Is There a Place for Me?

I am a homeless man in the arena of politics. I used to associate myself with conservatives and Republicans, but in the wake of the tumult of 2016, I no longer do so. I switched my voter registration to Independent as soon as Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination. Unlike many Never-Trumpers, however, I did not switch my allegiance to the Democratic Party. The same principles that demanded I remove myself from the Republican Party prevented me from joining a party that I viewed as equally twisted. I had hoped that the Democrats might change my mind over the last four years. "All they have to do is not be crazy" I said on more than one occasion. Yet here we are in 2020, faced with yet another election cycle in which I cannot in good conscience associate myself with either party.

Donald Trump has proved to be as unpresidential, unstable, and unkind as I feared, although he has yet to end our Constitutional order as some prophets foretold. He may accomplish that given another four years, but I remain skeptical on that point. However, the Democratic Party has behaved with such partisanship, vitriol, and animus towards any semblance of sanity that I remain equally concerned about handing them the reigns of presidential power. I must conclude that there remains no home for me in the political landscape of this country. 

I refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils any more.

Slaughtering of innocent children in the womb vs. the slaughtering of innocent children abroad

Injustice against immigrants vs. the breakdown of national identity that comes with open borders

Racial intolerance in the form of economic white supremacy vs. racial intolerance in the form of Critical Race Theory

Crony capitalism resulting in continued wealth inequality vs. democratic socialism resulting in widespread disincentives for economic success and the complete upheaval of the most successful economic system the world has ever known

Anti-science on climate and environmental issues vs. anti-science on human life, gender, and sexuality

People dying because they have no access to health insurance vs. people dying because the wait list for treatment through the national health service is too long

Until more people refuse to participate in a system which forces its adherents to choose between evils, these evils will continue. I long for a system which would allow people to support good things.

Valuing the life of the unborn child while also caring for the mother in tangible ways

Welcoming the contribution of immigrants to America while also recognizing the importance of controlled and regulated immigration to maintain social and cultural cohesion

Celebrating and protecting the successes of free market capitalism which has lifted billions out of poverty while also recognizing that the system has some serious flaws that the government might have a role in correcting as we enter the 21st-century

Protecting freedom of speech and free exercise of religion while also combating racism, sexism, and misogyny in the public square

Taking real steps to address pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns without resorting to mass hysteria that results in socialism or the forced abandonment of free market steps towards environmental sustainability (natural gas as a transition fossil fuel, acceptance of nuclear power as an emissions-free solution)

 

 

Imagine if we had more than two real choices each election cycle? Yes, there are other parties, but those parties are prevented from competing on equal footing due to the design of our electoral process. If you want real choices in politics, push for election reforms such as ranked choice voting, majority elections instead of plurality elections, or even some form of proportional vote distribution (though I am a bit hesitant to abandon the principle of representatives representing distinct districts).

If we don't get substantive reforms like these, I fear we are doomed to a national political model that produces representatives, Senators, and Presidents that do not represent the majority of their constituents' views on most issues. We are doomed to Trump-Pence and Biden-Harris in perpetuity. If one of those tickets represents your views across the board, good for you. But I suspect that most of my fellow Americans have major concerns with both. 

 

Until we can create a system that allows for more targeted political views to be represented in viable national parties, we will continue to have a government that does not represent we the people. Until we have a government that truly represents we the people, we will struggle to deal with even the most fundamental issues in a productive manner. That's not the America that I want. I know America can be so much more. Let's make that happen.

Abortion: The Great Liberal Hypocrisy

I recently posted a Matt Walsh article on Facebook relating to the #shoutyourabortion movement overtaking social media recently. I accompanied the article with a several-paragraph tirade about the root causes of such a movement, but I feel that the topic is so infuriating that it deserves a longer, more measured response. I hope to keep the tone slightly more civil than Matt Walsh tends to do, but it will take great willpower. After all, it is difficult to be civil to someone who endorses genocide. But I'm getting ahead of myself; the whole problem with this argument is a refusal on the liberal side to concede that abortion is murder. So perhaps we need to work up to that point.

