and from countless other commentators. And as we watch, my wife is carrying on multiple coversation threads on Facebook. Many of those discussions involve acquaintances and friendships that extend back 15-20 years. Most of them are with individuals who count themselves as committed conservative evangelical Christians, and I am saddened by their vitreol. Many of them are saying angry things some of which are specifically pointed at my wife because of her vote. Many of them are saying that Christians who voted for Obama must not have thought hard enough not realizing that we agonized for days and weeks trying to discover direction and truth. Many of them are saying that Christians who voted for Obama must not care about unborn babies not realizing that we agonized over whether or not it was responsible for us to be single issue driven. Many of them are saying that because Obama is now President Elect that evil has taken over the United States not realizing that a great racial divide which seemed insurmountable just a few years ago has now been crossed. Many of them are saying things about Obama as a man, thinking that they themselves hold all the truth, not realizing that almost everyone holds a little piece of truth that they may not have. I could go on and on, but I don’t see the point. However, it saddens me to see that people who claim the grace and mercy and forgiveness and redemption and justice and hope and tolerance and inclusion that Christ preached, often have so little of it themselves. I no longer consider myself of part of that kind of faith. I want my faith to have much more room in it than that.

I Guess I Should Have Expected It…

It has definitely been a very interesting few days to say the least. If you have been keeping up with my posts, I have managed to complete my political de-conversion in time for election day. Both my wife and me were able to get some good information from great people and put it together in a way that led us to the vote that we felt was most truthful to our current stories of faith and community in the world. That vote was for Mr. Obama. We were not people flapping in the wind of influence. We agonized over this decision and voted what we felt to be best for the common good of the US and the world. But this has gained an interesting reception.

And I guess I should have expected it, knowing what I know about from where we have come and about where we currently find ourselves. Of course many are delighted and have expressed such delight and affirmed our pursuit of truth. On that side of the reception are Christians (mostly of a missional and/or emergent thought), atheists, agnostics, universalists. And I have been deeply warmed by the graciousness and decency that has existed on this side as we have discussed our differences and similarities in a manner that has affirmed all of us a people. The other side of the reception is different, however. On that side are mostly far right of center evangelical Chrisitians with whom in which we used to be in step. From them we have mostly received shock at our choice, implication that we are immoral and unethical, and marginalization as not thinking straight. And I think this is one of the first times in my life that I have found myself completely outside of and wrongly characterized by the religious right. In a way it feels great, but it also is very revealing about how the religious right marginalizes and abuses power. It took getting outside for me to see that of which I used to be a part. I will explain.

For those on the right who do not understand why I made the decision to vote for Obama, I will give a bit more explanation to try and clarify. Please do not see this as a defense of my action. I am perfectly comfortable with and excited about my choice. It feels like I have freed up part of myself. I don’t need you to agree with me to feel OK about it. My hope and purpose is that you may learn something about yourself by engaging in this discussion with me. To that end, I am willing to explain and discuss as long as anyone cares to engage. So to begin…

I think it is important to look at my decision from two different stances. I know there are some agnostics and atheists out there reading these words, and I want to respect their interest as much as anyone’s. So I will explain my decision briefly from a purely historical stance and then from a more faith based moral and ethical stance, probably not the moral stance from which you think I should come as a follower of Christ but I think it is a more critical moral stance.

The historical…The US is the lone super power in the world. In essence we can do what we want and have done what we want. We have the most advanced and elite military the world has ever known. We have more money than much of the rest of the world combined. We consume more energy than most of the rest of the world combined. And we justify our behavior as being good for the world. That is the behavior of an empire. The US is an empire, plain and simple, and we spread our values around the world as any empire would and historically have done. That is the natural behavior of empires, and we do it. And now for the bad news. Empires do not last. They come and they go, and the US will be no different. History does in fact repeat itself. The Egyptian Empire came and went. The Babylonian Empire came and went. The Roman Empire came and went. The British Empire came and went. And the US Empire has come and will go. It will be someone else’s turn. Now saying this does not mean that I think we ought to just roll over and hand our country over to the rest of the world. But I do think that it means we ought to have the foresight to examine our position in the world and to better understand what the rest of the world thinks of us and to do what we can to benefit the common good of the world. Why do Empires fall? They fall because they become victims of their own power. They misuse their power. It is important for us not to continue to misuse our power and instead to use it for the common good of the world.

