Here’s a great quote from Kristine Holmgren in an interview I read to day at MinnPost.com:

If you never go outside your peer group, you’re only going to see the world the way your peers see it.

The impact that my peers’ opinions have on my opinions is fairly obvious. If I have a conversation with someone, or several someones within my peer group wherein we share opinions and I discover that I’m in the minority, I’ll have a tendency to moderate my opinions toward theirs. It may not be 100% agreement, but a few percentage points toward theirs at least. As time passes, this happens over and over and over, not unlike the impact that water has on a seemly indestructible stone stuck in the bed of a river.

Here’s the full interview.

Well, the health care debate rambles on. Conservatives are afraid of more government and liberals are seeing an opportunity to make health care available to millions of people who would not otherwise have it.

Amidst thousands of pages of an actual bill and hundreds of thousands of pages of commentary, how are we supposed to know exactly how a bill is going to affect us? And how will we know whether a health care reform bill will really work?

Sure, there are endless articles out there claiming to know this or that about legislative health care reform. Most popular are the claims that politicians hold a hidden legislative agenda. Some argue that it is the personal hope for some politicians is that they will some day be able to control our lives as much as possible and take our freedoms away.

They are out to get you! They want to make your lives miserable!

So often we forget that politicians simply move whichever way the wind blows. The reason health care reform has made it this far is because of public outcry. And the reason why Democrats have taken the lead with their programs for reform is because when the GOP had the majority, they didn’t do enough to respond to public frustration with the rising cost of health care.

As for my own opinion on the matter, I am optimistic, but until I finally read the final version of the Senate bill, or at least portions of the bill that interest me most, I can’t really speak authoritatively on the matter. Which gets me to to my final point. What percentage of us can really speak authoritatively on this matter? 3%? 5%? Or is it even less than that…1%? Regardless, the speculation flies and amidst all the information and commentary, we all actually know very little. How ironic.

Illegal immigration is a hot topic in Albert Lea, Minnesota. We’ve had a number of visits from Centro Campesino and others who are marching to raise awareness about the animosity that some folks feel toward immigrants. Needless to say, there are a number of Albert Leans who don’t care for groups who show support for illegal immigrants.

Here is the lead from a recent article in the Albert Lea Tribune titled, “Immigration reform groups march in Albert Lea”:

Carrying a message of hope, justice and fair immigration reform, about 30 people from multiple organizations around the state marched in Albert Lea on Sunday, during what was the last of a series of reform marches over the weekend.

Of particular interest are the kind of comments that get posted after an article like this. Here is an example of a comment written by a fellow who goes by “taxpayer”:

It makes me sick that this was held near the veterans memorial. What a slap in the face to all the vets who gave their lives in order for us to have the rights and lifestyles that we have today(or used to have). I am sick and tired of all of these immigrants whining and crying about EVERYTHIING! One of the reasons that this nation is financially in the crapper today is because of all the catering that we do to these people. Who the heck provided all of these things to our immigrant ancestors when they came to America? NOBODY, that’s who! They earned everything that they got. Nothing was handed to them. If you dont like it here, do us all a favor and leave. Please..let us AMERICANS get back to life as we used to know it.

I’m afraid that this sort of comment is not unusual and not unique to Albert Lea. These kind of comments are being posted on news websites and forums all over the country. And it appears as though the pervasiveness of comments like these won’t cease any time soon.

Every once in a while I add a comment or two of my own just to show that not everyone who reads and posts comments at the Albert Lea Tribune has such a vindictive attitude toward immigrants, but it feels like a losing battle.

Here’s one comment I wrote:

You all have a right to your opinion. I respect that. Just respect that I have a right to treat people kindly whether they are here legally or illegally. They are all God’s children and many of them are trying to support their families the best they know how.

If you feel you have the right to step on them because they’ve broken the law, remember that being merciful is a good thing and using vindictive words toward immigrants probably won’t fix anything. Work to change legislation. It will be far more productive than working to instill fear.

And a response to the above comment from a fellow by the name of “savypro”:

They are all God’s children,,,,,,,,Paaalease,this is not about religon,its about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS coming here trying to change the laws that mine and yours LEGAL IMMIGRANTS fought and spilled their blood trying to protect.

Yikes. There is a great chasm between folks who view faith as something that doesn’t apply to political discussions, particularly immigration, public health, etc. and folks who view faith as that which teaches us people ought to be respected and treated kindly…even if they knowingly break the law to find a better life for themselves and their families.

My reply to “savypro”:

Savypro, how I treat people, whether they are lawbreakers or not, has everything to do with my relationship with God and my religion.