I would like to start off by saying that this post is not directed towards those women who have been pressured into abortions or who have, in a moment of desperation, felt trapped and helpless in the face of a pregnancy and had an abortion. This post is not a condemnation for your actions. There is hope and healing and forgiveness available for you, and this cloud need not dominate the rest of your life.

Rather, this post is directed towards those women and men who flaunt abortion as a positive moral choice with no shame or regret, those who want abortion to be widely accepted and consider it a hallmark of women's liberation. This post is intended to call you out for the hypocrites that you are and to demonstrate the utterly flawed logic that you use to try to justify your position. Abortion may be legal, but just because something is legal doesn't make it right. You may have the force of law on your side, but I will not let you get away with the arguments you use to support your position. Without further ado, let the battle begin. 

Before I begin, I'd like to address the point raised on various social media commentary on this topic that because I don't have a vagina or a uterus I'm not allowed to have any opinion on this topic. I call b. s. on that. Just because I'm not a German living in the 1930s, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the Holocaust? Or because I'm not a Rwandan Hutu I can't have an opinion on the genocide of the Tutsi? Liberals like to stand up against injustice when they are not the perpetrators or even victims; why can't I? The answer is the liberal who defends abortion refuses to admit that there is any victim in an abortion; it's merely a woman exercising control over her own body. Every argument you can make on that front is flawed, as I shall demonstrate. These are desperate attempts to dehumanize a fetus, and I will not stand for it.

The first argument that I often hear to dehumanize a fetus is to argue that the unborn child is completely dependent on the mother's body to survive. It feeds off her bloodstream, sucking nutrients and oxygen in much the same way a parasite feeds off its host. While it is biologically true that the fetus draws nutrients out of the mother's bloodstream, the leap from "dependency" to "parasite" is uncalled for. A newborn child is completely helpless and will die rather quickly if left unattended. It is completely dependent on the mother (or someone else) to survive. It takes nourishment directly from the mother's body and requires constant care in order to properly develop. I'm sure any new mother will tell you that a newborn child is more of a drain on time and energy and resources than an unborn child is. And yet if you call a newborn child a parasite and decide to kill it, you will be charged with murder. There should be no difference if someone kills a child when they are still in the womb. With the advances of medical science, it is possible for a fetus of 23 or even 22 weeks to live outside the womb. And yet many, many abortions are performed past this age of viability. You call that a woman's prerogative; I call that murder.

The second argument used to dehumanize a fetus is that of development. "The rights of a fully-grown human trump those of a potential human." Potential human? Are you so ignorant as to fail to recognize the full humanity of an unborn child? At the time of fertilization, a completely unique set of DNA has formed, containing all of the genetic information that will guide the biological development of the human. Our DNA is what makes us individuals; a fertilized egg has a unique DNA. That is an individual human. A child's heart starts beating around 4 weeks after conception. Note that this beating heart is not part of the mother's body; it is a part of this genetically unique, developing human inside her body. All throughout the child's development, it develops more and more recognizable features and functions that adults have. Sure, it's not fully formed, but is a newborn infant fully formed? As mammals go, human babies are quite underdeveloped at birth. There is a lot of stuff that needs to happen before they are considered fully mature. It takes 13-25 years (depending on what measure of maturity you use) for a child to develop to maturity. So is a child a potential human? Or is it a developing human? Those are two very, very different categories. If someone kills a child, they are a murderer even though the victim was not fully developed. If someone kills an unborn child, they are called "courageous" and "brave"; I call them a murderer.

