It’s just a “mistake”

Okay, I try to keep out of politics as much as possible, but I just can’t help myself. For all of Obama’s talk about “change,” whatever that means, so far I haven’t seen anything new.  His proposed “stimulus” package is, from what I’ve heard, only about 1/5 actual stimulus, and the rest is just the typical pork-barrel spending.

Now, we see just how committed to integrity Obama is. First, we have his pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who was discovered to have not paid $34K in self-employment tax. He blames Turbo-Tax for not telling him he should report those earnings.  Anybody see the irony here?  A Treasury Secretary who doesn’t know enough to report a few hundred thousand of self-employment income?  If he’s put in charge of the Treasury, do we all get to rely on the Turbo-Tax defense?

If that wasn’t enough, now we have poor old Tom Daschle, who apparently just forgot to pay over $120,000 in taxes.  But, apparently it’s okay, because he sent a letter of apology.  Tom didn’t use the Turbo-Tax defense… for Tom, it was just a “mistake.” So, will this be precedent-setting for the IRS?  This sounds an awful lot like an old Steve Martin routine, where he suggests using the excuse, “I forgot:”

You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. “Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?” First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, “Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You.. have never paid taxes’?” Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: “I forgot!” How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don’t say “I forgot”? Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, “I forgot armed robbery was illegal.” Let’s suppose he says back to you, “You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, ‘I forgot’?” Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!

Obama is on record as saying he “absolutely” stands by Daschle.  He, too, must accept the “I forgot” defense, which makes it even better. How can the IRS come after you or me for not paying taxes if it’s okay with the whole Executive Branch?

I’m trying to figure out, based on all this, what Obama really meant by “change.”  It could mean a couple of things. One, it could mean – as it seems – that the tax code is “more of a guideline than an actual rule.”  Considering Obama’s post-modern constituency, this could be the case, and it probably won’t stop there; I can see them looking at the whole Constitution as “more of a guideline.”   Obama also could have meant that in light of his stimulus package, which could exceed $1 Trillion, $120,000 is just “chump change.”

Or, it could be simply that he lied. It could be that he’s no different than any other politician, with little or no scuples, making empty promises and plans to get away with whatever he can. I wonder, will he look the other way at the forgetfulness of Republicans, or just his fellow Dems?  He’s only in his 2nd week as President- what he does now will set the stage for the next 4 years.  It he a man of integrity, or not? Only time will tell … but, he should know that there are many of us who are not as forgetful as his cabinet picks.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Episcopal issues

In the last couple of months, I have become a regular at a local Episcopal church, and absolutely love it.  The liturgy is very meaningful, the music seclections are well chosen, and the sermons keep to the message and are always right on point.  At this point in my life, this is what I need (and yes, I’m aware that I’m focusing on my need here, and don’t apologize for that).  Furthermore, everything had, so far, been scripturally sound. That’s one of the benefits of liturgy.

However, the Episcopal church as a whole has problems, which has resulted in many congregations leaving the church. The main issue is over the fairly recent decision to allow gay priests. Now, there’s a move within the EC to broaden the definition of marriage to include gay unions. George Clifford writes in the Daily Episcopalian,

The next step in that unfolding narrative of grace is to expand the concept of marriage to include a gay man marrying a gay man or a lesbian marrying a lesbian. This timely, grace filled step rightly extends the Christian concept of marriage to people whom the Church for too long has marginalized or demonized, the very categories of people with whom Jesus spent his ministry. The Church wrongly has attempted to foist a life and love denying form of sexuality – heterosexuality – upon people whom God created with a different gender orientation. Consequently, their gender preference has too often caused gays and lesbians to deny their very identity or to express their sexuality in promiscuous, exploitative, or other destructive ways. Same-sex monogamous marriage inherently promotes healthy lifestyles, models the union of Christ and the Church, and can powerfully mediate grace to all whom they encounter.

George calls for the complete dismantling of the marriage rite, creating one blessing of any and all unions, regardless of whatever.  Besides completely ignoring Biblical teaching, including Romans 1, the logic is just wacko. This is one step away from blessing adulterers or worse (“… but he was born a pervert!”).

I agree that homosexuals have been treated badly over the years, and that they should be shown the same grace that we show any other sinners – which includes all of us. I don’t have a problem with that; I have welcomed gays and lesbians in church.  However, there is a great chasm between extending love and grace and supporting a lifestyle that is clearly against Scripture.  Suppose I was a compulsive adulterer – it is my nature; it may even be genetic, for all we know.  Why shouldn’t this behavior be condoned?  Why not show the same “grace” to that kind of sin?

As Karl Menninger once asked, whatever became of sin?  Or as Paul asked, should we sin more so that grace should increase?

It pains me that this kind of mindless pseudo-theology could drag a major denomination into heresy.  And yes, this is a major heresy, not just a civil rights issue, or an issue of which sins are worse than others. You see, Paul has identified marriage as holy not just because it is ordained by God, but because it is also a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  “Behold, I tell you a mystery,” Paul says concerning the issue.  To me, this goes right to the heart of the nature of the Church.

After finding a church that, for the first time in years, makes me want to get up early on a Sunday morning, I am deeply saddened by this issue, and pray that people listen to the Spirit of God, not the spirit of this age. I’d hate to have to go off in search of a church once again…

Posted in Church, Politics/Current Events | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

The critical analysis behind the Bible canon

Eusebius was an early (263-339) Christian historian who eventually became Bishop of Caesarea, although his is more commonly known for his work on early church history.  His work has been exceptionally helpful in that he references a number of early church writings which to our knowledge have not survived. The blog Heart, Mind, Soul & Strenth has posted a very interesting peice on Eusebius’ comments concerning the criteria used to determine whether a writing should be considered authentic and worthy of being included as scripture.  The article states:

… Eusebius’ general stance is that a writing was not accepted unless there was positive reason to accept it. That is to say, the default position was one of skepticism. Rather than accepting any book by default unless it could be disproved, the position was the opposite: he rejected any book which did not have historical evidence in its favor.

There are a lot of spurious claims made about the Bible, and about why books were included and others were not.  Thankfully, we have writings like that of Eusebius to give some clarity, not that those who have already chosen to doubt will accept this as sufficient evidence to change their minds.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Salvation, from varying points of view

Every once in a while the internet monk posts a question and has people from different theological backgrounds present their position. The current question is, “When were you saved?” It’s quite interesting. My favorite line is from Roman Catholic Alan Creech, who has possibly the best sense of humor: “Oh, I’m not saved yet – the whole God, Jesus thing kinda weirds me out still.” He was joking.

Posted in Theological Musings | Tagged , , | 2 Comments