So whom do I respect who knows a lot about the world? Colin Powell. He was most likely used by the current administration to make a case for the Iraq war, and his response to that has been nothing but gracious as far as I can tell. He has not lashed out. He has not pointed fingers. He has not gotten into a “he said, he said” debate. He has not been vindictive. Instead he quietly and respectfully withdrew himself from the stage where he felt he could no longer in good faith stand. If he had done it any other way. If he was vindictive. If he had not been played. If he was to blame for getting us into the Iraq mess. Then conservatives would have been all over him for it when he announced his support for Obama. But instead they called him a traitor. They had nothing better on him. Limbaugh and Hannity critized him not for his mistakes but for his refusal to be loyal to the Republican party. That says a great deal to me about Colin Powell. It says to me that his integrity is intact. That he has nothing else for which to be criticized. He has no major areas for which attack can be justified. He can only be labeled a traitor in a weak attempt to discredit his decision. And whom does Colin Powell think is the best to lead us through the maze of relationships that the world presents to us? Barack Obama. Colin Powell is at the heart of my non-faith-based reasons for voting for Obama.

Now for my evangelical friends (and I do honestly mean that), my moral/ethical reasons for voting for Obama…For those of you not familiar with Rob Bell, you should get familiar with him. He is talking about Christianity, along with many others, in a way that I believe gets at the heart of what Christ’s message to the world is. In his new book, Jesus Wants To Save Christians, he talks about Empire in much the same way I have heard it discussed by NT Wright. I have great respect for both of these men and the different way in which they are bringing about a reading of the bible that makes much more sense to me than I have ever before had. Bell on page 130-131 talks about the phrase “peace through victory” and how it relates to Empire.

“‘Peace through victory’ depended on which side of the sword you were on….If the system works for you, it can be quite hard to understand the perspective of people who have the boot of the system on their neck. If you have the power, it can be hard to understand the voice of those who have no power. If you have choice, options, luxuries, it can be hard to fathom the anger of those who don’t. If you have always had enough food, it can be hard to understand the shouts of those whose stomachs are grumbling from hunger….Followers of Christ missing the central message of the Bible? It happened then, and it happens now. And sometimes the reason is, of course, empire.”

Christ did not operate in the fashion of Empire. If anything he was anti-Empire. The weak will become strong. The meek will inherit the earth. The rich will become poor. His power is actually in weakness. Preservation of the US and of the world and of humanity is actually all about taking care of those most unfortunate. That is the true proper use of wealth and power. Not the spread of Empire. The spread of Empire will lead to the destruction of the Empire. It is happening now and will continue to happen unless we engage the world in a new way. Unless we care for the weak. Unless we care for the environment. Unless we become champions of the poor and destitue both at home and abroad. Continued misuse of power is immoral and unethical. We can no longer justify spending a trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street when 50 million Americans cannot get health care. We can no longer justify spending a trillion dollars to spread our Empire to Iraq when billions live on a few dollars a day. We can no longer support an economic system that gives power to a few at the top and leaves the poor at their mercy. I can no longer support such a system.

So suffice it to say that I believe Obama’s beliefs and strategies, after very close examination, more closely mirror what I understand to be both moral and for the common good of not only the US but the entire world. McCain, on the other hand, will be more of the same, and I believe, will lead us to a worse place. I invite any comments, postive or negative and even vicious if you feel you must vent, and will continue to engage as long as anyone cares to discuss. Thanks for reading.

Why I Am Changing My Vote

Luke, in the comments on my last post, mentioned that he was hoping for a conversion experience for me. Not a religious experience but a McCain to Obama experience. For various reasons which I will explain below, that experience has been had. I want to graciously thank everyone who commented and looked at my blog. The de-conversion people I know looked at my post on McCain in large numbers, at least large numbers for my blog. Many people from Wheatland also checked me out. There were even people whom I don’t know how they found me check me out. Some even set up links to my post. I am humbled and honored by the attention. Thanks so much for both agreeing with me and arguing against me, most of it done in a very tolerant and knowledge-gaining and sharing type spirit.

I have to be honest. I was not completely forthcoming in my previous post. Maybe there are hints of it there, but I don’t think it is blatant. I have wanted to vote for Obama from the very beginning of this race. But there have been blocks up in my thinking that I could tell were there but was not certain where they were or how to get around them. In a way, it seems that this has been one of the final barracades (at least of which I know) in my general life conversion of the last 24 months. That conversion has been spiritual, professional, physical, relational. The way I view my life and my spirituality has changed tremendously. My story is now different. And in trying to apply that new story to this election, I found that I did not have the tools I needed to think differently about it. Combing the media did not seem to help much as what one gets there is just partisan politics for the most part. So I decided to draw information from a different source. That source is you. I figured that by honestly putting my thoughts and fears out there, I would get back honest opinions from you. And I have. And that information has come together with a couple of other things this weekend to help me make the choice that I sensed all along to be choice I wanted to make. I am changing my vote to Obama.

Things I have taken a second look at in changing my decision….

