Jesus Is Not a Republican

Jesus is not a Republican. 

From shuckandjive.org

Jesus is not a Democrat, either. 

Being a good Christian doesn't mean you have to vote for Republicans. Similarly, being a good Christian doesn't mean you have to vote for Democrats. Neither party holds the title of espousing more of God's commands. Of course, if you belong to one of the parties, I'm sure you see your party as being closer to God. I'm sure you could give me 3 good reasons that you believe it to be true. Maybe even 5 reasons. Of course, someone on the other side of the aisle could give 3-5 good reasons why THEIR party is closer to God. 

Let me see if I can guess the lists...

Jesus is a Republican because:

• He described marriage as a union between a man and a woman that is a demonstration of the relationship between Christ and his church. Therefore American marriages should only be between a man and a woman.
• Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me" and would oppose abortion.
• He prayed in public regularly, and would want to keep prayer in schools.
• Opposing abortion, Jesus would not support a national health care system that guaranteed abortions to women who wanted them.

Jesus is a Democrat because:

• Jesus told the rich man to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Higher taxes for the rich would be a no-brainer.
• He tells us to love our neighbor, even if they are different from us (Like Samaritans. Or any other social group that we look down upon.)
• Jesus fed thousands that had no food. He would love to expand the food stamp program even further.
• He healed the sick wherever he went. He would want us to guarantee healthcare to anyone who needed it.
• He showed compassion to criminals, and would oppose the death penalty.

I'm sure I left many items off the list. And I know I'm not going to convince anyone here that Jesus is actually rooting for the other team.

From theblaze.com

We live in a sinful world. We are sinners. There is no right side to choose, as far as Jesus is concerned. We will have to make compromises on our beliefs and cast a vote. Jesus said "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." It is our duty to participate in local and national politics. That is what our responsible citizenship requires, along with paying taxes and following our laws. But Jesus also told the parable of the 3 servants. The master gave each servant an amount of money to care for in his absence. Two of the servants invested the money wisely, and gave their master back even-larger sums upon his return. The master was pleased with their stewardship. The third servant buried the money in the ground until his master returned. He told his master that he was afraid of displeasing his master by losing it, and chose to not choose. He just sat on the money instead of making the most of it. He was not a good steward of his resources. We too are called to be good stewards of our American freedoms, of our ability to vote. God gives us reason and conscience to decide the best way to use that gift. If you feel that you are called to vote for one man because he'll do a better job with your vote, then vote for him. 

Martin Luther (the Reformation guy, not the civil rights guy) spoke about Christians living in two kingdoms. There is the Kingdom of the Left that we pay taxes to, follow the rules of, and elect leaders to. It is the kingdom of our temporal lives. The lives that involve jobs, traffic jams, and PTA meetings. A kingdom ruled by law. Laws that are made to keep us safe in our homes as we sleep at night. And there is the kingdom of our Creator, the Kingdom of the Right, that is ruled by grace. It is the kingdom of the gospel, with a structure different from our earthly kingdom. In it we seek God's will, not out of fear for breaking the rules, but in thankful response to our salvation in Christ. It is the kingdom of our eternal lives. 

Christians live in both kingdoms. We have obligations and callings in our temporal lives, but must always prioritize our eternal lives. To haphazardly mix the two and say that Jesus sides with one of our flawed political parties does nothing but debase our savior and aggrandize a group of people who make a living out of trying to become more powerful. 

From sodahead.com

So let's keep it all in context, folks. 

Jesus wants us to be good stewards of our blessings:  freedom, knowledge, wisdom, food, shelter, and money. Pray that you can cast a vote that does this, and stop labeling the other side as evil.

Debates

I'm watching my second debate, this one for Vice-Presidential candidates. Sigh. I realize that I'm a cynic. Who's telling the truth? Whose facts are correct? What truths are being told and what truths are being bent? I'm not a political insider. I don't know. Nor am I really sure of which insiders to trust. This is a problem.

I'm more involved in a different debate. There is a debate raging in Boston about changes to the school system. One side says that the school system is trying to destroy neighborhoods. The other side says that the school system is trying to widen the gap between the poor and the rich. They shout words like "racism". The thing is, I know that both sides are wrong.

There have been many articles about the history of bussing in Boston: 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/1/boston-still-vexed-by-school-busing/?page=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/education/new-boston-busing-debate-4-decades-after-fervid-clashes.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/10/bostonians-committed-school-diversity-havent-given-busing/3544/
http://www.wbur.org/2012/03/30/boston-busing-crisis

It was started in the 70's to address the issue of schools being segregated because neighborhoods were segregated. What happened? People were outraged about their children being bussed away from their neighborhood schools to schools with strangers across town. Unfortunately, violence resulted.  What would you do if you were informed that next year, your child would be driven across the city to a strange neighborhood? I doubt you'd throw bricks at busses, but if you had the means, you'd move to a different town with more reliable and predictable schools. Or send them to private schools. Well, if you had the money to do so...

