Tim Wise » An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum

Tim Wise » An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum

Tim Wise has once again taken the words out of my mouth. Last night I was depressed about the election results. But now, I am ready to plan for the future.

The Republicans days are numbered. And I am still young. I can wait for them to die of old age.

And wait I will.

Death is not the end

Eternal Rest grant unto them, O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. My their souls and all the souls of the faithful departed, rest in peace. Amen.

As we celebrate today the feast of All Souls, I am reminded of the line in the Preface for Christian Death I: Lord, for Your faithful people life is changed, not ended. We have such a great hope and comfort in our own mortality if we only accept it and embrace it.

I know that this is a difficult task. Accepting the fact that we will all die someday is looked upon in our society as macabre. If you think about your own mortality, then there is something wrong with you. But yet, we as Christians are exhorted in the Gospels to live our lives as if today is our last day on this earth.

It is in that fullness, in that total awareness that our life is but a vapor (Psalm 39:5) that we are able to then minister to others more openly. We can offer more of ourselves to others, because we realize that there may not be a tomorrow with which to offer them more of ourselves. We can be honest with ourselves and with others because we know that we will die eventually and that we will then have to answer for that dishonesty.

The realization that death is inevitable also gives us the strength to fight against sin. Which one of us wants to die in a state or mortal sin? I am certain that none of us want to face our Maker with that to answer for! As such, facing our mortality helps us to ask ourselves about the consequences of our actions. Not just our actions towards others, but our actions towards ourselves too. It also helps to put into perspective the day to day struggles we endure. Because in the cosmic scheme of things, our day to day struggles are small in comparison.

And when that moment comes, as it will for all of us, for us to shuffle off this moral coil, we can pass in peace confident in the fact that for the faithful life is not ended but changed. We have the confidence that all those who came before us will be there once again to welcome us into the next world. And those that come behind us, can be confident that we will be there to welcome them when their time comes as well.

God Bless!

Missions: Home or abroad?

My wife and I got into a discussion last night that I thought was very interesting. So I thought I would share it with all my readers today.

We got to talking about a friend of hers that is going on yet another foreign mission trip. This person have great courage going on such a trip with the medical conditions she has. I want to get that clear up front that I respect her for being willing to go on such trips regardless of how it might affect her medically.

But I have to wonder, why are spending all that money and sending all these lay people into foreign countries when there are people here in America who need the help of the church? Why are we not feeding those who are hungry in our country? Why do we watch people die on the streets everyday from illnesses that can be cured if only they had access to medical care?

I am not saying that we should not help those in other countries to live better lives, to have access to medical care they need or to feed the hungry all while preaching the gospel that will save them when this life is over. But rather, I am saying that we need to stop and take a look deep inside ourselves and ask the hard question: Why are we not doing that here in America?

As of 2008, the population of America was 304,059,724. As of August of this year, 1.5 million Americans are homeless. As of last year, 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. Currently, it is estimated that 33 million Americans go hungry everyday. Of those 12 million are children. And nearly 152 million people are unchurched in America!

Before you send another dime to a foreign country, stop and consider these statistics and ask yourself, should I spend that money here in my own country to help others? Before you sign up for another foreign mission trip, stop and ask yourself, are there people here in the USA that could benefit from hearing the gospel message?

Christ in everyone I meet

Isaiah 35:4-7a
James 2:1-10, 11-13, 14-17
Mark 7:24-37

We have all seen it. There is always an urge to do it, especially in a large church that needs the financial support of wealth donors. It is the survival of the fittest in churches. The elevations of people with money or power over those who have neither.

I have seen it many times myself in various and sundry churches. They get their choice of pews. The may even have an assigned parking spot in the lot. And if anyone dares to sit in their pew or parking in their spot, there will be a "come to Jesus" moment!

James tells us in our reading today that we as a church should not operate like that. "My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?" (James 2:1) James is so disconcerted about the behavior of the church under him that he ask them if they even still believe in their Savior. Their display of worldliness has him concerned that they have lost their faith altogether.

"For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, "Have a seat here, please," while to the one who is poor you say, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?" (James 2:2-4) When I was younger, my family did not have a lot of money. We were just at the poverty line, to be honest. And we visited many different churches of many different denominations. While people in those churches never (to my knowledge) told us we had to sit in the back of the church, it was certainly apparent from their looks that we were expected to sit in the back and keep out of sight. The people who sat in the front pews or even sat on the platforms were those that wore their jewelry boxes to church with them. They drove the BMW's and Jags. They owned the million dollar homes.

They also did not say a word to us. They did not welcome us to church and they had no care or concern if we never darkened the door of the church again. And as to be expected, they had the most powerful voices at the church meetings too. But the less wealthy or less powerful members of the church sat and waited for them to decide the direction of the church.

"Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you? You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." (James 2:5-9)

And yet James reminds us that God chose the poor to be rich in faith! What a marvel! What a wonder! The lest in the eyes of man are great in the eyes of God!

But if we allow ourselves to become mesmerized by the glitter of gold and silver, then we ignore those who are rich in the eyes of God. We dishonor them and by doing so we open ourselves up to sin. We convict ourselves of show favoritism and become no better than the Pharisees that Jesus condemn on a regular basis for being hearers of the word and not doers.

It the duty of the church to be blind to one's social status or financial status. Living by that creed may not build large edifices here on earth, but it will help in building a mansion in heaven. And we should be mindful of the fact that when we meet people, we are meeting Christ in them. If we shun someone because they are poor, then we are also shunning Christ in them. And by doing so, we dishonor Christ! We reject Christ! That is why James asked if the church had lost its faith. Because by their lack of respect for all people, they rejected Christ in those they felt were beneath them.

