Who Is Being Represented?

Today in my area there is an election.  Our ballot will be rather brief - there will be a couple of questions regarding our local fire district, and then an election for two members of a seven-person school board.

What should the main criteria be for voting for one person over another?  Of course, in any given election that will depend on many things - what the office is, what the current issues are, etc.  I actually ran for school board a couple of times, many years ago (I lost, by the way, but that’s a different story).  One of the things that was important for me as a candidate, and is still important to me today in evaluating candidates, is the idea that the parents are ultimately responsible for a child’s education.  That may mean that the parents choose to homeschool the child, but it doesn’t have to.  Being responsible for something doesn’t mean one has to do it all.  There are other options, such as private school, and of course, public school.  But whichever option is chosen, the parents are not giving up their responsibility, but instead are choosing the most appropriate tools to carry out their responsibility.  Whichever choice is made, the parents should still be very aware of what is being taught and learned, should know the child’s strengths and weaknesses, should be ready to advocate for the child.  Too many parents abdicate much of their responsibility in their child’s life.

We choose school board members to represent us in making the major decisions of running a school district.  But who is the “us” they should represent?  Should they represent the children?  Many people think so.  And their opinion is seemingly confirmed by the amount of child neglect and child abuse at the hands of their parents.  Teachers are often frustrated by the unresponsiveness they get when trying to reach out to many children’s parents.  Someone has to advocate for the children.

Others say school board members should represent the community, or perhaps more specifically, the voters.  In both this option and the previous one, you run into the issue of having elected officials who think that they know what is best for the children, over and above the parents.  And we have been seeing that play out.  There have been schools that have distributed contraceptives to students and facilitated abortions for students.  The concern that some schools are indoctrinating students in regard to sexual orientation and gender identity issues has recently led Florida to pass a law that seeks to protect parental rights by prohibiting the teaching of these concepts to young children.

For Christians, the Bible instructs parents that they have a primary duty to teach their children.  These instructions are mostly concerned about teaching them about God and following Him.  But the overall implication of Scripture is that the parents are the assigned stewards of one (or more) of God’s children.  God does not give that assignment to anyone else.  It is not the village’s responsibility, not government’s, only the parents’.

Parents, understand your responsibility in the life of your child, and be involved.  And choose school board members who will best represent your position as steward of your child.

Joseph, Part 2: Wrong Wing

Happy Independence Day!

We've got several months before we get to the presidential election, but less than a week before opening night of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat."

I don't know if it is just me, but election cycles seem to get longer and longer. Now that we are finally down to the two party candidates (no offense to those running for president but not in the two major political parties), I would kind of hope for a lull. But we still hear about them every day, things like how left-wing Barack H. Obama is (or may not be according to this article or this one, or this interview discussing whether Obama and Hillary represent two left wings of the liberal party), and how (disappointingly) not right-wing John McCain is (as evidenced by this reluctant show of support or this article from early this year and even a surprising quote from his own mother found in this article).

Left-wing and right-wing get used a lot as synonyms for liberal and conservative. But do they mean the same thing? What do left-wing and right-wing mean?

My answer right now is, I don't completely know (I've noticed that others have tried to think about this as well). The dictionary I checked said that left-wing means something along the lines of "being of the liberal party, or of the liberal portion of a party," and likewise for right-wing. So that makes them sound like synonyms. But others, like this article that is only partially available for free on the Internet, make the case that there is a distinct difference between "liberal" and "left wing".

So what does this have to do with the musical "Joseph?" In the beginning of the second act, while Joseph is in a prison cell in Egypt, a new character comes to the stage. It is Pharaoh, the King, and presented as the Egyptian Elvis. The Narrator describes Pharaoh as "a powerful man with the ancient world in the palm of his hand." Further, "No one had rights or a vote but the King. In fact you might say he was fairly right wing."

Wait a minute. Think about some of the totalitarian governments in recent history. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro. All of these are socialistic, the liberal economic policy. So would it not be at least as accurate to say Pharaoh was "fairly left wing?"

I'm not at all happy that my children are merrily getting it hammered into their heads that "right wing" equals dictatorial. I suggested to the director that we sing "right wing" half the nights and "left wing" the other half. That way we could be equal opportunity offenders. I was overruled.

God Helps Those Who Help Themselves

That's got to be in the Bible, right? Actually, no, it is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But many people quote it as if it were. And so Representative and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently has helped herself to creating her own personal additions to the Bible. According to this article, for Earth Day she "quoted" (or at least paraphrased) the non-existent Scripture, "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us." Funny, I just don't remember that one. And she couldn't be bothered with a pesky thing like a Scripture reference. But apparently it is one of her favorites, as she has quoted it on several occasions.

