EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
There's something in the air right now . . .
Something familiar. A growing sense of frenzy that was kicked up around election time, and seems to have re-emerged with the conversation surrounding health care reform. People are panicking. They aren't just disagreeing, or questioning the administration, or sharing opinions. People are yelling and screaming, threatening and freaking, and believing and perpetuating some seriously creative stories about the government’s desire to kill disabled children and leave our elderly "out to pasture". I wish I could just sit and watch this unfold as a detached observer. People are drawn to drama - this is a universal truth. It would be easier for me to laugh it off and shake my head at the antics of some imaginative figureheads who enjoy cattle-prodding the masses into mass hysteria. The trouble for me, though, as a Christian, is that as I watch this unfold, I am unsettled with the fact that most of this is coming from other people who share my faith. The conservative right and "Christiandom" have been inexplicably linked in our nation - so much so that I think many people have difficulty differentiating between the two. What’s worse, the conservative right are being represented in the media by people whose communication tactics are manipulative at best.
It is baffling to me to watch people who invoke the name of “Christ” so loudly, to be so deceitful in recruiting for their political causes. It is also confusing for me that so many Christians are not outraged at this behavior. When a previous candidate for the religious right suggests that retarded children will sit in front of death panels who will decide their fate, it’s time to rethink the leadership. When a popular conservative mouthpiece starts showing posters of Nazi's preparing to execute a person with cerebral palsy in a conversation about national healthcare, it's time to seriously consider if this person has a grasp on reality and should be informing anyone on anything. When that same person jokes about poisoning the speaker of the house, accuses the president of loathing white people, and acts complicit when a caller suggests that Obama is the antichrist, then it's a bit confusing to learn that this man still has a huge audience amongst Christians. And when a subsidiary of a Christian university puts out a "factsheet" on the healthcare bill that is widely circulated amongst Christians and yet refuted by most fact-checking websites, then one has to wonder when honesty became an optional virtue for the religious right.
There is nothing Christian about stoking fears, scaring the less-educated, freaking out the elderly, and then winking and shrugging when a mob mentality starts sweeping the nation. Will this still be funny when someone resorts to violence, because they are believing the political swill? Because in case you haven't noticed, there are some seriously crazy people out there who are just waiting for a good fight.
 Yes, our nation is grappling with healthcare. Boiled down, some of us think our employer should keep paying, while some of us would prefer the government to foot the bill. As Christians, we are free to respectfully disagree with the government on this issue. But please hear me - this post is not about that. It's about the hysteria surrounding healthcare. While passions are high on this issue, I think most of the brouhaha has been guided (or misguided) by some savvy members of the conservative media who are now watching with glee as their Republican public is fueled by fear. If their fantastical predictions do come true, and a death panel is instituted, or the elderly are left for dead, or our country is dismantled, I hope we all have enough faith in our country and fellow citizens to believe that ALL OF US will be fighting back. But for now, it seems like fear is a powerful recruiting tool that some are using at the expense of integrity or truth. As Brian McClaren recently said,
"But we Christians, it seems to me, have a high calling – to be radically committed to integrity and civility, even (especially) with those with whom we disagree. God, after all, is merciful, generous, and kind to “the just and the unjust”: How can we not have that same obligation regarding those with whom we disagree? Even if others resort to dirty political tricks and distortion of the truth through exaggeration and fear-mongering, we simply cannot. At the very least, we should be seekers of truth, seekers of wisdom, not consumers (or purveyors) of propaganda – even if it comes from members of our own political party and people who quote a lot of Bible verses (often out of context). We have a higher calling. "
People love the thrill of a fight, and bonding over a common enemy gives people a sense of purpose. But inciting riots over imaginary scenarios is a dangerous game. Our job as Christians is to keep doing God's work - to be His hands and feet - until He returns. Our job is to seek justice, to do mercy, to walk humbly . . . Perhaps it is time for all of us to seek these qualities in the people who will represent us. At best, it's time to turn down the voices that don't, and to be accountable for the information we give and receive so that our words and thoughts are based in the truth. (i.e., checking the truth of incendiary emails we receive before sending them on).
Recently, Keith Olbermann made a plea for the religious right to act with more integrity. Let pause for a moment on that sentence: Keith Olbermann made a plea for the religious right to act with more integrity. He's not my favorite person, but his words here cut to the quick of the matter. I encourage you to give it a listen.
We don't all have to agree with the same political ideology. But making things up about the people we don't like? Even my four-year-old knows better than that.
|
Comments
"...one has to wonder when honesty became an optional virtue..."
