The conversation that isn't happening.
As a proud Gordon
College Alumni (one of my sons has Adoniram as a middle name), I'm watching
this whole thing unfold, wincing and cringing as the reactions and blog posts
roll out. If you live in a deeper hole than I do: D. Michael Lindsey - the fairly new president of the college signed a
petition to be granted exemption from certain non-discrimination practices. This has blown up into an opportunity to attack Mr. Lindsey, Gordon College,
Christianity, and promote the theology of human sexuality and LGBT issues. (here
for one take)
But what about the
overlooked conversations we're not having?
D. Michael Lindsey
was touted as the best thing since sliced toast/A.J. Gordon himself, and Gordon
was proud to have won him in the bidding for the up and coming academic leader.
Lindsey is said to be improving the image of Gordon, being more professional
and credible: "His leadership... is part of a longer-term strategy to
position the institution as the liberal arts college of choice worldwide for
the development of thoughtful Christian leaders." That’s some big
aspirations for the "Boston Missionary Training School." His Bio on the college site drops
the names of "Presidents Carter and Bush, and hundreds of CEOs at the
nation’s largest corporations and nonprofit... The
New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN and Fox News
Channel," and "Pulitzer nominated" books (as well as a million
degrees and accolades).
But I've met D.
Michael Lindsey, he's about my age. I've met his wife and kids, and do you
know, they put their pants on the exact same way as I do? All the BS aside,
nobody is a "professional" and if we honestly believed we were, our self worth would be tied to our
accomplishments, and we would have lost the intrinsic value of humanity. So
Michael Lindsey made a judgment call, maybe a mistake, but is he a human being
or a professional? And why is it that
nobody is talking about this "Hobby Lobby" case (the supposed reason for the petition) in light of the fact
that the courts seem to be cementing the person-hood of corporations, while
stripping it from actual PERSONS.
See the conversation
nobody is having is a conversation we won't be able to have if we strip funding
to the humanities and especially the oft maligned "Philosophy major;"
Does a human life have intrinsic value?
If it does, Mr. Lindsey deserves a break, but we also can't celebrate
the Supreme Court's decision to say it doesn't. If it does, you can't evaluate
people based on titles, resumes, politics or the wealth of their success - no
you actually have to meet them, and know them. If it doesn't, then we are all
just merely means to an end, to be discarded when we step out of line: and we
should be fearful of what that end might be.
I'm scared too
We had a visitor at church this week.
That in itself is earth shattering when you consider we have average attendance of 12, and I haven't gotten a paycheck since March 30. It's hard not to appear "too welcoming." But you know what was the best thing about this visitor? This person wanted me to be aware of how much courage it took for them to walk into a strange church. I can identify with this: I'm a pastor in an American Baptist Church in a small New England Town, and I'm terrified of other Christians. Just take a look at what's going on and tell me why anyone would want to join our sorry lot?
Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal
Gospel Coalition Split
Mark Driscoll - need I say more
Casting stones
Black or white only please
I may be a pastor, but I'm also a human being.
I've been told that in my current situation, if I invest more, and put more time and effort into re-developing this small church, it will turn around and grow. I've been told I also need to find a second job (60 funerals in two years don't count) - any job even though we're a single car household, and getting to most of these jobs would cost more than I'd earn. I've been told I shouldn't be helping a Brazilian Church because it's not mine. I've been told that I need to make my family the priority, and spend quality time with them. I've been told I really should be helping my parents more; I've been told I really should be helping my parents less. I've been told I really need to pursue my wife, take her on dates and buy her flowers make her feel special; and I've been told it's financially unsound to spend any money when we have bills to pay. I've been told I need to bring more security and stability into my families life; and I've been told I need to keep trusting God to provide, and stop trying to figure it all out. Mostly I've been told to stop over thinking it...