Another argument used to dehumanize a fetus builds off the previous one of development. "The mother's rights supersede those of the fetus because society has established birth as the point at which you become human." Really? You want to use the superseding rights argument? First off, think of all the times that a society has presumed to dictate morality. Southern culture in antebellum America considered slavery a moral good. An entire race was dehumanized because society determined that they were sub-human. In 20th century Germany, a charismatic leader captivated a suffering country and consolidated dictatorial power. He used this power to convince an entire nation that millions of their own countrymen were an inferior race and not privileged to the same rights as the Aryan race. Not only Jews, but the mentally ill, Catholics, Communists, and many others were marked for concentration camps and eventual death. All because a society presumed to be the determiner of what constitutes a human and whose rights are superior to others. I know it's considered an inappropriate shock tactic to compare someone to a Nazi, but the analogy is too close for comfort in this case. I personally don't want the moral responsibility to determine when someone becomes a human. I prefer to err on the side of caution because murder is kind of a big deal in God's eyes. You say abortion is an assertion of the rights of one person over those of a non-person; I say it's murder.

Having examined all these arguments, we now come to the hypocritical side of the abortion movement. Liberals claim abortion is all about women's rights. What about the rights of the unborn woman? I fully support the rights of woman. Indeed, one of the great triumphs of the last century has been the progress that women have made in gaining equal legal status with men. There is still work that needs to be done on that front, but progress is being made. Yet in our efforts to grant women autonomy, we have reached too far and placed them in the role of God, dictating when human life starts and elevating the control of her body over the rights of the newly-forming body in her womb. I will fight for women's rights, but I will make certain that the rights of unborn women are protected first. Because if you aren't given the chance to be born, what does it matter if you have equal pay with men? A dead girl and a dead boy get paid the same.

Liberals also tend to oppose the death penalty, tend to discourage excessive military involvement, tend to protest police brutality, and generally advocate against violence. I wholeheartedly share in all these endeavors. Yet liberals grow strangely silent on violence when it comes to violence against the unborn. I cannot hear descriptions of the brutality of abortions without feeling sick to my stomach. Abortion is more brutal than war, more brutal than death by injection, more brutal then a policeman beating a black man to a pulp. Where is the moral outrage, liberals? Stop being hypocrites when it comes to violence. Take a stand against brutality against the unborn. Then you might gain my respect.

A corollary of the violence discussion is the tendency of liberals to support animal rights. I'm all for ethical treatment of animals. Dog fighting rings are disgusting, and it's good that we prosecute offenders. But Michael Vick, a person convicted of dog fighting who served his time in the justice system, still gets hate mail and draws protests wherever he plays in the NFL, yet numerous other players charged with domestic violence, rape, and other forms of assault are given free passes. Most liberals are more outraged by dogs being electrocuted than than by tiny humans being burned with saline and dismembered. Once again, electrocuting dogs is spineless and despicable, but harming a dog is not even in the same moral ballpark as harming a human being. The argument is made that its crueler to mistreat animals than to mistreat grown humans because the animals are more helpless. That same logic should be applied to unborn children. All I'm asking is for the same standard to be applied across the board.

This last point of hypocrisy has already been mentioned once before, but it is so important that I must bring it up again. Almost any rational person, whether conservative or liberal, will argue that the chattel slavery of Africans in American history is the greatest moral blight on our nation's history. Almost any rational person will argue that genocide is a terrible evil. And yet many of those rational people will not blink twice at the statistic that since 1973, America has legally exterminated 56 million of her own children. That is more people dead than Hitler and Stalin killed combined. The reason people ignore the statistic is because they refuse to acknowledge the humanity of those aborted. They prefer the term "terminated pregnancies." This kind of dehumanization is exactly the characteristic of American slavery and genocide around the world. If you oppose slavery and genocide, you need to stop trying to convince yourself abortion is a positive good. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite.

With all of this hypocrisy and flawed logic laid bare, what is left to the abortion supporter? There is only one argument, and it is not one I can combat logically. The only argument left is "I am more important than another life. My convenience, career, lifestyle, well-being, and life are more important than that of another." That argument has basically been the justification for any and every evil and injustice ever committed. It is a characteristic of all of humanity since the first members of our race. Christians refer to this as sin.