Well put. If we're following the One who identified Himself as "the truth," it seems our personal life-standards should include simple honesty.
too bad we don't live in a sweet little world where life goes on the way we choose to have it just because we're nice and we want it that way. Before you group the angry in the mob mentality and say they don't know what they're talking about and that they're behaving badly by insisting the politician acknowledge them as valid, read the bill. Start with page 16 that explains exactly how private health insurance companies will be history.
It's not all hysteria. Then again, why is loud bad when polite doesn't cut it? The very demonstration tactics you so deplore as undesirable are a milder version of the tactics President Community Organizer used with A.C.O.R.N.
p.s. he told the unions he wants a single payer system. He's telling the cameras this week he doesn't want a single payer system. Which time did he tell the truth and don't the two contradictory statements indicate he is a liar at least half the time and which time?
oh, and, yes, there will be a government bureaucrat looking at the computer monitor telling the doctor if the patient is worth the expense. That is in the first stimulus bill. The term used is Meaningful Use. I have a pdf of the bill.
support for Obama's Deathcare will ration Grandma and Grandpa and any other person not meeting Meaningful Use criteria out of existence. That's "dead" for the polite crowd.
READ THE BILL
Jane, you are giving a perfect example of what I am talking about. I'm sorry that you have been led to feel so scared. But it sounds like you have been reading the Liberty propoganda. I would really encourage you to check out factcheck.org or politifact.com to check these claims. But just for anyone reading this:
Page 16 of The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. There is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans. It does NOT outlaw private insurance.
(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/22/ibdeditor...)
"Meaningful Use" refers to a portion of stimulus funds directed at getting more providers to use a electric health records program. It has no directive or relevance to Grandma or Grandpa's death. (http://www.meaningfuluse.org)
If we are going to start with this type of "information sharing", let's all cite our sources. (blogs are not a valid source).
I would never claim that Obama (or any politician) has been without fault. But this post was not about his behavior - it was about Christians sharing false information with each other.
I'd agree with Kristen, Jane. The politicians and partisans on both sides have a vested interest in selling us their slanted (or worse) view of any controversy. Both sides' propaganda is inevitably skewed in their own self-interest, and must always be considered deeply suspect. If Christians are to "take sides," it should be the "side" of truth: we belong to the One Who said He IS Truth.
Both factcheck.org and politifact.com are very useful tools for filtering out the partisan rhetorical hype, and getting something closer to the facts. Honest effort to find out the facts is our first responsibility, and says something about how much we love truth. It also prevents us from being prey to the "trickery of men" (Ephesians 4:14), and the "craftiness in deceitful scheming" that we can always expect from the ruler of this world and his surrogates.
I'm right there with the truth seekers; I am logical by nature and by God's grace I most often desire to hunt for facts over hype. But Jane's comments--and quite frankly the reactions of most of the world it seems--offers us a glimpse into the overwhelming power of emotion and fear. Most of us can't separate our emotions from the pure facts; there's even some irony in Kristen's tone--the idea that even truth seekers get emotional over the reactions of the emotional (if that makes sense). Do emotions play any role in reaching solutions, and if they do, what is that role? Aren't all of our opinions a little suspect to some degree? I suppose a computer program might be able to crunch some data and figure out some economic answers to this mess, but politicians and town halls are hopelessly human, subject to all kinds of biases and survival instincts.
I'm just pushing back a little--thinking on the screen. Maybe the answer isn't necessarily in eliminating our emotional responses, but testing those emotions against the templates of truth and exaggeration.
"Do emotions play any role in reaching solutions, and if they do, what is that role? Aren't all of our opinions a little suspect to some degree?"
That's a fascinating question: one I'd never thought of before. I'll have to mull that over a long time before I feel like I'm on solid ground.
Rule-of-thumb, I'll probably come at it from a view that "all that is within me" He gave me, and has His purpose for (even the appendix, presumably). Emotions are certainly part of what He put in us; and on that consideration, not to be denied or misused.
Had thought of our emotions as operative exclusively in worship (awe, desire, fear in the full Biblical sense). Maybe in other, even deliberative, contexts ? Interesting question, and worth exploring !
But your second musing I already have strong feelings about. "Aren't all of our opinions a little suspect to some degree?" YES, absolutely, definitely !! (LOL) It seems only realistic to consider that any product of human thought or action, even (especially) our own, may be flawed.
Oliver Cromwell, certainly no insipid relativist, wrote to an opponent: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be wrong!" We probably have to keep the same possibility before ourselves, continually.