The problem is that talk is cheap, and consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Everybody wants to be your mentor, nobody wants to learn. Should I be terrified to point out Jimmy Evans Eisegesis of Genesis 2:24-25 from "Marriage on the Rock?" Or that a Biblical Hermeneutic requires us to at least consider that Man was created for a purpose, part of which was to "tend the garden"... and it was for the purpose of helping Man with this work that a suitable helper was formed? I'm not trying to demean Jimmy Evans, but I also don't see God writing four laws in Genesis 2:24-25. Should I be terrified that by raising the idea that maybe we should seek to fulfill our role in creation that more Christians will abandon me, or worse attack? Should I have to stay up all night working on a funeral because I'm terrified an Evangelical or Conservative will be present and deem that I didn't use enough scripture, or watered down the gospel; while trying to also be sensitive to the grief of a family? Should I continue to earnestly work with church that's tried to fire me several times, and now can't pay me? Should I have to pretend I'm naive and a fool - or just keep silent, in order to get along with pretentious and arrogant people? Should I be afraid of posting this post?
Part of me says if I haven't proved myself yet, I never will - I don't want to be the kind of Christian other people are afraid of.
"So hold me Jesus
Cause I'm shaking like a leaf
You have been king of my glory
won't you be my prince of peace"
- Rich Mullins
That in itself is earth shattering when you consider we have average attendance of 12, and I haven't gotten a paycheck since March 30. It's hard not to appear "too welcoming." But you know what was the best thing about this visitor? This person wanted me to be aware of how much courage it took for them to walk into a strange church. I can identify with this: I'm a pastor in an American Baptist Church in a small New England Town, and I'm terrified of other Christians. Just take a look at what's going on and tell me why anyone would want to join our sorry lot?
Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal
Gospel Coalition Split
Mark Driscoll - need I say more
Casting stones
Black or white only please
I may be a pastor, but I'm also a human being.
I've been told that in my current situation, if I invest more, and put more time and effort into re-developing this small church, it will turn around and grow. I've been told I also need to find a second job (60 funerals in two years don't count) - any job even though we're a single car household, and getting to most of these jobs would cost more than I'd earn. I've been told I shouldn't be helping a Brazilian Church because it's not mine. I've been told that I need to make my family the priority, and spend quality time with them. I've been told I really should be helping my parents more; I've been told I really should be helping my parents less. I've been told I really need to pursue my wife, take her on dates and buy her flowers make her feel special; and I've been told it's financially unsound to spend any money when we have bills to pay. I've been told I need to bring more security and stability into my families life; and I've been told I need to keep trusting God to provide, and stop trying to figure it all out. Mostly I've been told to stop over thinking it...
The problem is that talk is cheap, and consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Everybody wants to be your mentor, nobody wants to learn. Should I be terrified to point out Jimmy Evans Eisegesis of Genesis 2:24-25 from "Marriage on the Rock?" Or that a Biblical Hermeneutic requires us to at least consider that Man was created for a purpose, part of which was to "tend the garden"... and it was for the purpose of helping Man with this work that a suitable helper was formed? I'm not trying to demean Jimmy Evans, but I also don't see God writing four laws in Genesis 2:24-25. Should I be terrified that by raising the idea that maybe we should seek to fulfill our role in creation that more Christians will abandon me, or worse attack? Should I have to stay up all night working on a funeral because I'm terrified an Evangelical or Conservative will be present and deem that I didn't use enough scripture, or watered down the gospel; while trying to also be sensitive to the grief of a family? Should I continue to earnestly work with church that's tried to fire me several times, and now can't pay me? Should I have to pretend I'm naive and a fool - or just keep silent, in order to get along with pretentious and arrogant people? Should I be afraid of posting this post?
Part of me says if I haven't proved myself yet, I never will - I don't want to be the kind of Christian other people are afraid of.
"So hold me Jesus
Cause I'm shaking like a leaf
You have been king of my glory
won't you be my prince of peace"
- Rich Mullins
The living and the dead
Death is a topic I'm
pretty familiar with. I've done almost fifty funerals and in almost every case
I have personally talked with and comforted the bereaved. On the one hand these
help pay the bills (I usually receive some sort of honorarium), on the other
hand I'm one of a few ministers who don't have a set fee, because I believe
that everybody deserves a proper burial even if they can't afford it. There was
one funeral however where the attendance consisted of the Funeral Director, The Cemetery worker,
and Myself. I've been to funerals where some family members weren't allowed to
attend, and one where an inappropriate "eulogy" was shared.
I've
always maintained that Funerals are for the living, not the dead. Even in the
case of the non-attended funeral, there was someone living who wanted to know
that their relative was buried "properly."