Sin is pervasive, affecting all we do and say. Just because sin is doesn't mean that it should be. There is a better way. It is a path of courage, self-sacrifice, love, and humility. Unfortunately I cannot convince you with logic to abandon the path of sin and selfishness. Only a transformed heart through the power of Jesus can do that. What I can do is strip away all your other excuses and arguments until you are left with nothing but the reality of your own sin and selfishness. At that point, it's between you and the convicting Spirit of God to change your heart. Until that happens, I'm afraid America will be trapped in this genocidal, selfish, prideful, barbaric practice of abortion. You can continue to hold such a view. But I don't have to let you get away with trying to justify it as anything other than selfish, sinful, and cowardly.

I Want to Hear You

God, I want to hear you. I love where you have me now, but I can't help but get the sense that there's something else you have for me. Maybe it's because I have a girlfriend two hundred miles away and I'm tired of being separated from her. Maybe it's because I still don't have a job in my chosen field and I'm almost three years out of college. Maybe it's just me getting restless, or maybe it's your Spirit stirring within me. Whatever the cause, I'm seeking your voice.

Elijah in the wilderness listened for your voice in the wind and the earthquake, but you spoke in a still small voice. Moses in exile was not listening for you at all, but you spoke from a burning bush. Peter was catching fish and listening to the voice of John, but you called him from the shore to be a fisher of men. I want to make my heart soft enough to hear from you in ways I am not expecting.

I can't help but feel like you're trying to say something. I have a good idea of what the next step is, but I want to be sure it's your leading and not my idea. Do I have to cut out some things in order to hear you better? Maybe fasting more would help. Or maybe it's time to just take a leap of faith. All I know is, your plans are better than mine. I just need to trust that you'll reveal each step as I need to take it. Any more than that and I might take matters into my own hands. And that usually doesn't work out so well. I want to follow your leading. But I need to hear you first.

The Week That Changed the World (Part 3)

Jesus was a polarizing social and religious figure in both his time and ours. But perhaps the most polarizing—and incorrect—views of Jesus stem from his political influence. In one sense, everything Jesus did was political, for religion and other social issues are different sides of the dice of human interaction known as politics. But in another sense, Jesus was apolitical in that he transcended secular politics, ignoring the “state” aspect which dominates politics. He did not claim the physical throne of David nor oppose the imperial rule of Caesar. Rather, Jesus’ politics were of the transformation of heart and soul and the practical outworking of said transformation.

Jesus mentioned little of earthly governments other than to emphasize the ways in which they were different from the Kingdom of God. The standard of the Kingdom is not authority and “lording it over” each other, but rather it is humble service. Perhaps the most important difference between the Kingdom of God and earthly governments is the instrument of enforcement:  love versus violence. From the beginning of his ministry in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus laid out how Kingdom politics were different than worldly politics. If an oppressive government worker demanded physical labor (walking a mile), go beyond what is required (walk two). If someone needs a favor (borrowing a cloak), be extravagant (lend a tunic also). If someone physically assaults you, rather than retaliating, allow further transgressions without retribution.

All of those concepts are contrary to human nature, especially in the bloated juggernaut that is government. In fact, the question can be raised whether it is possible to practice “Christian politics” in a modern political setting, or any political setting for that matter. In an era when compromise and antagonism are the two rules of the day, it is hard to imagine bringing humble, loving service into the political system. I cannot even fathom what that would look like.

And maybe that is the point. Maybe Jesus did not want us to get caught up in any particular political system or ideology. If the Kingdom truly resides in hearts and minds, then espousing a particular political party or system of government to advance those goals is counter-intuitive and even counterproductive. The only way to achieve true secular political change is to change the hearts and minds of the individuals doing the governing. In a monarchy, that means the king. In a republican form of government like ours, that means changing the hearts and minds of everyone, politicians and voters alike. Getting into political arguments especially on issues of morality without recognizing the need for heart transformation results in deeper divides and often a damaged testimony. But does that mean that Christians should not be involved in secular politics on any level?