Steve. Good word. There's an essay or two brewing in my head from this exchange. :)
Great questions here. And yes, Caroline - you are right. I am coming from a place of outrage over the outrage! (Or at least a place of annoyance over the outrage). Emotions are a tricky thing. I think they are always an influence, and especially in this blogging world. I mean, something must be catching our passion to even want to sit down and write about it in the first place, you know? We are probably all a bit motivated to sit down and write by some emotional experience or reaction. That is certainly true for me. Interesting things to mull over. :) Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Jane, even the AARP is trying to correct the misinformation about what you lable "death care." They are saying it simply is not true. The REPUBLICAN who wrote the bill that you refer to, and which Sarah Palin facebooked about having "Death Squads," said, very simply, "that's nuts." Read the bill, Jane. And look further around. There is a lot more going on in this than Fox wants you to know.
Weather or not the healthcare bill as it is written right now, explicitly says Grandma gets unplugged etc... is pretty irrelevant in my opinion.
I find it hard to believe that this community of bloggers would be as naive not to think that somewhere in our future, or our kids future a utilitarian philosophy will be the controlling world view. We all know the end of the story. It's not a God fearing democracy when Christ returns.
The healthcare bill is a clear shift of power to government. I don't think anyone can stop it. I think the hysteria is appropriate when you see the handwriting on the wall.
Hi, blue:
You won’t get any argument that (in general terms) things are bad, and will get worse until Jesus returns.
Nor would I disagree that the future “controlling world view” will be anything but that: an evil world (-ly) view, in opposition to the Kingdom of God. All kingdoms of men (human governments) are the same in that regard: always have been, and always will be, as long as Satan is ruler of this world.
Here’s where I think we might disagree. Please let me know if you find any mis- (or over-) statement in the following.
By definition, human governments possess and exercise power. Their power ultimately derives from God (as I understand Romans 13): all power begins with, and belongs to, Him. Exercising that power is government’s rightful role; nothing sinister about it.
Because they are entrusted with His power, human governments are accountable to God. He requires that they use His power to His purposes, reflecting and glorifying Him: righteousness, justice, and mercy. On that consideration, health-care is certainly a legitimate purpose for the exercise of God’s delegated power.
But doing right things isn’t the end of it: there’s also accountability to use God’s power God’s way (if I understand rightly Jude’s differentiating “deeds” and “ways,” v. 15). Caring for the poor and sick is what God commands us to do. Euthanizing them is contrary to His way of manifesting care. In that regard, it would be quite relevant whether or not a health-care bill included a provision that “grandma gets unplugged.”
It’s a given that no human government will get it absolutely right: by definition, a kingdom of men is imperfect, and the opposite of the Kingdom of God. Even so, we are called to operate in the ways of God’s Kingdom while living in the other kind.
I think Kristen’s original point was that we’re failing to live up to God’s call. That spreading lies (about the health-care bill in this instance; but it’s a principle of absolute applicability) is deeply unworthy of Christians. And that reacting to the health-care debate (or any human controversy) with anger, hysteria, combativeness and rebelliousness is a good clue that we’re operating according to the ways of the evil world-system, rather than God’s Kingdom.
In that I’d agree with Kristen. I’d agree with you that our human government may not be “a God fearing democracy when Christ returns;” but I don’t think that’s what He’s looking for, then or now. His priority is that those who are part of His body are walking in His ways, then and now.
Steve,
You bring a lot of balance to the discussion. I usually keep my posts to the point without every little clarification. I agree with much of what you have said, but I'm going to hold to a few points of disagreement.
To characterize those who have interpreted the bill as "lies" is wrong. There is certainly enough open to interpretation information about "end of life care" that you have to respect those who would view that as a gradual power shift to control "end of life." The abortion issue has already been defined in our culture as OK, so why wouldn't you think the end of life issue could be defined by the same group of people? You have to be a fool to think that isn't coming at some point.
Anger is not a sin, nor evil. Righteous anger is very appropriate. Yes, there are always people who will "overreact" and may not be very good at speaking in a town hall. But when passions run high for some deeply held convictions, that should be applauded. It's apathy that is so dangerous in our culture.
I'm not one to fuel ignorance. There are very balanced and intelligent discussions surrounding the bill (Bill Bennett for example) and to conclude that this bill is a dismal failure should not be characterized as "unworthy" of christians.
I think we're on the same page, but I respectfully disagree with this characterization of the "religious right."
Hi, blue:
Thanks for your comments.