I am reminded of the story of Saint Martin of Tours. he story is told that one day while on patrol in the dead of winter, a man, who was poor and had not proper clothing for the weather, came to Saint Martin for assistance. Saint Martin did not have anything but the clothes on his body, but feeling sorry for the man, he took out his sword and cut his cloak in half. He gave the man half the cloak and kept half for himself. The next night, while sleeping, he had a dream in which Christ came to him wearing part of his cloak! Christ spoke to him and said, "Here is Martin, the Roman soldier who is not baptised; he has clad me." When Saint Martin awoke, he found his cloak had been restored!

Remember that story the next time you meet someone who is homeless, poor or appears to be homeless or poor. They may not be Christ himself, but one thing is for sure, they carry within them a spark of Christ!

Mr. Donohue spouts lie after lie about NYU's Law School

There is an article entitled NYU Law School: No Conservative Christians Need Apply on Catholic Online today. It is written by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. The link to their site is broken. But the article's title alone makes the reader assume that the NYU Law School is rejecting applicants based on their political and religious beliefs.

This is a bald-faced lie!

Even the article itself, while quoting William Donohue who tries to make that argument, proves that the argument is a lie!

Let's look at the facts:

1) "Dr. Thio Li-ann, professor at the National University of Singapore, was invited to teach at New York University Law School this fall." So far so good. She has been a very vocal opponent of homosexuality in her homeland. She has worked hard to keep homosexuality a criminal offense in Singapore. The law she fought so hard to keep in the books was as follows: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section." So a homosexual couple could spend anywhere from 10 years to life in prison for their love.

2) "Revesz has allowed the anti-free speech bullies to score a victory. He seems to love diversity, except for the only kind that should count on a college campus—diversity of thought. When it comes to conservative Christians, Revesz’s interest in inclusion comes to a screeching halt," Donohue said. Donohue is making it out that the college itself dismissed Thio. This is simply not true. From the same article, "After it was discovered that the Christian professor, while serving as a Singaporean lawmaker in 2007, opposed a repeal of the law proscribing homosexual acts, NYU students and alumni organized to protest her appointment. She subsequently withdrew her interest in teaching at NYU." So which is it Mr. Donohue? Did the school dismiss her because of her political and religious beliefs or did the students protest her appointment which led her to withdraw from her appointment? From the Straits Times online article database comes an article dated July 24, 2009 that states: Her human rights class for 45 students received 12 bids after the first round of bidding, while her seminar class, with a capacity of 25, had six. On Tuesday, an online petition at NYU against her appointment gathered 808 signatures. The next day, Prof Thio cancelled her teaching stint. She cited "low attendance" as a factor in her decision to withdraw from NYU's Law School. And what of the Administration's response to all this? In the same article from the Times, "On the same day, Mr Revesz defended her appointment as a visiting professor, saying it was "based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator". He also stressed NYU's commitment to gay rights and rejected Prof Thio's anti-gay views. However, he called for "vigorous, civil debate" in the name of academic freedom." Mr. Donohue, which is it? Did the school try to stifle her opinions or did the free marketplace of ideas decide they did not have room for her views? And before you answer, remember that the champions of the free marketplace of ideas were Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, both conservative republicans!

3) Mr. Donohue continues his lies with this statement: “You also say that ‘she replied to them [critics of her appointment] in a manner that many member [sic] of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful.’” I asked Revesz to identify “a single sentence that is at all untoward.” There is none, and he knows it." Let's see, here is one that I consider untoward: "The controversy took a turn when Prof Thio, in an e-mail interview with Inside Higher Ed, an online publication about college and university issues, said it is "moral imperialism" to suggest there is a universal consensus on gay rights." (From the Straits Times article again.) Let's look at that one statement for a moment. She is basically saying that NYU's Law School's students protesting her appointment is somehow a claim that "there is a universal consensus on gay rights". And that that thought alone is somehow the school itself trying to be a moral dictator. How is that not untoward?

So once again Mr. Donohue has tried to lie to the American people and the conservative religious community. But remember this is the same Donohue who did just what he claims NYU did to Thio to a student named Webster Cook:

In July 2008, a controversy arose surrounding a Communion rite altercation involving Webster Cook, a student and member of the University of Central Florida (UCF) student senate. Cook attended a Catholic mass on campus and was given the Eucharist but walked out without consuming to protest the use of student funds for organized worship in the student union hall. In Catholic doctrine not consuming the communion is a form of desecration. Cook was proposed for censure by the student senate and was criticized by local media. He also received numerous death threats from enraged Catholics.

On Pharyngula, biologist and University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) professor PZ Myers publicly expressed support for Cook as well as outrage that Fox News appeared to be inciting readers to cause further problems for the student; he also ridiculed reports that armed guards would attend the next mass. Myers invited readers to acquire some consecrated Eucharistic hosts for him to be treated "with profound disrespect."

The Catholic League accused Myers of anti-Catholic bigotry and asked UMM and the Minnesota State Legislature to take action against Myers. Myers then also received death threats and hate mail. The Catholic League also called for Cook to be expelled from the university, with Donohue describing his confiscation of the Eucharist as a hate crime as well as a form of kidnapping. Donohue also accused those who supported Cook of anti-Catholic bigotry, and sent a letter to the UCF asking them to take legal action against Cook. A week after the initial communion Cook apologized and returned the wafer. The Catholic League, however, continued to lobby the university for his expulsion.

Very open-minded and forgiving, Mr. Donohue. Any other kettles you would like to call black?