It's one thing when the Enemy attacks the words of Scripture, but quite another to attempt to discredit the Bible on the basis of things that aren't even in there. By the same token, even when we quote Scripture that is actually in the Bible, we must be careful to not quote it in such a way that we make it say what it truly does not mean in its context. Those of us who hold God's Word in its proper high esteem should guard its meaning as well as its words.

Interestingly, one of the interviewees for this article was Claude Mariottini, who was my Old Testament teacher in college.

Harder Than It Looks

I saw one of those church signs tonight. You know, the kind with one of those little soundbites of witticism. This one said something close to "Wisdom has two parts: (1) Having lots to say and (2) Not saying it." I wish I could say my lack of posting on here were a glorious display of wisdom. Because I have had lots to say. I could start at Barack H. Obama's pastor (or former pastor?) and stay busy right on up to the Pope's visit. But the real truth is, it is just hard to keep up with the blogging. But I'm going to keep trying, because I really do enjoy it.

On a sad note related to one of my previous postings, screen legend Charlton Heston (Moses in "The Ten Commandments," among other roles) passed away on April 5. The liberal media's attempt at an obituary was apparently as hard for them as keeping up with blogging is for me. In case you didn't catch all the negative slams, this might help out.

A Winner This Week One Way or Another

The leading contender for the worst theological statement of the week by a politician (a category that isn't all that hard to find nominees for) is Senator and presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He actually has two contenders in one speech made Sunday in Ohio according to this article or this one, but I'll only deal with one. In defending his view that same-sex unions should be a legal right regonized by the state from a Biblical basis, he "would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." First of all - huh? (For those of you looking for profound intellectual discussions, that last statement may feel a little like shopping for an engagement ring in a bait-and-tackle shop. But sometimes people say such outlandish things that for a few seconds at least, the only response anyone can make is, "Huh?") Where exactly in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus address same-sex unions? Was it the part where Jesus said that He didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them and not one little part of a letter of them would pass away until heaven and earth disappear? No, that can't be it, because that would involve things like Leviticus 18:22 that explicitly forbid homosexuality. Was it where He went on to discuss those Old Testament ideas of forbidding murder and adultery and dealing with divorce and oaths? That can't be it either, because rather than declare how we've all moved beyond those Old Testament ways of thinking, Jesus taught that we need to practice these commands more thoroughly by subjecting our thoughts and not just our actions to the Lord and His commands. So if anything, Jesus was saying that passages like the one from Leviticus mentioned earlier should not just be obeyed in action but in our thought life as well. Oh, maybe it was the "don't judge" part. That's a favorite one, right? Except that to make that apply to homosexuality, which is expressly forbidden, wouldn't we also have to apply it to murder, adultery, and all those other expressly forbidden things? But if we do that, if we cannot judge any actions taken by others as wrong, we make Jesus contradict Himself, the Sermon on the Mount loses its power, and we have no basis for any law.

But second, in what way is a passage from one of Paul's most impressive letters "obscure?" It is likely that Obama was referring to Romans 1:26-27, and those two verses are neither mired in a problematical context nor worded in a convoluted manner. Paul's words are straightforward, condemning those, both male and female, who are practicing homosexuality.

So the two premises of Obama's argument, a "clear" teaching from Jesus and an "obscure" teaching from Paul, are without merit. But his real argument (if he had any premises to stand on) is that Jesus' teachings overrule Paul's. I have heard similar arguments by those who don't much care for what Paul had to say, but want to think of themselves as followers of Jesus. I've heard it stated this way: "I believe in the Word of God - those are the words in red." This is actually a full-blown denial of what the Word of God is. The Old Testament was written with the emphasis of "Thus saith the Lord." It is as if those are the first four words of the Old Testament, with a beginning quote mark before Genesis 1:1 and a closing quote mark after Malachi 4:6. And Jesus acknowledges that characterization in the Sermon on the Mount as I mentioned earlier. And the same Spirit that led the Old Testament writers is the same Spirit that led Paul and the other New Testament writers. Jesus came in a special way to Paul to have Paul represent Him to the Gentiles. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divided. If Obama is following a Jesus that contradicts Paul, I know which Jesus that is not.

I don't know how Sen. Obama will fare on this Super Tuesday II, but he's the odds-on favorite to win my would-be contest this week.