I Work for A.I.G.!

I heard there was a recession
But I ain’t felt a thing
That’s why I fly
On my private jet
And wear this hidden bling

I work for A.I.G.!
Yeah you know me!
I work for A.I.G.!
Let’s throw a party!

My maid, she has been crying
Says she can’t feed her child
I had to let her go
Cause don’t you know
Her emotions were too wild

I work for A.I.G.!
Yeah you know me!
I work for A.I.G.!
Do you see me?

I heard my company’s tankin’
But that’s ok, I found a chump
Hey Uncle Sam,
Could you lend me hand?
And get me over this financial hump?

I work for A.I.G.!
Yeah you know me!
I work for A.I.G.!
So give me more money!

They said there was a ruckus
Up on Capital Hill
But I never saw a thing
(cha ching!)
Except my stimulus bill!

I work for A.I.G.!
Yeah you know me!
I work for A.I.G.!
Gimme my bonus please!

What I Wish I Had Blogged About

So I’ve been on a blogging hiatus, but I am not making a real attempt to get back to it, so the two of you who read this will have that to look forward to. There have been a number of things that I would have liked to comment on here on my online podium, but I know that I will never give them each the treatment they deserve. Never-the-less, Here are the top 5 things I wish I would have blogged on (and a summary of what I would have said). In no particular order:

1. Jatropha. Heard of it? Me either! At least not until recently. But it seems to be worth hearing about. Jatropha is a neat little plant (actually, there are several varieties) who’s nuts produce an oil that can be used as fuel. Three reasons why this is a big deal: 1. It burns clean. Unlike our terrorist-provided oil it doesn’t pollute as it is used. 2. It comes from Latin America and the Caribbean. They grow it in India too, I think. The double bonus here is that these shamefully destitute places may have found a way to make some money, while our frenemies in OPEC will be losing some. 3. Unlike ethanol, cultivating jatropha won’t drive up food prices because you can’t eat it, so there is no competition.

2. Chimps Should Live in Trees. More to the point, they shouldn’t live in houses. And they shouldn’t share your bed or drink wine with you because THEY GO NUTS AND PEOPLE GET HURT. As a general rule, I’m not a fan of animals in cages (and a house constitutes a cage for a chimp. For that matter, so does almost every exhibit at the zoo, including the Portland zoo and most especially the Boise zoo). Now, to be fair, I have had “caged” pets before. My tarantula, for instance. But he (or she, I never asked) lived in a 65 gallon aquarium. I’ve had pet rats, and their cage was two stories and almost as big as my bed. The point is, if you cage any creature, or treat it as anything other than the creature it is (a chimp is not a human, for instance), bad things happen.

3. Ted Haggard is an Insurance Salesman. This honestly makes me very sad. I’ve never thought of myself as having a whole lot in common with Haggard (even less now), but as president of the NEA he was one of the family, you know? Granted, he was dishonest and immoral and absolutely should have been removed from his position as president and as pastor of New Life Church, but even then he should have been able to turn to the church for help. Instead, they literally kick him out of Colorado (they later changed their minds on that one). Look, guys, Jesus was not very image-conscious, so get over yourself and help the guy out. And Ted, don’t ever think about preaching again.

4. Christian Bale is a Jerk! You have probably heard by now about his little tirade on the set of the new Terminator movie (unrelated note: Really? Another one?). He threw a temper tantrum like a little girl and humiliated an employee on the set. Apparently he believes he really is as special as our celebrity-worshipping society has told him he is. Assistant Director and Associate Producer Bruce Franklin is defending him though, saying he was interrupted during a very emotional scene (in a Terminator movie?). Sounds like Bruce is hoping Christian will want to work with him in later movies. Not likely Bruce. The whole thing kind of reminds me of Alec Baldwin’s verbal abuse of his daughter in which he called her a pig (amongst other things) in a phone message. Celebrities really are different from us.

