On November 22, 2002, I addressed a Mars Hill Forum at Boston University with Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. Our topic was “Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?” Arline is the most effective homosexual-rights lobbyist in the state, and has been so since the late 1980s.
I arrived in the auditorium before Arline did, and when she came in, I immediately introduced myself, smiled, shook her hand and said, eye to eye, that it was a pleasure to meet her. She had a coterie of lesbian and male homosexual friends with her, and when they saw how easily and genuinely I greeted Arline, some of them were clearly shocked – even pointedly lurching back. In other words, the stereotype of an evangelical minister is that I must be “homophobic,” that is, fearful of being in the presence of homosexual persons, and clearly hateful toward them.
During Arline’s introductory comments, she stated that every other person she debated on this subject “had palpably hated me, but not so tonight with John Rankin.” I was unprepared for this remark, and whether Arline had concluded this beforehand, or whether my eyeball-to-eyeball welcome made the difference, I do not know.
That evening I made a concerted presentation for the goodness of man and woman in marriage, “one man, one woman, one lifetime,” chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within. On such a basis I said an unambiguous no to same-sex marriage. During her opening comments, Arline spoke of her lesbian partner of many years, and how they had two artificially inseminated children. These were Arline’s biological children, conceived through anonymous sperm donors.
Then during our dialogic period, I said that I was going to ask her a personal question, which she did not have to answer if she considered it too probing. I asked her what she would say to her children when they were old enough to ask, “Who is my daddy?” and “Where is my daddy?” Arline said she had not thought of that question and would have to cross that bridge when she came to it. I left it there, open-ended.
During the question and answer period, in the midst of an energetic moment with a questioner from the audience, Arline looked at me and said, “We know that you love us John.” She had a good number of friends there, and most of the 225 or so people were on her side of the question. Yet I had never used the explicit language of “love.” Rather I had shown Arline full respect as an image-bearer of God in the face of a most divisive debate.
And this paved the way for two more forums...
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
True Stories (4): Slander by a Lead Homosexual Activist, and the Refusal of Matthew 18:15-17
In June, 2007, I invited Harry Knox, religious director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to address a Mars Hill Forum with me. He initially accepted. The HRC is the largest and most well funded homosexual rights organization in the U.S. Mr. Knox is also now serving on the White House "Advisory Council of the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."
The opportunity was at the Hartford Civic Center (across the street from my office) during the 50th anniversary of the United Church of Christ (UCC), the same convention that Barack Obama addressed. The topic was on the question of "homophobia and hate speech."
Then he reneged. Because I was working in conjunction with the Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWF) in the UCC, he said he could not do it. He said that the BWF was funded by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), but a friend of mine at the BWF -- a shoestring operation -- said they have never received a penny from the IRD. I also knew the executive director of the IRD.
Harry slandered the BWF this way: "LGBT people routinely lose their jobs, their children, their health, even their very lives because of what is said and done by groups like the BWF." "LGBT" is an acronym for "Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered" people.
Mr. Knox professes to be a Christian. I asked him to sustain his accusations with concrete evidence, adding: "Of course we disagree on the issue of homosexuality, and how the Bible addresses it. Do we agree or disagree on the ethics of reconciliation defined by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17?" If his accusations had substance, he was obligated to honor this biblical norm of reconciliation and approach the appropriate people in the BWF and IRD accordingly.
He responded by saying he did not believe the BWF's "denial" of funding by the IRD, and saying there was no need for Matthew 18:15-17 reconciliation between us.
I responded and said the matter of Matthew 18 applied to his accusations against the BWF, not me (he knew that). As well, if the BWF were lying, he would be even further obligated to go to them, since they would thus be sinning against him.
He then asked "that we not correspond further, please."
In the ministry of the Gospel, I always seek to communicate across the chasm. And people are free to accept or reject it. Here, a man professing to be both a Christian and homosexual did not cut off communication due to the question of the Bible and homosexuality. Rather, he rejected the very core of who Jesus is as the Redeemer and Healer of broken relationships.
Mr. Knox has silenced himself in the presence of the Gospel, exposing his real agenda. It is painful to watch, but also represents the reality of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 25:31-46 -- separating the sheep from the goats.
The opportunity was at the Hartford Civic Center (across the street from my office) during the 50th anniversary of the United Church of Christ (UCC), the same convention that Barack Obama addressed. The topic was on the question of "homophobia and hate speech."
Then he reneged. Because I was working in conjunction with the Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWF) in the UCC, he said he could not do it. He said that the BWF was funded by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), but a friend of mine at the BWF -- a shoestring operation -- said they have never received a penny from the IRD. I also knew the executive director of the IRD.
Harry slandered the BWF this way: "LGBT people routinely lose their jobs, their children, their health, even their very lives because of what is said and done by groups like the BWF." "LGBT" is an acronym for "Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered" people.
Mr. Knox professes to be a Christian. I asked him to sustain his accusations with concrete evidence, adding: "Of course we disagree on the issue of homosexuality, and how the Bible addresses it. Do we agree or disagree on the ethics of reconciliation defined by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17?" If his accusations had substance, he was obligated to honor this biblical norm of reconciliation and approach the appropriate people in the BWF and IRD accordingly.