I do not believe as some Christians do that Christians should completely remove themselves from public influence including politics. However, I also do not believe as some Christians do that Christians should gain influence in the public arena until the Kingdom of God is ushered in by political means. (I realize these are extreme positions, but most people fall closer to one end or the other than they realize.) I believe that Christians are to be salt and light in the world, preserving it from decay and lighting the darkness of evil while also abstaining from using the sword as earthly governments are permitted to do. Being salt may mean voting to take a stand on a certain issue, or it may mean soothing dissension by not escalating a political argument. It is as equally loving to stand up for the oppressed by combating oppression as it is to stand up for peace by refusing to fight and argue. Each scenario is different, but every action must be determined by how it represents the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is not linked to earthly governments, but neither is it a pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by reality. It has practical influence in the here and now. It should transform social relationships, whether personal or political. Too many times we adopt political views that are inconsistent with the Kingdom and we do not even know it. If each of us would examine how our interactions line up with Jesus’ example, we may see a transformation of our views. And once enough people are transformed, we may see society change. But even if society continues to run downhill, the Kingdom can still thrive because it is not of this world. In the end, the Kingdom of God will flourish in a New Heaven and a New Earth when Jesus returns to claim his rightful throne. Until then, I find myself less interested in the current political system and more focused on spreading the influence of the Kingdom, one heart at a time. Who wants to join me?

The Week that Changed the World (Part 2)

In my last post, I examined the polarizing social figure that Jesus was in his world and in ours. Today, on the day after Easter, I will ponder the polarizing effect Jesus had (and still has) on religion.

Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to the cheering of the masses. Rather than indulge in their adoration, Jesus’ first destination was the temple, the center of religious life in first-century Judea. There the priests offered the blood of bulls and goats to meet the requirements of the law, and there the people came to bring offerings of thanksgiving for God’s blessings.

Jesus would have visited the temple many times in his life, and only he out of all the people who did so truly understood the significance of what went on there. Perhaps that is why he was driven to confrontation when he saw the temple being desecrated by money changers and the noise of animals. But take note that the temple was not being desecrated by those outside the faith; it was being dishonored by the leaders of the very faith the temple represented. The leaders of the temple were using the house of worship and prayer to conduct business. They were profiting financially from the system, and they were doing it at the expense of the people. (How else can you interpret Jesus’ reference to a “den of robbers”?) And because they were doing it directly in the temple courts, the noise of the animals and the financial transactions was distracting those who came to truly worship. Jesus responded with a whip and angry words until the temple was cleansed. So much for Jesus being a soft-spoken pansy. This guy did not hesitate to do what needed to be done, even if it meant making a scene. And yet through it all he did not sin or lose control.

Jesus reacted differently than anyone else when he walked into the temple. I sometimes wonder how Jesus would respond if he walked into some of our churches today.  I think he would be much different than we expect. Some of the things some churches care the most about would not really concern him, and the things closest to his heart may seem strange to many sitting in the pews. Would Jesus really care about what style of music is played in the church service, or would he care more about making sure each heart in the pew was touched by the finger of God? Would Jesus spend time debating a proper interpretation of a certain line of Scripture or the nuances of a segment of theology, or would he focus more on the needs of the hurting people both in the pews and outside the church walls? Would Jesus spend time arguing about what type of carpet to put in the new addition, or would he focus the church’s budget on the mission field and assisting the needy in the local community?

Many people today like to think that Jesus was against religion. “It’s not religion; it’s a relationship.” While that does have an element of truth to it, the statement is not entirely accurate. Jesus was not anti-religion. He himself said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. In a way, Jesus is the Ultimate Religion, the culmination of thousands of years of religious tradition. So Jesus’ temple rant with a whip is not a condemnation of religion in general. It was a condemnation of a religious establishment that had become stagnant, entrenched, and worldly. There is much value in religion. It can help discern truth (creed), guide to morality (code), and provide a structure for worship (cult). But religion must always be infused with the Spirit of God or it becomes nothing more than a shackle.