5. Obama Opposes Reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. Good on you, Mr. President. You are now entitled to a tirade because you are special. The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration. What it comes down to is that at the very least it gives whiners a chance to whine and at its worst it provides a legal way to force others to support your point of view. Maybe I’ll send Obama a thank you note and few suggestions for some other ways to really wow the public is his first 100 days. Oh hell, I’ll just run for president in 2016.

One last thing….we’ve bailed out big business (i.e. gave them those bonuses they SO deserved), we’ve bailed out the car makers, we’ve bailed out those banks who can’t be bothered by people such as myself, and now we’re bailing out homeowners who shouldn’t have bought the house in the first place because you couldn’t afford it. Where’s my bail out?

Aborting Barack

“A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.”

Hmm….I think I have a few issues with this. But before I mention them I feel like I should, once again, clarify my fundy stance on the issue. I don’t like abortions, I’ll go on record as saying that they’re not good; when I run for president in 2016 I will run as a pro-life candidate. I have said many times that the church needs to be the church and the state needs to be the state and that the church is in the position to do the most good when it is not trying to be political, and I think that is true about the issue of abortion as well. However, abortion happens to be an issue where the use of the political process can be valuable, and I’m not limiting that to laws banning abortions but rather government programs that prevent the need for abortions and serve as alternatives for it. Further, a politicians stance on this issue is a big deal to me, a very big deal, actually. I am not pleased with Barack Obama’s position on abortion and it was the subject of much reflection before I voted for him.

And that brings me to my first issue with Rev. Jay. Why have you highlighted this particular issue above any others, Reverend? Again, I bet both RJ (Rev. Jay) and I have the same basic view of abortion. It causes trauma to the mother, often times the father, and also to the doctor and nurses who perform the abortion, and it kills another human being. But what about arrogantly sending young people overseas to kill and be killed in the name of machismo? What about taking money away from programs designed to feed children and house the homeless so that the wealthy can have their tax break? Is that not sin? Human beings like to rank sin, to make some sins worse than others; God doesn’t do that: sin is sin.

RJ goes on to say that “voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil…” I don’t think so, RJ. I think we live in a fallen world and sometimes the right choice doesn’t exist. I think we are able to make the “most right” choice, but evil permeates this world and this world is governed by politicians, and thus I am forced to try and figure out what is most right. This is, in large part, a matter of conscience and this is between me and the Holy Spirit, not me and the priest (or pastor).

Telling someone that he or she shouldn’t or can’t take communion is bold and rather risky. To do so assumes a certain level of authority that I don’t think Scripture grants. By all means, RJ, we need to proclaim truth, fight for the good and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, but let us not presume to speak for God where he has not first spoken.

Oh, catchy blog title, huh? An attention-getter, I think.

Getting the Gays

The question of the validity of gay marriage has become one of the defining political questions of this generation, in the same manner that segregation was a defining political question in the generation previous. The question of a constitutional amendment on the federal level declaring marriage to be between only a man and a woman still lingers, while on a state level the question has already been answered in several places, including Oregon and California. In 2000 California voters banned gay marriage, a ban that was overturned by the California Supreme Court. A few days ago Californians voted on it again and again banned gay marriage, sparking several protests, particularly in front of LDS (Mormon) churches for their very public support of the ban. I think, based on what I have seen in the current youth culture, bans such as this will be relatively short lived. The emerging culture is self-defined as progressive, tolerant, and open-minded, and they will not tolerate what they perceive to be discrimination-and I think they’re right-mostly.

Let me say this, just to get it on the table: I oppose gay marriage. But I also oppose banning it. "‘People believe in the institution of marriage,’ Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign said. ‘It's one institution that crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides. ... People have stood up because they care about marriage and they care a great deal’" (from Fox News). If we care about marriage, than we need to be supporting it in a way that will really matter as opposed to the nominal support offered by political referendums. The institution of marriage belongs to the church, not the government; no matter how right or just or popular a law is, it will never be capable of sanctifying anything. As one who is attempting to live life in the way of Jesus, I oppose gay marriage and I would never perform a wedding for a gay couple, regardless of whether the law instructed me to do so or forbade me from doing so, it is a mute point.

