2.28.2004
Government By The People
This is how the government works in our family:
The Legislature passes laws (i.e. the No One Is Allowed To Eat on the Couch Act and the No Pets In the House Amendment to the Constitution). The Legislature is not tasked with enforcing the Laws (i.e. "Just wait until your father gets home") but is tasked with codifying items necessary to the functioning of the Home.
The Executive branch never passes laws. It has the power to draft legislation and propose it as a Bill but cannot ratify it. The Executive branch also has veto power but it can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate (i.e. "If you are not going to support me in this decisions than you can find someone else to cook and clean for you and the only reason I'm still going to wash clothes is because I don't want your dirty laundry cluttering up my house"). The primary purpose of the Executive branch is to enforce the law (i.e. "Your mother just told me what happened at school today…") with the exception of franking privileges in the Congress (i.e. "I can eat on the couch if I want to because it is my rule"). The Executive branch also has regulatory powers that allow it to enforce the laws (i.e. "Son, if you want to continue to live in this house with your four older sisters, you WILL learn to put the toilet seat back down").
The Judicial branch is the weakest branch of the government consisting largely of identification of inequities in the balance of power (i.e. "So how come Mom can eat on the couch but we can't? It's not fair") or inconsistencies (i.e. "If I have to leave the toilet seat down every time, then how come they don't have to leave the toilet seat up every time? It's not fair"). The Judiciary's job is to maintain a state of impartiality (i.e. "How come she gets to go but I have to stay home? It's not fair") and to heighten awareness of general injustice through invocation of a well established mantra (i.e. "It's not fair!").
This is how the government works in our family:
The Legislature passes laws (i.e. the No One Is Allowed To Eat on the Couch Act and the No Pets In the House Amendment to the Constitution). The Legislature is not tasked with enforcing the Laws (i.e. "Just wait until your father gets home") but is tasked with codifying items necessary to the functioning of the Home.
The Executive branch never passes laws. It has the power to draft legislation and propose it as a Bill but cannot ratify it. The Executive branch also has veto power but it can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate (i.e. "If you are not going to support me in this decisions than you can find someone else to cook and clean for you and the only reason I'm still going to wash clothes is because I don't want your dirty laundry cluttering up my house"). The primary purpose of the Executive branch is to enforce the law (i.e. "Your mother just told me what happened at school today…") with the exception of franking privileges in the Congress (i.e. "I can eat on the couch if I want to because it is my rule"). The Executive branch also has regulatory powers that allow it to enforce the laws (i.e. "Son, if you want to continue to live in this house with your four older sisters, you WILL learn to put the toilet seat back down").
The Judicial branch is the weakest branch of the government consisting largely of identification of inequities in the balance of power (i.e. "So how come Mom can eat on the couch but we can't? It's not fair") or inconsistencies (i.e. "If I have to leave the toilet seat down every time, then how come they don't have to leave the toilet seat up every time? It's not fair"). The Judiciary's job is to maintain a state of impartiality (i.e. "How come she gets to go but I have to stay home? It's not fair") and to heighten awareness of general injustice through invocation of a well established mantra (i.e. "It's not fair!").
2.15.2004
What if?
Here's the real scary thought. What if we all get to heaven and we're standing around the throne and someone finally asks, "Which of us had it right?" And Jesus smiled warmly down at each of us and said, "Well you had it right about (doctrine) and he had it right about (a different doctrine) and they had it right about (a different doctrine still)." Continuing on down until all of us realized that none of us had it completely and totally right but none of us (who made it of course but that's another discussion) had it all wrong either. This is a grossly oversimplified view of what I'm carrying in my head and heart at the moment regarding my fellows on the journey.
We aren't all hobbits or elves or dwarves or wizards or men. And even when we have similarities of kind there are differences of character. There are orcs and trolls and uruk-hai out there so we need to make sure we understand who the enemy is and who our friends are. Elves and dwarves may have seemingly antithetical points of view but there are more points of agreement than disagreement when the wider world is considered.
Why can't we all form a Fellowship? A (dare I say it?) "Body of Christ" as it were; made up of separate, distinct, sometimes antagonistic, sometimes complementary, but always unified members?