The news that Fred
Phelps of Westboro B*****t C****h passed
away has been met by mixed reactions even before it occurred. While I can
understand so many emotions regarding a controversial figure such as Phelps, I
also read about how some of his family have been cut off and not allowed to say
goodbye. Every person is a son or daughter to someone, maybe a dad or mom, a
cousin, uncle or aunt. Our sins, no matter how grievous we judge them don't
dilute our humanity but reinforce it.
Bivocational Ministry: Dysfunctional churches are led by dysfunctional pe...
Bivocational Ministry: Dysfunctional churches are led by dysfunctional pe...: Because of my writing and speaking I receive a lot of phone calls and e-mails from pastors and church leaders from numerous denominations. ...
Love and Divorce
One of the most
troubling verses in the Bible for me comes from the prophet Malachi, chapter
2:16.
"I
hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's
covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD
Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. (Pasted
from http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/2.html)
So as not to take
the verse out of its context, Malachi is talking about the sons of Israel who
have married the "daughters of
foreign gods". Whether they have
divorced other wives in order to do so, or divorced the foreign wives is
unclear from the context here, but contemporary writing in Ezra indicates that
there was a mass move to divorce the foreign wives in the post-exilic period as
a means of "repenting" in order to inherit God's favor. If this is the case here, Malachi is
essentially telling the returning exiles that two wrongs don't make a right.
Again this makes sense in the statement that a man is covering himself with
violence (the divorce) and breaking faith not just with God by marrying the
foreign wife, but then also with the wife.
Hate is a pretty
strong word, and it merits a the question; why does God hate divorce?
In Genesis 1:26+27
we read:
Then
God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them
rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the
ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them. (Pasted from http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html)
This is the sixth
day of creation, God creates man (plural: let them) in our (plural) image.
Verse 27 more succinctly puts it "So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." There is something then about this plural
relationship which is illustrative of God, for it is his image. Scholars have
long debated the "Imago Dei" as it's known deducing many probable
attributes of man that seem distinct from the other of God's creatures.
Rationality, Consciousness, the combined nature of spirit mind and body, even
the place of man as ruler or steward of creation. It is not however necessary
that the Imago Dei must be a distinct characteristic unique to human beings. If
God indeed created all that is "Ex Nihilo" as Augustine posits, then
the "Ex Nihilo" from which the cosmos came into being is the
substance of God himself, namely his spoken word (God said let there be light,
and there was light).
Consequently, many
aspects of creation may bear aspects of the creator, indeed all should, and yet
the "Imago Dei" is in fact mentioned uniquely about mankind. This may
indicate that God intended to reveal his character, his nature, his being through
mankind more fully than through any of the other created things. God is love,
we read in first John, and the plurality of a God who refers to himself as
"our" indicates a God of relationship. Is it possible that the Imago
Dei is at least partially found in our capacity to love, indeed our desire and
need to love? Tangentially, someone may mention the fact that animals display
love, but this does not diminish the intention of God's image in man; we simply
point to the passage that says if we fail to glorify God, even the rocks will
cry out.
If "Love"
is the "Image" then we find that image distorted through the fall.
The choice of self in being the judges of good and evil causes us to
misapprehend the image because of the ever present lens of self. Philosophers
and Judeo Christian Scholars have wrestled with a hierarchy of the various
types of love that we encounter in life ranking eros at the bottom followed by
phileo, and above all the selfless agape.
We romanticize about the unrequited nature of agape but the distortion
of this image can be seen in the foolishness of tragic fictional characters
such as Cyrano DE Bergerac. What we can witness from life, about the nature of
love itself, is a progression from the dependent obedient love of children
whose parents give of themselves, to a brotherly love that exists as we make
friends and start to understand the mutual nature of relationship, on to the
creation and possible mutual intimacy and benefit experienced in the marital
relationship.
To love costs
something. We’ve all heard that to have a friend, you have to be a friend. If
we flip the western Judeo Christian construct over we find that Agape is the
beginning, and opening for love to become possible. The Gospel stories of Jesus
demonstrate this, indeed Paul says that Christ made peace with us on the cross
opening the door to love; initially through dependence and obedience. When
Christ says no longer do I call you servants, but I call you friends; we are
witnessing the progression as in our own experience of life to a mutuality of
love. And just as the Christian and the Church are referred to as the Bride of
Christ, there is an expectant mutual intimacy into which God's love for us and
our love for God is supposed to build.