Having said that, it IS the government’s job to ensure that all citizens, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation receive equal rights under the law. This includes essentially benign issues like filing a joint tax return to much more profound, impactful issues such as who has the right to make decisions when their partner cannot make the decisions for themselves. This is what civil unions are for, to establish equal protections under the law for committed couples. To those who would support a ban on gay marriage on religious grounds I would make three points:

1) God already bans it, so what’s the point of putting into secular law? Homosexuality is one of a myriad of issues where my faith speaks but the government is (or should be), rightfully, silent.

2) In getting a government ban on ghay marriage, have you done for the gay/lesbian individual to lead him or her closer to Christ? Do you think that by banning a legal recognition of their partnership they will suddenly repent and come to Christ? If the answer to these questions was no, then what was the point?

3) What possible good are you doing for the Kingdom of God as a whole by getting your state to ban gay marriage? It is trivial, because it is temporal. Collecting signatures, going to the voting booth, holding picket signs, all these things are really rather easy to do, and as is most often the case with things that are easy to do it is also rather meaningless. If we want to support the institution of marriage and make an impact for the Kingdom then we need to do the hard work of building the church up, not the easy and pointless work of tearing outsiders down. Provide premarital/marriage counseling and workshops, mentor engaged couples and young people, provide a safe, non-judgmental, grace filled atmosphere for all people to come to know the love of Christ. Earn the right to speak truth by doing the work of love.

Please, comment.

Evil Bastards and Pagans

Two blogs for the price of one. Lucky you.

Evil Bastards:

We received a political mailing the other day that invited us to “look into the mind of so and so.” I didn’t read it, the cover was enough for me. Under the guises of this somewhat benign title was a picture of the candidate whose mind I was supposed to look into, except that half of his picture was gone, replaced with a skeleton. Clever. Look into his mind, ha. I get it. CLEARLY the image was NOT meant to invoke the idea of peering into this candidates thought process but was, rather, intended to portray him in an ugly, scary, evil way and hopefully plant that image in my head when I think of him. This candidate was of course not the only victim of such caricature nor was the political party behind the ad the sole perpetrator of such things. Watch the political commercials with a discerning eye (it doesn’t actually have to be THAT discerning) and you will see that the images of the opponent are always the worst ones possible and the sound bytes are always taken out of context. Even the music used is chosen for the purposes of creating either a feeling of dread or joviality. Can you imagine if the politicians we send to Washington (or Salem) really were the evil bastards like their opponents tout? (Yeah, some are). If we really were to believe everything they say, and everything we act like we believe when talking about the “other side” then we really have to admire the separatists in hills of Idaho and Utah.

Pagans:

Pagans aren’t evil bastards, they’re just pagans. But that’s not the point.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, for an extremely brief moment, I debated internally whether or not I would one day allow my child to participate in the festivities of Halloween via trick or treating and jack o’ lanterns and so on. I debated it, because at the time I was part of a very conservative, and frankly rather legalistic church where that’s ort of thing simply wasn’t done. The rationale behind this is that Halloween is or at the very least is based on a pagan holiday where demons or dead people (or sometimes both) are invoked and worshipped and Satanists really like that day. Well, there is a bit of truth to it. There are some pagan belief practices that honor October 31st as a holiday, as do bona fide Satanists. However, they do not celebrate Halloween (unless they do it with their kids after worship). Halloween, as we know it today, is entirely a kid’s holiday. I will grant that October 31st is a pagan holiday, with some similarities, but what is practiced as worship is not nor has it ever been Halloween; that some people have some peculiar beliefs about pumpkins should not stop the rest of us from carving funny faces into them.