Jesus brought the Spirit of God into religion. Actually, he brought the Spirit of God into every area of life. I mean, after all, he was God. But in the realm of religion, too often we miss some of the impact of what it means to be infused with God’s Spirit. Sometimes that involves cutting out things that should not be there like the moneychangers in the temple; other times it involves putting things in that are not there like reaching out to the Samaritans, lepers, and prostitutes. May we always be mindful of treating religion—and all areas of life—the way Jesus would treat it: love, service to others, and devotion to God.

The Week that Changed the World (Part 1)

Jesus of Nazareth is the most polarizing figure in history. Even ignoring the last 2,000 years and just looking at his life on Earth, his impact on society is well-recorded. The first Passion Week (this calendar week) is perhaps the best example of his polarizing effect. At the beginning of the week, he was a rock star, adored by the crowds and given the royal treatment as he entered Jerusalem. By the end of the week, he faced the wrath of a mob and the religious establishment, leading ultimately to his execution by the dominant political power of the day in an attempt to keep the peace. He became a flashpoint for social, religious, and political tensions all at the same time. This post will explore his social impact both in that first Passion Week and in modern times. Look for future posts about his religious and political impact in the coming days.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem on the first day of his last week, he was welcomed as a coming king. No one else can inspire people to lay their cloaks down on the road so his steed can walk over them. But even in those first moments, something was unusual:  he was riding on a donkey. Kings ride on horses; commoners ride on donkeys. People treated him like a king with pomp and circumstance, and he displayed himself as a common man. As he had done for the past three years, Jesus defied social convention and people’s expectations of what he should do or who he should be. He was unwilling to fold to the pressure that society thrust upon him. He was a king, but he would not be a king like the people expected him to be. He had a higher calling. And that was the turning point in the affections of the crowd.

Upon arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus proceeded to cleanse the temple of those whose greed distracted from true worship. Many of the people probably supported this action. Jesus was finally taking action against the status quo! This might be the week when He would change everything! With the greedy capitalists of the temple checked off the list, maybe he would now turn his attentions to the Romans. But instead he continued to address the imbalances in the social order that the religious order tried to preserve. A king was supposed to overthrow the Romans and restore the Kingdom of David. But Jesus was not one to do what he was “supposed to”; he did what he was born to do, supporting the oppressed and underprivileged and condemning the power brokers of the day.

The dominant feeling among Jews of Jesus day was a longing for freedom from the Romans that would be ushered in by the true king, the descendant of David who would lead Israel’s armies against the mighty heathen forces of Rome. People knew that Jesus was special and anointed by God, but when he did not fit their understanding of what God’s anointed should do, they did not know how to react. He did not help to fulfill their dreams, so in the end, they turned against him. If Jesus would not help them accomplish their purposes, then he was an enemy to be destroyed. When their religious leaders (for reasons of their own) finally hatched their plot to have Jesus killed, they found an ally in the confused, frustrated crowds that had only a few days earlier welcomed Jesus with cheers. The same people who declared their devotion to Jesus on Sunday were calling for his blood on Thursday. Surely they were crazed and irrational; such a thing would never happen in an enlightened society like our own. Or does it? 

We too often try to conform Jesus to our own social agenda without checking to see if he really fits. We hold onto the way things are as the way things should be, failing to realize that Jesus calls for change in almost every area of life. Or we try to effect change by going back to the “good old days,” not realizing that the good old days were not actually that good and that Jesus has a bright new future so much better than the past or the present. Whenever we start with our agenda and then see which of Jesus’ teachings can support our claims, we join ourselves with the crowds of Jerusalem. By the time we examine all of Jesus’ life and teachings and see that his plans will not fit with ours, we then have a choice to make:  surrender our will and follow him, or join with the crowd in shouting “Crucify him!” There is no middle ground. Jesus himself said he did not come to bring peace but division. We cannot take part of Jesus and fit him to our expectations. We either take the whole package and the ramifications that come with it, or we reject him completely and condemn him to death.