As in our
experience, often intimacy is short circuited, self demands obedience,
submission, crimes and misdemeanors against love leave us distant and hurt. We
allow ourselves to become distant from others and divorce takes place. Divorce
then isn't merely the social crime of leaving a spouse in the cold, but the
severing of relationship in direct opposition to the image of love which God
desires to reveal himself through. This is why God hates divorce it would seem.
This is not to say
that Divorce is not at times necessary because we indeed live in a world where
love is broken. Abandonment, Abuse, Opportunism, all are valid reasons to
realize that true intimacy is impossible, but Christianity seems too
comfortable with divorce. Not only do we tolerate divorce in the marital
relationship, but we divorce ourselves on such a regular basis from others who
have differing political perspectives, theological opinions, styles of worship,
ethnic origin, socio-economic status, and sometimes merely because we don't
like someone.
If we are called as
Christians to be salt and light, are we not called to be part of God's
revelation of his character, and especially of his love? What violence are we
covering ourselves in if in our search for personal purity and convenience we
destroy the opportunity for God to reveal himself through us?
Where is the third wave?
The language of business and marketing are not the answer to the problem of reaching the world for Jesus, but they do provide alternatives to some of the worn out nomenclature that we have become so accustomed to. Indeed all of life provides us with insight into the ways of the God who created life itself. Some people such as Phyllis Tickle have pointed out that there is a reformation ongoing in the church today, and others have pointed out that there is a reformation progression since the early church from sacrament, to sermonics, to social involvement (or community).
It's unfortunate that the phrase "third-wave Christianity" is associated C. Peter Wagner and Pentecostalism in America, because there is something far bigger going on. In business, the first wave is all about creating demand for a product; drink coffee, eat bacon, drive a car. The second wave is all about branding and loyalty, we don't just consume the product, we consume Maxwell House, or Folgers, we only drive Chrysler cars, or Ford trucks. This is similar to the movement of the Church throughout both history, and the experience each person has with the person of Jesus Christ. Billy Graham and Campus Crusade for Christ, most traditional evangelistic efforts are geared around getting individuals to accept a need for Jesus in their lives. Historically the Roman Church built demand for itself by offering salvation through the sacraments. The reformers however offered something new. Not only could you have the experience of the church, but you could have it as a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, or a Catholic. All of our modern denominations are a result of this brand creation, and most church efforts are aimed at achieving brand loyalty, with a little bit of first wave evangelism in order to have brand growth.
So what is a third wave Christian? In other areas, the third wave is recognized as the point at which the product is no longer merely the product, but rather it is appreciated by connoisseurs for it's nuance and subtlety. Few people who appreciate gourmet coffee will ever go back to drinking branded mass market coffee, and for some the third wave indicates a way of life. Third wave products are boutique products, they are acquired tastes. Third wave consumers want to be respected as knowledgeable and discerning. Yet this third wave is a threat to the bottom line of the second wave brands. Here the loyalty is to the product, rather than a brand - Third wavers are looking for something that is authentic and good. If they cannot find it within the establishment, they look elsewhere.
This spells tragedy for the modern church, with it's emphasis on growth models and and branding. The continual attempts to reach the third wavers with first wave marketing is also doomed to fail. Largely, the new generation hasn't denied the need for Jesus, but are on an unguided quest to find authenticity and quality apart from the institutions which fail to lead them forward to growth. A third wave Christian understands that Faith impacts all of reality, that worship is in how they live their lives, they do not subscribe to the creeds or doctrines of the branded church, but appreciate nuance, subtlety they choose ambiguity over hypocrisy. They want to work out their salvation, and wrestle with the mystery of godliness, and they take God seriously for who he is, not who we've made him out to be.
It's unfortunate that the phrase "third-wave Christianity" is associated C. Peter Wagner and Pentecostalism in America, because there is something far bigger going on. In business, the first wave is all about creating demand for a product; drink coffee, eat bacon, drive a car. The second wave is all about branding and loyalty, we don't just consume the product, we consume Maxwell House, or Folgers, we only drive Chrysler cars, or Ford trucks. This is similar to the movement of the Church throughout both history, and the experience each person has with the person of Jesus Christ. Billy Graham and Campus Crusade for Christ, most traditional evangelistic efforts are geared around getting individuals to accept a need for Jesus in their lives. Historically the Roman Church built demand for itself by offering salvation through the sacraments. The reformers however offered something new. Not only could you have the experience of the church, but you could have it as a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, or a Catholic. All of our modern denominations are a result of this brand creation, and most church efforts are aimed at achieving brand loyalty, with a little bit of first wave evangelism in order to have brand growth.