He responded by saying he did not believe the BWF's "denial" of funding by the IRD, and saying there was no need for Matthew 18:15-17 reconciliation between us.
I responded and said the matter of Matthew 18 applied to his accusations against the BWF, not me (he knew that). As well, if the BWF were lying, he would be even further obligated to go to them, since they would thus be sinning against him.
He then asked "that we not correspond further, please."
In the ministry of the Gospel, I always seek to communicate across the chasm. And people are free to accept or reject it. Here, a man professing to be both a Christian and homosexual did not cut off communication due to the question of the Bible and homosexuality. Rather, he rejected the very core of who Jesus is as the Redeemer and Healer of broken relationships.
Mr. Knox has silenced himself in the presence of the Gospel, exposing his real agenda. It is painful to watch, but also represents the reality of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 25:31-46 -- separating the sheep from the goats.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
True Stories (3): "Religion & Queer Sexuality" at Brown University
On November 15, 2006, in a forum at Brown University, the other four panelists and the moderator were supportive of homosexuality. I was the only one representing the biblical worldview. I loved the ratio, for truth is truth, and will always rise to the top.
The topic was "Religion and Queer Sexuality," sponsored by The Queer Community Committee at Brown.
1) The moderator was the Rev. Janet Cooper-Nelson, university chaplain. She was to my right at the end of the table. Her concern was not for us to focus on biblical or intellectual content, but on the how each of us would welcome "a stranger" who seeks us out as to "the likelihood of [our] tradition" sharing "their identity as a gay man/lesbian woman."
2) Sitting next to her was the very affable Swami Yogatmananda of the Vedanta Society in Providence, RI. He gave a classic Hindu presentation of dualism, where the goal is to be freed of the body and its desires. He stated that the core Hindu scriptures say nothing about homosexuality, but gave a permissive view toward homosexual identity and actions, saying: "Each soul is potentially divine regardless of sexual orientation."
3) Sitting next to him, and next to me, was a pleasant young woman, Emily Mathis, a Jewish "queer" rabbinical student. While alluding to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, and while making mention of "limiting, exclusive texts" relative to "queer" people, she then moved on to say that modern Jewish midrash allows the addition of new stories which can be more inclusive of homosexual persons.
4) I then spoke of my evangelical identity, having been raised an agnostic Unitarian until my conversion to Christ in 1967. I started with how my own church welcomes all persons who seek Jesus on his terms, regardless of their struggles with any range of temptations, including homosexuality. But the question is whether we come to Jesus on his terms in these struggles, or whether we come to a given church and seek to change its reliance on the Bible.
Jesus fulfills the biblical order of creation that defines human sexuality uniquely for man and woman in marriage, and he fulfills the Law of Moses that says no to homosexual acts. I then outlined how I seek to treat all people according to the six pillars of biblical power -- the power to give, the power to live in the light, the power of informed choice, the power to love hard questions, the power to love enemies and the power to forgive. I was happily surprised by the robustness of applause when I was done. The Rev. Cooper-Nelson then called these pillars "novel," in a sense of not knowing how to respond to them. But they are at the core of biblical reality, able to answer her original question with truth and grace.
5) To my left was a young man, Rusmir Music, a Bosnian "queer" Muslim. He started by calling my presentation "eloquent," again a pleasant surprise. He was raised a secular Muslim, but says that in coming to terms with his homosexuality, he found comfort in Allah and the Qur'an, and looked to find whatever he could within the Islamic tradition that would welcome him. He said that the historic inhospitality of Islam toward homosexuals was a result of, or some sort of reaction to, Western Colonialism and its Victorian sexual morality.
6) Finally, at the end of the table to my left was the Rev. Lynne Phipps with the United Church of Christ (UCC). Rev. Phipps started by calling herself a liberal Christian who was also "evangelical." She said that not all evangelicals are "conservative" -- an allusion to me (though I have never called myself such, as it is penultimate political language). She argued for the acceptance of homosexuality in God's sight, against the polarity of calling things "good and bad," that the seeking of the good has nothing to do with sexuality, and that "some of us are uncomfortable because we are not queer."
There was only time for two questions from the audience. First, an Egyptian Muslim asked why the panel was so imbalanced -- in that only one panelist (me) reflected his view on the subject. And second, a woman asked a question as to how some panelists, on the one hand, face "the danger in new interpretations leading us away from God," and on the other hand, can lose truth if they think it is "settled."
The Rev. Cooper-Nelson then concluded by asking each of us if we can look backward historically in our own tradition, and see where it needs change. The agenda was clear -- change biblical truth, ultimately, for pagan sexual mores.
Afterward, I was able to speak in depth with two avowedly bi-sexual men. The goal as always is to let the light shine, and allow the proactive nature of the Good News be clearly seen.
The topic was "Religion and Queer Sexuality," sponsored by The Queer Community Committee at Brown.