And that's what happened in Boston. Wealthier families who wanted to take control of their children's educations left en masse. That left behind the children of the poor and the children of immigrants - children who desperately need good educations and desperately need additional resources to make that happen. The elementary schools are full of the neediest children in town. That's a tough position for any school district to be in. Do they still need to rise to the occasion? Yes. But does that make it more difficult for all schools to be equally good? Yes.

The school district needs to lure back the wealthier kids to fill in more of the seats. And by "wealthy" I mean families that can scrape together about $7000/yr to buy a predictable parochial education. They need to prevent the flight of wealthier families to the burbs. Then they'd have more money to spend on all of the children. It isn't only the wealthy families (and again, I use the term "wealthy" loosely here) that want better schools. It isn't only the wealthy that want advanced coursework for their bright kids.

The school district (BPS) has been implementing targeted programs towards the children with the greatest needs, those who enter the system with linguistic and academic disadvantages. They have more plans ready for implementation. These are the poor (largely African-American and latino) and the immigrants that are being helped the most. How are they demonstrating ongoing racism? And the Superintendent of the BPS and most of the school administrators and Principals were African-American. Others were Latino and Asian. They were the ones presenting the possible plans. I'm scratching my head at how an African-American woman making school policy recommendations that largely affect African-American children can be accused of being racist.

When people care greatly about a topic, local or national, rhetoric gets heated. I realize this. But why does it have to be so nasty? And full of untruths? A mom on JPMoms wrote that she feels that this is "us vs. them". But why do we have to assume this? The mere fact that BPS is proposing 5 different changes, and vigorously soliciting parent feedback through surveys, meetings, and open appeals makes me feel invited and included in this process. The fact that I had facetime with the Superintendent at a meeting makes me confident that this isn't an "us vs. them" process. We can't all get exactly what we want. But this doesn't mean that they're not trying to find a good middle-ground solution. 

So I pray regularly now that we may all be given open minds, gentle spirits, and sweetened tongues. There are many debates going on right now that will have ongoing consequences. I pray that truth rises to the top of the fray, and good decisions can be made all around.

Shame On You, Paul Ryan!

Shame on you, Paul Ryan. You want to curb government expenditures, which will inevitably include social services to the most needy. To make up for it, private donors (including soft-hearted people like me) will have to give more to private charities to pick up the slack. So certainly you must support private philanthropy and give away sizable amounts of your own income, right? You profess Christian values, so certainly you at least tithe, right? Oh. No? You only donated 4% of your income to charity? After making $323,416 in 2011?

At least Romney gives more. But he's a Mormon, and rumor has it that the Mormon church checks your tax returns to make sure you're not shortchanging the church. Well, let's give him some credit, 16.4% is more than the 10% tithe that churches recommend. But when your income is in the millions, perhaps you can afford a few percentages higher than us lowly non-millionaires.

President Obama gave an impressive 14% of his income to charity in 2010. Way to go! But if you look at his giving before his tax returns became public for campaign purposes, his rate was between .4% and 4.6% across the years of 2002 to 2005. Hmmm, he wants bigger government to give more money to more people, but didn't believe in giving much of his own away until he know people were watching.

And how did you do, Joe Biden? Well, 1.6% in 2011 is better than nothing. Um, but you're in the public spotlight. And you still give less than the others.

SHAME ON YOU GUYS!

You all make way more money than the rest of us do, but you don't seem so generous with it. All of you propose policies that will take money from someone - either you're taking money from the middle class to fund social services, or you're taking money from the social services to give more to the middle class. So everyone feels like they're in danger of having to fork over their money to you. And you don't even do a good job of sharing your own?

Didn't you figure it out a few years back that you had the desire to be in public office? Surely you guessed that people would expect to see your income tax reports? And that they'd notice how tight-fisted you are?

Shame on you. And why should I trust any of you to spend my money wisely and compassionately if you don't do the same with your own?

UPDATE:
PS. I'm ruminating on the matter as I pack lunches, and the phrase "brood of vipers" keeps coming to mind...
If you are reading this and considering running for office, know of someone running for office, or just feeling like you need to start more charitable giving, consider giving to Ruth House. They take in homeless teenage girls, make them get an education and job training, and send them out into the world able to support their young families. Certainly this is a cause that gets bipartisan approval? Go out and give.