So what is a third wave Christian? In other areas, the third wave is recognized as the point at which the product is no longer merely the product, but rather it is appreciated by connoisseurs for it's nuance and subtlety. Few people who appreciate gourmet coffee will ever go back to drinking branded mass market coffee, and for some the third wave indicates a way of life. Third wave products are boutique products, they are acquired tastes. Third wave consumers want to be respected as knowledgeable and discerning. Yet this third wave is a threat to the bottom line of the second wave brands. Here the loyalty is to the product, rather than a brand - Third wavers are looking for something that is authentic and good. If they cannot find it within the establishment, they look elsewhere.
This spells tragedy for the modern church, with it's emphasis on growth models and and branding. The continual attempts to reach the third wavers with first wave marketing is also doomed to fail. Largely, the new generation hasn't denied the need for Jesus, but are on an unguided quest to find authenticity and quality apart from the institutions which fail to lead them forward to growth. A third wave Christian understands that Faith impacts all of reality, that worship is in how they live their lives, they do not subscribe to the creeds or doctrines of the branded church, but appreciate nuance, subtlety they choose ambiguity over hypocrisy. They want to work out their salvation, and wrestle with the mystery of godliness, and they take God seriously for who he is, not who we've made him out to be.
Times and Dates
If one does the math, based on Keplers calculation that Christ was born in 7bc, and not the year 0, then (or any other number of calculations) we find that Jesus was crucified in the year 26AD. This is significant for us in understanding and proving the resurrection because it is indeed on that year that April 1 falls on the first day of the week, or Sunday. The other significant fact about that year is that Passsover was to start on March 14, but because of the way in which it interfered with two Sabbaths, the date was bumped so that it started ten days before the last sabbath of the month (which means it began on March 18th at Sundown, ending with the Passover meal on Thursday March 28th).
This is the same Thursday on which we as Christians celebrate Maundy Thursday or the last supper. The Crucifixion took place then on Friday March 29. Jesus was in the tomb for 40 hours according to the church tradition, which has him rising again on Sunday April 1. Quite the April fools joke if you ask me: Hey I'm not really dead!
Throughout history Jesus institution of April fools day has been diminished by hostile forces within the church, in favor of the old pagan tradition of fertility and "Easter." But even Paul says those who are Perishing find the gospel to be "foolishness" and "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."
Oh, and YouTube is deleting all our videos at midnight tonight!
Babylon and the desert of Sin
1 Peter 5:13
13
She [your sister church here] in Babylon, [who is] elect with [yourselves], sends you greetings, and [so does] my son Mark.
As I ponder the current state of the Roman Church, I think: If Peters Babylon was Rome, he sees those there as being in exile... If that is so he would never have intended to establish the central headquarters of the church "he was to build" there.
If however Peter meant something like "the persecuted church" or some kind of "realized eschatology" in his statement about Babylon, then Peter probably never went to Rome to establish any church...
She [your sister church here] in Babylon, [who is] elect with [yourselves], sends you greetings, and [so does] my son Mark.
As I ponder the current state of the Roman Church, I think: If Peters Babylon was Rome, he sees those there as being in exile... If that is so he would never have intended to establish the central headquarters of the church "he was to build" there.
If however Peter meant something like "the persecuted church" or some kind of "realized eschatology" in his statement about Babylon, then Peter probably never went to Rome to establish any church...
context to tragedy
Death doesn't bother me; sure loss isn't a picnic mourning represents a change within us, how will we go on? how will we survive? how will we fill that empty place in our lives that we had filled with the love both from and for the departed.