If you get the chance, stop by the Albert Lea Tribune and leave a comment.

I’m sure Reuters will love me for pointing this out. But they mistakenly called Obama, Osama in an article published minutes ago. This is probably the hundredth time that a publication has done this. I thought this one was particularly funny, though. It reads, “The New York senator dismissed Osama’s criticism over the economy, saying his plans fell short on extending health care to the all Americans, on dealing with the mortgage crisis and expanding the sue of renewable energy.”

Greg Boyd’s “Myth of a Christian Nation” is the sort of book which unequivocally reaffirms my desire to follow Jesus. If I were to give his book another name it would be, “Greg’s Letter to the Americans,” following in the same vein as Paul’s Letters to the Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, etc.

Granted, Boyd would probably cringe if he knew someone was comparing something he wrote to the Bible. But he writes this book (or letter) to well-meaning fellow Christians who are bickering among themselves, and/or peeved about his stance on war, violence, his lack of oppositional aggressiveness toward gays, and his apparent lack of fervor in the war against abortion.

Boyd’s preoccupation is with an absolutely mind-blowing concept: the “power under” kingdom of God. This is opposed to a pervasive and often deceptive “kingdom of the world,” which yields its “power over.” Rather than ordering people to become followers of Jesus, Boyd argues that we use Jesus’ life as a model of how God transforms people into followers.

Though his book is pointed, Boyd’s instructions are not aimed at any one particular group of Christians, but toward the Body of Christ as a whole. Boyd writes:

Conservative religious people involved in kingdom-of-the-world thinking often believe that their enemies are the liberals, the gay activists, the ACLU, the pro-choice advocates, the evolutionists, and so on. On the opposite side, liberal religious people often think that their enemies are the fundamentalists, the gay bashers, the Christian Coalition, the anti-abortionists and so on.

Boyd continues with what are perhaps two of my favorite lines in the whole book:

If we were thinking along the lines of the kingdom of God, however, we would realize that none of the people mentioned in the above lists are people whom kingdom-of-God citizens are called to fight against. They are, rather, people whom kingdom-of-God citizens are called to fight for.

Part of why I like those two lines so much is because, as odd as it may sound, I don’t think I’ve ever heard “power under” taken so far. So often Christians want to remove or ignore that part of the Body of Christ that doesn’t suit them. But Jesus would have us serve them instead. Read this book. I’ve only touched on a smidgen of what Boyd gets to his Letter to the Americans. (Humorous note: if you switch the last two letters of ‘Boyd’ around you get ‘Body’…okay, time for me to get to bed.)

Rick Warren, the author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” according to an article in the December 9th issue of the Economist, has made it his mission to tackle AIDS. As it turns out, he is in the minority among some of his evangelical colleagues. While Warren seeks to help those who are suffering from AIDS, Jerry Falwell and others are uncomfortable with the notion of seeing AIDS as anything more than God punishing sexual immorality.

Warren has also taken heat for inviting politicians like Barack Obama to join the fight. Warren took an AIDS test to set an example and encouraged Obama to do the same. According to the Economist, “Mr. Warren’s invitation to the Democratic senator (who dutifully submitted to a mouth swab for HIV) brought a rebuke from conservative churchmen and commentators who object to his attitude to abortion,” as though abortion were the only social issue of any importance to anyone. Obama’s speech included admonitions like, “we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions.”

Warren’s actions and his thick skin to the remarks of extremist evangelicals are hopefully a sign of more to come. He appears to be in the same vein as Joel Hunter, who recently stepped down as president-elect of the Christian Coalition because of resistance he encountered in trying to expand the scope of the Coalition’s mission. Hunter wanted to bring issues like minimum wage and the environment to the table. It didn’t fly this time, but the times, they are a changin’ folks. I’m not an evangelical myself, but I’m excited for what happens to the future of evangelicalism when they decide there are one or two important social issues in the realm of Jesus’ message and ministry.

“Cold Comfort” is the title of a recent article in The Economist which explains that the current treatment of terrorist suspects isn’t going to get any better:

Not only does it permit the CIA to continue its harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists in secret prisons abroad, it also strips foreign detainees of one of the civilised world’s most ancient legal protections-the right to challenge their detention in court.

While politicians argue that we cannot be soft on suspected terrorists, they’ve failed to emphasize something very important: these are suspected terrorists. In other words, a percentage of detainees who do not have the right to challenge their detention in court are, in fact…are you ready for this? INNOCENT.