Another problem I have with the “Halloween is pagan” argument is that most of those who make that argument celebrate other pagan holidays too, either out of ignorance or because over the years we have cleaned it up enough for it to be palatable to them. The prime example of this is Christmas. Now hear this: Jesus was absolutely NOT born on December 25th, or any time close to that. Jesus, in other words, is not the reason for the season, Mithras is. The followers of Mithras celebrated his birthday on December 25th (they even called it Mithmas—seriously) and when the Roman empire became Christian the church had to decide what to do with all these feisty former pagans who wanted to party so they declared that everyone would celebrate the birth of Jesus instead of Mithras. We even celebrate with fertility (phallic?) symbols in our living rooms every year! Is this not pagan?! Now there are those who don’t celebrate either Halloween or Christmas, and are not Jehovah Witness’s, and I respect that (though you need to party sometime, right?). But seriously, if we are going to sit around our phallic symbols every winter and open our celebrations of greed, can we not take our little ones out for a bit of candy?

India dressed as a little kitty, by the way. SO CUTE.

Announcing my Candidacy!

I would like to take this opportunity to announce my candidacy for President of the United States in the 2016 elections. I realize that it is a little early to make the announcement, but I anticipate several hurdles along the way that will take some time and creativity to overcome, so I am starting now. I am running as an independent and am not a member of any political party, though I welcome the endorsements of all of them so long as they can support my platform. Let me give you an outline of what I envision the Stults administration to look like:

-> I will be nobody’s bi---! As I am not affiliated with a party and no Political Action Committee or special interest group is likely to take a risk on me I will be indebted to no one!

-> Shooting people is bad! I don’t think people in our country should shoot each other, so I will put a stop to it. I think using our words is better than using our weapons with other countries, and I don’t want people from other countries to shoot us (If I have to shoot them I will, but not until we sit down and talk about it like grown ups).

-> If you can afford to pay more taxes then I’m gonna make you. If you can’t afford to pay then I’ll back off.

-> I like to drink clean water and breathe clean air, so that will b e a priority.

-> I know you can’t afford health insurance (I can’t either!), so as president I’ll make the insurance agencies and the HMO’s stop being so greedy and start taking care of people, and if you can’t afford your medicine I’ll let you buy it from Canada!

-> Speaking of Canada, let’s invade! No, scratch that.

-> Did you know that most of those legislators are rich? Yeah, I’m going to take away their salaries and a lot of their perks.

-> I think torture is bad.

-> I hate dealing with problems! So I’m going to hire a lot of people who are good at preventing problems.

-> I think kids should be smart! In my administration, we’ll implement education policies that allow teachers to teach kids the way they learn best (hint: it isn’t sitting in desks in neat rows).

-> My campaign is grassroots cause I have no money! Therefore, I will influence politics in America such that the “little guy” has more of a voice and the wealthy power houses can shut the he— up.

-> There are no topless pictures of me on the internet.

Well, that’s what I have so far. Eight years is going to go quicker than we think, so let’s all be ready!

Team America

Blah. I haven’t blogged for a long time-too busy worrying about losing the house. We’re still not out of the woods (actually, we keep going farther in) but I feel like blogging anyhow.

So my lack of finances has gotten me thinking about finances and economics in general, which got me thinking about politics, which made me think about these Obama and McCain guys. I’m really not sure who I’m going to vote for yet, though the addition of Palin to the Republican ticket has certainly nudged me more in one direction (to the left). To be honest, I don’t really like a whole lot of what either of them have to say, and what I do like I don’t trust them on; that is to say, promises are easy to make, harder to carry out. And what I really, really don’t appreciate is how I feel like I am in jr. high again whenever I listen to them debate or see one of the commercials. How am I supposed to feel good about two guys running for president of the United States that get caught up playing the stupid “gotcha” games that the rest of us (well, most of us) got over after eighth grade?

I came to the conclusion long ago that the man himself, that is, who the actual president is, isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference in the political landscape. What I am voting for when I vote for president isn’t really based on which candidate I like better, but on which sphere of influence I find most valuable. For example, McCain will most likely fill his cabinet with conservative thinkers and appoint conservative judges and listen to the conservative groups that helped him get elected. Obama will do the same with his liberals. So my vote isn’t for a man, it is for an ideology, and once again I do not line up with either one. Rather, I find myself wanting to pick and choose from each, as well as eliminating several tenants from either side.