But when you think about it, mourning is more about us than it is about the departed. Few if any of us would express sorrow about where we believe our loved ones end up - sure we'll callously do it about someone else's loved ones, but when it comes down to our own, even the most hell-firey and brim-stoney among us lean universalist in praxis. Don't believe me? go to more funerals. The command to love your neighbor as yourself gets a real test when facing scenes of grief stricken loved ones searching for their own way to find meaning to their loss.*
Often when I do funerals, my own meditation drives me to ontological query. What does it mean to exist? Is existence real? Is existence merely a physical thing? Why do we who exist, spend the bulk of our "nows" re-living the past, and pre-living our futures? Is existence possible in either the past or future? Is existence limited to now? If we speak of now in this sense, it is really the "eternal now". If I exist now, then I exist in the eternal now. Neither death nor life then are of consequence to existence. How do I become fully present as an existent being in the eternal now?
When Jesus asked the question about the tower of Siloam in Luke 13, this seems to have been his point. We get caught up in words like "repent" and their connotation today; but what if repent is a call to live in the eternal now? Wasn't this the kind of "life" that Jesus offered; living water; abundant life; truth; light? The past is dim and dark, the future is cloudy, but right now we can be in the light, as he is in the light.
How then do you place context around tragedies? Is not the tragedy itself a chance for us to be present?
Why is it that two tragedies inspire him to talk about a fruit tree that has not yielded fruit in three years? Why does the vineyard keeper appeal for one more year on behalf of the tree, to prune and fertilize it so as to see it bear fruit? We look for someone or something to blame in a tragedy, but Jesus said that there was no point in that. We can spend lots of effort in pointless pursuits lobbying for or against gun control, stricter rules for schools, legislation mandating medications on the mentally ill, or making it easier to place them in institutions - none of which will prevent another tragedy.
When we can distance ourselves from the emotional fury caused by the scenes on the news, and when we can free our selves from fear of death, I can tell you the best way to prevent the next tragedy: When was the last time you reached out to someone who was troubled or emotionally unstable, or unlovely? When was the last time you asked; Who is my neighbor?
*[For those who would like to argue doctrine; watch your practice. For the few who are bold enough to condemn someone at a funeral it probably wouldn't help anyway to point to the doctrine of the keys.]
But when you think about it, mourning is more about us than it is about the departed. Few if any of us would express sorrow about where we believe our loved ones end up - sure we'll callously do it about someone else's loved ones, but when it comes down to our own, even the most hell-firey and brim-stoney among us lean universalist in praxis. Don't believe me? go to more funerals. The command to love your neighbor as yourself gets a real test when facing scenes of grief stricken loved ones searching for their own way to find meaning to their loss.*
Often when I do funerals, my own meditation drives me to ontological query. What does it mean to exist? Is existence real? Is existence merely a physical thing? Why do we who exist, spend the bulk of our "nows" re-living the past, and pre-living our futures? Is existence possible in either the past or future? Is existence limited to now? If we speak of now in this sense, it is really the "eternal now". If I exist now, then I exist in the eternal now. Neither death nor life then are of consequence to existence. How do I become fully present as an existent being in the eternal now?
When Jesus asked the question about the tower of Siloam in Luke 13, this seems to have been his point. We get caught up in words like "repent" and their connotation today; but what if repent is a call to live in the eternal now? Wasn't this the kind of "life" that Jesus offered; living water; abundant life; truth; light? The past is dim and dark, the future is cloudy, but right now we can be in the light, as he is in the light.
How then do you place context around tragedies? Is not the tragedy itself a chance for us to be present?
Why is it that two tragedies inspire him to talk about a fruit tree that has not yielded fruit in three years? Why does the vineyard keeper appeal for one more year on behalf of the tree, to prune and fertilize it so as to see it bear fruit? We look for someone or something to blame in a tragedy, but Jesus said that there was no point in that. We can spend lots of effort in pointless pursuits lobbying for or against gun control, stricter rules for schools, legislation mandating medications on the mentally ill, or making it easier to place them in institutions - none of which will prevent another tragedy.
When we can distance ourselves from the emotional fury caused by the scenes on the news, and when we can free our selves from fear of death, I can tell you the best way to prevent the next tragedy: When was the last time you reached out to someone who was troubled or emotionally unstable, or unlovely? When was the last time you asked; Who is my neighbor?
*[For those who would like to argue doctrine; watch your practice. For the few who are bold enough to condemn someone at a funeral it probably wouldn't help anyway to point to the doctrine of the keys.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)