With all the political negotiating and haggling going on, the presumption is made that all prisoners currently held in prison camps, (where-ever these camps might be), are all guilty. For one, I don’t agree with torturing anyone, let alone guilty prisoners, but the thought of torturing someone and holding them in prison when they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong is absolutely nauseating. It’s the same feeling I get when I hear about how Saddam’s militia actually buried people alive. How do we let a bill like this pass?? And what was the point of passing it in the first place? The Economist’s article concludes:

Defendants will now be entitled to see all the evidence against them, though some of it only in “redacted” form. But that will be of little comfort to the mass of detainees who still face the prospect of languishing in Guantanamo without ever being charged or tried and without any possibility of challenging their detention.

Wow, my tax dollars went toward passing an entirely useless, human rights violating piece of… legislation.

I just finished reading The Diluted Church by Timothy L. Price. My friend, Jason Baker, sent it to me a few days ago. Price touches on several key topics throughout his book, but a couple points really caught my eye.

A former writer for the Army’s third largest newspaper and a solidly unapologetic Evangelical Christian, Price argues that the assumption that American Christians owe their allegiance to God’s Kindgom and to the U.S. is a fallacious twist of Scripture’s true message.

He writes, “God is not an American and He has no eternal interest in this country. He is interested in each person and his or her soul’s condition. God isn’t cheering when America beats the Chinese on trade deficits, or who broke the sound barrier first. He could not care less!”

While no one can say exactly what God does or does not care about, Price’s point is well taken: we’ve elevated the United States to a place of divine appointment without a consistent scriptural basis to do so.

Putting Christianity and nationalism together, Price argues, leads us toward a regrettable duplicity. He refers to the ‘servant of two masters’ passage in the sixth chapter of Matthew, which discusses how we can have either a primary relationship with either money or God but not both. According to Price, the ‘servant of two masters’ priciple readily applies itself to the impossibility maintaining a primary allegiance to both God and country.

Price explains, “This text, of course, is speaking of money and the danger of it owning us. At the same time there is a principle we can draw from what Christ said: we cannot have two things directing our lives. They will fight against each other.”

Although I’m sometimes uncomfortable with Price’s reference to ‘the enemy’ and to the Satan-as-Prince-of-the-Earth motif, he uses it well, and in a way I believe it is meant to be used.

Price writes, “One of the key activities of the enemy is to destroy. The quickest way to destroy any group’s effectiveness is to divide it.” Price claims that paying homage to the state, we divide our singular allegiance to God.

In addition to his discussions about nationalism and the church, I came across a particularly interesting discussion about conservative political activism.

He writes, “If all we are doing is putting our fingers into all the holes in a damn, holding back total anarchy, we have failed to solve the real problems in the process. In addition, we have preoccupied ourselves with a ruse. We have become fools to think that we can successfully legislate morality of people thorugh law as an extension of our vote.”

Before making the point above, Price explains, “I am surprised that we, who believe in a Holy God, waste our time trying to get people to act morally without the gospel, as the basis for being able to be moral, having been addressed in the process.”

Perhaps Price is suggesting that with our attempts to legislate morality, we’re not properly representing a true, transformative gospel message; rather, we’re merely presenting the legalistic half of what the bible teaches. Spiritually, this is like telling chopping off someone’s right leg, forcing them to run a marathon, and expecting them to like it.

On the whole, Price’s book is a tad bit conservative for me to fully align myself with it, but I believe—with respect to our biblical imperative and the role of the church in relation to the state, and the role of the church in today’s society as a whole—it is one of the most clear-headed books about modern Christianity I’ve head the pleasure of reading. Price argues that we not spoon feed ourselves with the teachings of the church without considering first whether there is a sound biblical basis for these teachings.

The topics from Price’s book that I’ve mentioned here are only the tip of the iceburg, as well as his discussion of these topics. His is a balanced, well-developed, and articulate expression of thoughtful Christian living and discipleship.

Yes, I realize at the onset that this would appear rather disingenuous pursuit, attempting to articulate a view which I, myself, do not hold (except for an occasional sentence here and there…which, perhaps, shows where two positions have the potential of colliding. HA!). I apologize in advance for this rhetorical exposition, but I think for me to argue a position effectively, it is helpful to spend a great deal of time attempting to understand those positions which run contrary to my own. Otherwise, I am talking without listening and not growing as a person. Also, I write this to show that I do try to consider several sides of an issue before articulating my own position. Finally, I write this to demonstrate, to the extent that my limited abilities will allow, the amount of sophistry that goes into my own rhetorical expositions. Please read the entries that precede this one if you are curious about what I believe.