What things in our agenda do we try to pin on Jesus that do not really belong there? Would Jesus support an economic system that stacks the deck in favor of the wealthy and causes prosperity to collect at one end of the spectrum? Conversely, would Jesus support an economic system that robs from all equally and tries to redistribute wealth to create prosperity based on human wisdom? Would Jesus support a social caste system that views people of certain colors or economic backgrounds or lifestyles as of more value than others? Conversely, would Jesus support a social caste system that preaches tolerance above all with no call to a higher standard in morality or work ethic or relationship? 

In my mind, the answer to all those questions is no. So if I find myself taking one of those stances as a part of my agenda, I am excluding Jesus from that part of my life. And if I exclude Jesus from parts of my life, I am just like a citizen of Jerusalem who cries “Hosanna!” on Sunday and “Crucify him!” on Thursday. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Either my agenda is fully from Jesus or it is fully from me. That is the true reason Jesus is a social flashpoint. He demands that society be transformed from the heart out. And if history is any indication, society does not like change. Will I help spark that change by surrendering my own personal agenda and taking Jesus as my true King? Will you?

Blogging Reboot

I seem to have failed in my resolution to blog more last year. Let me rephrase that—I definitely failed in my resolution to blog more last year. In fact, three posts in the 2013 year and none since January are a pitiful representation of blogging. Considering that this blog only has six posts in the last two years, I would not be surprised if many readers assumed that the author was a derelict author who might never return. Well, the author certainly was derelict, but he has returned. I will make no pretensions this time about regularity of posting. However, my shift in focus may induce a greater quantity nonetheless.

In contemplating resuming blogging, I perused most of my previous postings. I realized that my focus was varied in the past, which is to be expected from someone like me with a variety of interests and passions. However, I was drawn to my very first post in which I stated my goal for the blog: 

"I do not seek to instruct others or even to entertain for the sake of those actions themselves; I merely communicate my thoughts, perspectives, and opinions in order to better understand them myself. If through my ramblings others find benefit, then my time is well-spent; if not, it is still well-spent, for I will be wiser about myself. Such is the desire of a philosopher."

In the past year or so, I have had ample opportunity for introspection, but I have too often done so only in my mind. As a natural writer, I find my thoughts to be more cohesive when they are written. Perhaps I would be well-served to write more of my thoughts down rather than trying to sort them out internally. I hope this blog will provide the appropriate outlet for these musings.

Of course, there are dangers associated with posting anything online. Facebook and Twitter have especially brought the dangers of instant communication to the forefront of social consciousness. In my opinion the greatest flaw of those mediums is their instant nature. People find it very easy to blurt out anything that is on their minds, no matter how irrational or insensitive or heedless of consequences they may be, because they lack the natural inhibitions of face-to-face communication. I have had to censor myself many times in those cases. 

The advantage of blogging over Facebook and Twitter is two-fold. First, blogging allows for significantly longer posts, which ideally should led to more well-thought-out posts. Second, blogging is much less time-sensitive than Facebook. A blogger can type a draft and then analyze it to discern if inappropriate emotion or logic is evident. 

I hope to follow both these guidelines in my future posts about my internal musings. I am certainly conscious of my responsibility to project a professional and Christ-like aura, both in person and in virtual space. Both my job as a car salesman and my role as a youth pastor require professionalism and a Christ-like attitude and demeanor. I certainly invite accountability on future posts in both of those criteria. However, I will not shy away from sensitive issues just to avoid conflicting opinions because that is not intellectually honest. If this blog is to truly be an outlet for my musings, I will relate musings of all stripes, some deep, some light-hearted, some existential, some very practical. I invite you to participate in my musings, but that is not my purpose for them. A philosopher may wish that others will be impacted by his thoughts, but he cannot place his success on the responses of others. A true philosopher thinks in order to better himself. Such is my goal. If anything beyond that occurs, it is by the grace of God.