Didn't mean to characterize any particular interpretation as "lies." I intended that word to refer specifically to some partisans' assertion that the health-care bill will set up a "death-panel." Legislation always has language open to differing honest interpretations. Those are worthy of being respected and considered. Asserting that legislation says something it does not say, however, isn't an alternative interpretation: it's a flat-out damned (theologically speaking) lie, and deserves contemptuous rejection.
The fact that abortion has been "defined in our culture as OK" has already fed into our culture's view of end-of-life issues, in the legalization of assisted-suicide in some states. But I'd urge you to re-consider whether the origin of the problem is an evil "group of people," or an evil idea. The former is the presumption underlying, and inevitably leading to, conspiracy-theories. I understand the Bible to discountenance both conspiracy-thinking (Isaiah 8) and the idea that people ("flesh and blood," Ephesians 6) are the enemies.
I'll completely disagree that "anger is not a sin, nor evil." We're told that there is such a thing as being angry without sinning (Ephesians 4:26): but most references list it as behavior Christians must "put away," a distinguishing characteristic of the world's manner of life, a "deed of the flesh" (Ephesians 4:31, Colossians 3:8, Galatians 5:20). James 1:20 sums it up best: "the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God." I think the scriptural teaching is that anger, in limited circumstances, may be righteous; but is usually sin, and unworthy of Christians.
Likewise, "passion" definitely has its place: it's a driving force in real worship, for example. But no one would characterize the health-care protestors as worshipful. Their behaviors are rather those that scripture commands Christians to put away: "...bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander...with all malice" (Ephesians 4:31). It's also worth asking what beliefs they are acting on. Evil beliefs can be as "deeply held" as good ones: bad behaviors usually originate with the former.
On your final point, you got it totally wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but I very clearly said that "...spreading lies...is deeply unworthy of Christians:" not that "to conclude that this bill is a dismal failure" is unworthy. On the contrary, I'd consider "balanced and intelligent discussions" of the health-care bill worth hearing, and a welcomed corrective to the violent rancor and deception by which protestors and partisans attempt to control our thinking and our decision.
It boils down that we have two chances in this (or any) controversy to be Christian. First by loving truth enough to search it out and act on it. Second by conducting ourselves wisely, being "peaceable, gentle, reasonable" (James 3:17). I second Kristen's original point, again: we're failing to live up to God's call.
Hi, blue:
Thanks for your comments.
Didn't mean to characterize any particular interpretation as "lies." I intended that word to refer specifically to some partisans' assertion that the health-care bill will set up a "death-panel." Legislation always has language open to differing honest interpretations. Those are worthy of being respected and considered. Asserting that legislation says something it does not say, however, isn't an alternative interpretation: it's a flat-out damned (theologically speaking) lie, and deserves contemptuous rejection.
The fact that abortion has been "defined in our culture as OK" has already fed into our culture's view of end-of-life issues, in the legalization of assisted-suicide in some states. But I'd urge you to re-consider whether the origin of the problem is an evil "group of people," or an evil idea. The former is the presumption underlying, and inevitably leading to, conspiracy-theories. I understand the Bible to discountenance both conspiracy-thinking (Isaiah 8) and the idea that people ("flesh and blood," Ephesians 6) are the enemies.
I'll completely disagree that "anger is not a sin, nor evil." We're told that there is such a thing as being angry without sinning (Ephesians 4:26): but most references list it as behavior Christians must "put away," a distinguishing characteristic of the world's manner of life, a "deed of the flesh" (Ephesians 4:31, Colossians 3:8, Galatians 5:20). James 1:20 sums it up best: "the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God." I think the scriptural teaching is that anger, in limited circumstances, may be righteous; but is usually sin, and unworthy of Christians.
Likewise, "passion" definitely has its place: it's a driving force in real worship, for example. But no one would characterize the health-care protestors as worshipful. Their behaviors are rather those that scripture commands Christians to put away: "...bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander...with all malice" (Ephesians 4:31). It's also worth asking what beliefs they are acting on. Evil beliefs can be as "deeply held" as good ones: bad behaviors usually originate with the former.
On your final point, you got it totally wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but I very clearly said that "...spreading lies...is deeply unworthy of Christians:" not that "to conclude that this bill is a dismal failure" is unworthy. On the contrary, I'd consider "balanced and intelligent discussions" of the health-care bill worth hearing, and a welcomed corrective to the violent rancor and deception by which protestors and partisans attempt to control our thinking and our decision.
It boils down that we have two chances in this (or any) controversy to be Christian. First by loving truth enough to search it out and act on it. Second by conducting ourselves wisely, being "peaceable, gentle, reasonable" (James 3:17). I second Kristen's original point, again: we're failing to live up to God's call.