Why should we proactively pursue an amendment to our state’s constitution that would keep marriage between one man and one woman? In the last few years and months, this question has surfaced more than at any other time in history. How we answer this question and how we act on our answers will have a lasting impact on the future and integrity of marriage, our relationship with God’s word, and our relationship with God.

First and foremost, if we do not have the courage to draw a line now, at this empirical juncture, when will we? If we do not have the courage to heed God’s word now, when will we?
What if a man decides it is his right to marry two women? What’s to keep two couples from marrying each other…four people wedded together in holy matrimony??

Some might suggest that conjuring up this ‘slippery slope’ in order to prove that allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is a shaky practice, and that we really must take each situation as it comes. But I claim that we walk down a perilous path by not carefully considering how it is that today’s decisions will impact decisions we make tomorrow.

A man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman does not readily fit within the scope and purpose of holy matrimony as God intended it. Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of a holy physical and spiritual bonding between two people of the same sex. Not only that, but—according to Scripture—homosexual relations are an abomination, and marrying two people who willfully act in this way does not hide their sinfulness from God’s sight.

Some might argue that at the time Scriptures were written there was no such thing as a ‘homosexual orientation’ and that people at that time would have never conceptualized such a thing…because there were no words for it. Are we then suggesting that at the time of Jesus, and at the time of the Hebrew Bible’s formation, God’s knowledge and intentions with respect to marriage were not fully developed? Friends, I would argue that God knew then what God knows now: that marriage is for the joining of two souls, the soul of one man with the soul of one woman.

Some might put forth the notion that traditional marriage, that which is defined as being between one man and one woman, will in no way be affected by the inclusion of gays and lesbians into marriage’s circle of sacristity. While this may or may not be the case, the purpose of keeping marriage between one man and one woman isn’t primarily to maintain its integrity as an institution. Rather, it is to align ourselves with God’s plan for humanity. We align ourselves not because we are pharisaic legalists, but because God’s Word is a leading light, and—as Christians—we yearn for guidance outside the limited scope of human wisdom. If this light does not lead us, what is it that leads us?

Though gay marriage has not yet been tested in history as an addendum to the institution of marriage, Scripture prepares us for days like these…when we are not wise to decide God’s will through the lens of our own understanding. Rather, when God’s words address these issues, we must listen with humility and move forward with conviction. Though it is sometimes painful read Scripture and act in accordance with its meaning and purpose, we do so all-the-while remembering God’s greatest commandment: that we love our neighbors as ourselves.

“But an amendment to our state’s constitution?” you might ask. “Is this really necessary?”

The gay marriage issue, because of what it represents and because of the social fabric to which it is bound, must be acknowledged by the state in the same what that the state acknowledges marriage…even if it just a civil ceremony. Friends, there would be no civil ceremony were it not for marriage’s Judeo-Christian roots, and its sound influence on society even today. By proposing a ban on gay marriage, we’re not inventing anything new, but returning to the roots that brought us to where we are today. It is a time of repentance, not in the usual use of the word, but in its original Hebrew meaning, which is ‘to turn back to God.’

Wherever and whenever we can, we must turn back to God. Though Post-modern trends turn us and distract us from scriptural clarity, we cannot waver in our vigilance. We are waiting for the Kingdom and part of this waiting means taking God’s Word to our hearts and minds, and preparing ourselves for the time when, like a thief in the night, Jesus will come again.

Today I received a letter in the mail from “Minnesota for Marriage,” asking me for money to support their effort.

This is what I wrote and will mail to them on Monday morning:

Dear Friends,

     I’m concerned about the amount of money, time and energy that has gone into keeping marriage between a man and a woman. As a person of faith I find it troubling that you are choosing to use our state’s limited private resources in this way, when there are children who go to sleep hungry every night…right here in Minnesota. These same children often don’t have the health coverage they need to lead happy healthy lives.
     God calls us to be in solidarity with ‘the least of these,’ giving them food when they are hungry and putting shoes on their feet when they are cold. This is our biblical imperative. Spending large amounts of time and money on a marriage amendment will not solve the most crucial problems facing our society. If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, it ought not to be outlawed through legislation. If you must outlaw it, outlaw it in your churches, but please do not use the state to do so.
     Jesus teaches to measure actions by their fruits. There are many gay marriages that yield good fruit and many heterosexual marriages that yield bad fruit; a marriage amendment addresses none of that, but hopes to make a blanket prohibition that, in the end, will solve nothing.
     Again, please consider how much time Jesus spent using the state to police sexual morality, and how much time he spent walking with, talking with, and healing the poor and oppressed.
     Please take me off your mailing list.

Blessings,

Jeshua Erickson