Abortion, for example: I fall in line with conservatives. On the environment I am more of a Democrat. I think guns should be controlled, but I also think that faith-based charity groups should be supported in every way possible, including through public funds. I don’t think cutting taxes for the sake of cutting taxes is good, but neither do I think that money will solve the ills of the various groups that keep asking for more. I support the idea that everyone ought to be able to see a doctor when they need to without worrying about the cost, but I don’t think that as a society we can afford to foot the bill for that. And as far as gay marriage, well, why did we ever give government the right to have any voice in marriage to begin with?

So here is the point I am at now, and I know this is nothing new but I think it bears repeating, at least to myself: the government will never be able to solve moral problems. That’s the church’s job. We will never, for example, stop abortions by making them illegal. But the church could do a better job of teaching about the sacredness of life and supporting pregnant mothers and encouraging adoption. This is one of many areas where the church has given up its voice to the government, asking the politicians to do the work of the saints and then bemoaned them for their involvement. I guess what it comes down to is that I am separating the issues into two categories: that of moral imperatives and that of political preferences (or, if you are feeling more dogmatic, political imperatives). I realize this break down is not perfect, but I think it more or less works. Those things which my convictions, my faith, my belief that Christ came and will come again tells me are right or wrong, these are moral imperatives. If by way of happenstance or luck the government supports these convictions, great. But the energy I put into these issues is best channeled through the church. The category of political preferences, those things which I feel are best for me and for you and for the country but that stop short of being morally binding holds the issues that most influence my vote. Again, this is a hard line to draw and there will be some cross-over, but it’s where my thinking is at right now.

I guess that’s all I’ve got for now.

Take Back the Pulpit!

On September 26th, in an event supported by the Alliance Defense Fund, pastors around the country will intentionally preach a partisan, political sermon from the pulpit, thereby putting their church in jeopardy of losing their 501c3 status. The IRS requires that churches, in order to remain as tax-exempt non-profits, refrain from support of any candidate above another and it limits what can be said about ballot measures and the like. So on September 26th various pastors will be challenging that law by supporting one presidential candidate over the other and encouraging their congregants to vote for said candidate (there were no specifics as to which candidate that would be).

For my part, I do believe that “separation of church and state” is more often than not misused and churches are unfairly discriminated against. I also feel that pastors should absolutely have the right to preach in favor of one candidate over another and to speak about the moral ramifications of secular laws and the biblical principles that should guide our voting, I just think they should proceed with caution and discretion when exercising that right.

The missionary Jordan Grooms said, “If God called you to be a missionary, don’t stoop to be a king.” His words are apropos for all pastors and those within the spheres of influence in ecclesiastical circles, especially in an election year. The essence of Grooms statement is that politics, political change, just and right laws, while good, are also temporal. No matter how good of a leader we have in office, no matter how right and needed the legislation, it can not bring heart change, sanctification, or salvation. If you want to devote your time and energy to something really worthwhile, devote it to something eternal, devote it to the mission of Jesus.
If, as sometimes happens, the worlds of government and church intersect and create an occasion in which truth needs to be spoken, then by all means the church should step up to the challenge, as it has done in the past with issues such as women’s rights, racism, and poverty, whose impetus for change in each case began with faith. But the focus of the church’s message, always, must be Christ and him crucified and raised; this is the beginning of justice, hope, and change.

We do need to take back the pulpit, but it’s not the IRS that stole it from us. Nobody stole it, we just lost it. In place of biblical preaching we have self-help seminars on one end (thanks for the advice, Osteen!) and political rallies on the other (Pat Robertson for President!). In our day and age there are various means of communication open to us (you are reading one of them right now) and as citizens of this country we should use them as we see fit. But the pulpit, and the call to pastor, is sacred and should not be used to promote our political preferences, no matter how strongly we feel about them. If you have been called to be a pastor, do not stoop to be a politician.