That's my vision.
Which is prolly why I will end up burned at the stake as a heretic some day.
Here's the real scary thought. What if we all get to heaven and we're standing around the throne and someone finally asks, "Which of us had it right?" And Jesus smiled warmly down at each of us and said, "Well you had it right about (doctrine) and he had it right about (a different doctrine) and they had it right about (a different doctrine still)." Continuing on down until all of us realized that none of us had it completely and totally right but none of us (who made it of course but that's another discussion) had it all wrong either. This is a grossly oversimplified view of what I'm carrying in my head and heart at the moment regarding my fellows on the journey.
We aren't all hobbits or elves or dwarves or wizards or men. And even when we have similarities of kind there are differences of character. There are orcs and trolls and uruk-hai out there so we need to make sure we understand who the enemy is and who our friends are. Elves and dwarves may have seemingly antithetical points of view but there are more points of agreement than disagreement when the wider world is considered.
Why can't we all form a Fellowship? A (dare I say it?) "Body of Christ" as it were; made up of separate, distinct, sometimes antagonistic, sometimes complementary, but always unified members?
That's my vision.
Which is prolly why I will end up burned at the stake as a heretic some day.
2.14.2004
Bad Pomo
Another month slips by and I wonder if everyone has given up on me? Here are some thoughts I posted to the Postliberal_Theology group at Yahoo! groups.
I would summarize this more inclusive approach to pomoxianity as being skeptical of our own skepticism. What I see in some circles (and on some lists) is such a strong desire to "belong" that many of the things that have stood us well over the course of time get thrown out with the bathwater all in the name of becoming whatever the next new thing is. These are our Fashion Plate Pomos. They will state for certain that we can know nothing for certain or establish absolutely that we can not state absolutes. You know the type. Want names and email addresses? We've all chatted with them. I guess these would, for some, be the "good" pomos. I'm a bad one. I believe both/and so much that I am still willing to call myself a fundy, in part because I recognize their sincerity, hopefulness and genuine desire to have a relationship with God. I give them the same space to be flawed, fallible fellows on the journey together with me that I allot for myself and others.
That's one practical area for me - not abandoning the un-fashionable people. I still love them. I still hang with them. I cry with them. I pray with them. I love them. As I do exclusivist pomoxians who can't tolerate the Moderns. As I do the both/and folks in the middle whose stand is not to take a stand. It's about being open enough to the human experience to not feel compelled to bring someone else under our umbrella because we think we have the best umbrella. The first principle of Postmodernity in Christianity should be the statement, "I'm not sure I have it right or that this is the best way to believe about (insert doctrine here) but here is where I am right now. And where are you?"
Another month slips by and I wonder if everyone has given up on me? Here are some thoughts I posted to the Postliberal_Theology group at Yahoo! groups.
I would summarize this more inclusive approach to pomoxianity as being skeptical of our own skepticism. What I see in some circles (and on some lists) is such a strong desire to "belong" that many of the things that have stood us well over the course of time get thrown out with the bathwater all in the name of becoming whatever the next new thing is. These are our Fashion Plate Pomos. They will state for certain that we can know nothing for certain or establish absolutely that we can not state absolutes. You know the type. Want names and email addresses? We've all chatted with them. I guess these would, for some, be the "good" pomos. I'm a bad one. I believe both/and so much that I am still willing to call myself a fundy, in part because I recognize their sincerity, hopefulness and genuine desire to have a relationship with God. I give them the same space to be flawed, fallible fellows on the journey together with me that I allot for myself and others.
That's one practical area for me - not abandoning the un-fashionable people. I still love them. I still hang with them. I cry with them. I pray with them. I love them. As I do exclusivist pomoxians who can't tolerate the Moderns. As I do the both/and folks in the middle whose stand is not to take a stand. It's about being open enough to the human experience to not feel compelled to bring someone else under our umbrella because we think we have the best umbrella. The first principle of Postmodernity in Christianity should be the statement, "I'm not sure I have it right or that this is the best way to believe about (insert doctrine here) but here is where I am right now. And where are you?"