Colin Powell. I believe he is a smart man who wants the common good. Talking with a couple of people whom I consider to have somewhat of a mentor position in my life, they believe that the whole sending him to the UN to point out evidence of missile tubes (or whatever it was) was a set-up by the current administration without Powell’s knowledge to legitimize a war that they knew to be about oil for Cheney and about avenging his father for Bush. Considering Powell’s soon thereafter resignation as Secretary of State, I think this is a reasonable reading of the evidence. Powell has called Obama a “transformational figure.” Now I either have to continue to believe that Powell knows what he is talking about with his knowledge of the military and the world stage, or I have to dismiss him as vindictive with no interest in the common good. Since I don’t believe the latter, I am left with the first. More on his treatment by the right in a bit.

Alan Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan’s tearful admission this week before Congress was not, I believe, contrived. He has been considered very wise on the economy for more decades. Why now would I start to disbelieve what he has said this week? And what motive would he have to admit his faultly reasoning? I don’t believe his is falling on the sword for Obama. So he either is a very good deceiver and lies through his teeth, or his statement was genuine. I choose to believe him which means at least in part that the economic philosophy of this administration is faulty. More on his treatment by the right in a bit.

My wife’s aunt and a mentor. I had the opportunity in the last 24 hours to spend a great deal of time talking with someone whom I have grown to have great respect for in the last 2 years. He has already voted for Obama. He, like Powell, believes that Obama is a transformational figure who has a solid grasp of the issues the US faces and a solid plan to go after those issues. My wife’s aunt is also very much in support of Obama. These two people are both individuals for whom I have a large amount of respect. And they both said almost the identical items in support of Obama. They also both feel that the current administration has largely been a failure with mismanagement and personal agendas reigning supreme. I can see their points, and it is a reasonable reading of the evidence. Both believe that McCain will largely carry on the same Republican agenda with failing trickle down economics that gives power to the rich and basically eliminates a middle class as the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. And both feel that Palin being able to take on the role as President should a 72 year old McCain not be able to complete the job would be a tragedy. And my mentor figure believes that the pick of Sarah Palin was basically forced on McCain by the religious right, which the Republican party has aligned with and uses to get elected, by individuals such a James Dobson. Interesting that I myself remember Dobson stating that McCain was too far left during the primaries but enthusiastically supportive on the day Palin was announced.

The right crying “traitor.” In the days after Colin Powell and Alan Greenspan made their statements, the only thing I heard from the right was “traitor.” Is that the only thing they can come up with to say against these two? Do they really think that what is most important is for Powell and Greenspan to be loyal to a party rather than to say what they think is best for the common good? I think these two guys stuck their necks out to say and do what they think is just. And all the right has to say is that they should have just kept quiet and towed the party line. That is ridiculous

Rob Bell, Jesus Wants To Save The Christians. I really like Rob Bell. When I say that my theology is changed over the last years, I would say that Rob Bell in his books largely describes what I have come to believe and the way I think about God. He doesn’t deal with the evidence from nature for God side of things which is also very important to me, but he describes well what I believe about God. This newest book is basically about a newer way to read the bible called the New Exodus perspective. I like it. And in the first few pages he describes Empire, also something NT Wright speaks to, and connects that to how the US currently views its responsibility to the world. In his words on page 18, “So when the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces humanity has ever seen quotes the prophet Isaiah from the Bible in celebration of military victory, we must ask, Is this what Isaiah had in mind?”  He goes on, “A Christian should get very nervous when the flag and the Bible start holding hands. This is not a romance we want to encourage.” That rings very true to me. The US is not God’s gift to world, but we have sure acted like that. It is time to quit being so arrogant and become a partner in the world, not a bully. Obama’s military and foreign policy is more aligned with that approach to the world. McCain will still be the bully.

I have also reconsidered what I have said about socialism. Some have criticized me for calling Obama a “socialist.” I have not done that. I have said that his policies were socialistic and that they advanced socialism in the US to a new level. I apologize to anyone who thought I was personally attacking Mr. Obama as that was not my intent. I think he is sincere in his beliefs about what he thinks will work, and I admire that about him. I don’t have to agree with every single idea he puts forth however in order to admire him. And advancing socialism still makes me a bit nervous. But I can see how trickle down policies are actually damaging to the middle class, and in order for our economy to survive there has to be a middle class that will buy things. Additionally, most of what you all have said about taxation already being wealth redistribution is correct. I had not ever thought of it in that way, and I believe that it rings true. The socialistic side of Obama still makes me a bit nervous, but I don’t think what he proposes will be damaging and the motive behind it seems to be consideration for the little guy, the poor, the weak.

I think that explains my reasons and reasoning, and I imagine that I have now accomplished making a whole new group of people angry with me. Hopefully, I have made some new friends though too. I feel really good about finding solid reasons to do what I have wanted to do from the very beginning but was having trouble getting past my default position that has always been conservative. Comment away…..