1) The moderator was the Rev. Janet Cooper-Nelson, university chaplain. She was to my right at the end of the table. Her concern was not for us to focus on biblical or intellectual content, but on the how each of us would welcome "a stranger" who seeks us out as to "the likelihood of [our] tradition" sharing "their identity as a gay man/lesbian woman."
2) Sitting next to her was the very affable Swami Yogatmananda of the Vedanta Society in Providence, RI. He gave a classic Hindu presentation of dualism, where the goal is to be freed of the body and its desires. He stated that the core Hindu scriptures say nothing about homosexuality, but gave a permissive view toward homosexual identity and actions, saying: "Each soul is potentially divine regardless of sexual orientation."
3) Sitting next to him, and next to me, was a pleasant young woman, Emily Mathis, a Jewish "queer" rabbinical student. While alluding to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, and while making mention of "limiting, exclusive texts" relative to "queer" people, she then moved on to say that modern Jewish midrash allows the addition of new stories which can be more inclusive of homosexual persons.
4) I then spoke of my evangelical identity, having been raised an agnostic Unitarian until my conversion to Christ in 1967. I started with how my own church welcomes all persons who seek Jesus on his terms, regardless of their struggles with any range of temptations, including homosexuality. But the question is whether we come to Jesus on his terms in these struggles, or whether we come to a given church and seek to change its reliance on the Bible.
Jesus fulfills the biblical order of creation that defines human sexuality uniquely for man and woman in marriage, and he fulfills the Law of Moses that says no to homosexual acts. I then outlined how I seek to treat all people according to the six pillars of biblical power -- the power to give, the power to live in the light, the power of informed choice, the power to love hard questions, the power to love enemies and the power to forgive. I was happily surprised by the robustness of applause when I was done. The Rev. Cooper-Nelson then called these pillars "novel," in a sense of not knowing how to respond to them. But they are at the core of biblical reality, able to answer her original question with truth and grace.
5) To my left was a young man, Rusmir Music, a Bosnian "queer" Muslim. He started by calling my presentation "eloquent," again a pleasant surprise. He was raised a secular Muslim, but says that in coming to terms with his homosexuality, he found comfort in Allah and the Qur'an, and looked to find whatever he could within the Islamic tradition that would welcome him. He said that the historic inhospitality of Islam toward homosexuals was a result of, or some sort of reaction to, Western Colonialism and its Victorian sexual morality.
6) Finally, at the end of the table to my left was the Rev. Lynne Phipps with the United Church of Christ (UCC). Rev. Phipps started by calling herself a liberal Christian who was also "evangelical." She said that not all evangelicals are "conservative" -- an allusion to me (though I have never called myself such, as it is penultimate political language). She argued for the acceptance of homosexuality in God's sight, against the polarity of calling things "good and bad," that the seeking of the good has nothing to do with sexuality, and that "some of us are uncomfortable because we are not queer."
There was only time for two questions from the audience. First, an Egyptian Muslim asked why the panel was so imbalanced -- in that only one panelist (me) reflected his view on the subject. And second, a woman asked a question as to how some panelists, on the one hand, face "the danger in new interpretations leading us away from God," and on the other hand, can lose truth if they think it is "settled."
The Rev. Cooper-Nelson then concluded by asking each of us if we can look backward historically in our own tradition, and see where it needs change. The agenda was clear -- change biblical truth, ultimately, for pagan sexual mores.
Afterward, I was able to speak in depth with two avowedly bi-sexual men. The goal as always is to let the light shine, and allow the proactive nature of the Good News be clearly seen.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
True Stories (2): Hate Speech Questions at Chase Collegiate and Wesleyan University
On November 8, 2008, I addressed a panel discussion at Chase Collegiate, a day prep school, in Waterbury, Connecticut. The topic concerned “hate crimes.” There were ten panelists, including the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the State House, and I was the only one representing a biblical perspective.
The homosexual-rights movement is seeking to have crimes defined according to the intent of the mind or heart -- "hate speech” or “hate crimes.” The problem is this: How can law interpret a person’s frame of mind?
Everybody’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and property should be simply protected, and those who violate those rights should be punished according to the law where all people are treated equally. As Thomas Jefferson said, law applies to actions not opinions.
In the panel discussion, I relayed a story of what happened to me at a Mars Hill Forum at Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Connecticut, on April 18, 2002. The forum addressed same-sex marriage, and was scheduled by the sponsors during “Queer Awareness Days” on campus. The sidewalks across the main quad were full of chalkings in support of homosexuality and cognate sexual identities. As I approached the building where I was to speak, there were repeated chalkings, where by name, I was identified as someone who should be homosexually subdued or raped.
This was, indeed, “hate speech” calling for a “hate crime.” About the same time, the despicable Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags.com – whom I had debated – put a cartoon on his website calling for me to be homosexually raped. Thus, both a homosexual and a homosexual-hater wanted the same crime committed against me.
My response? I am free to love those who hate me, and I have no need to resort to the law in such a case – though Wesleyan University might have been afraid of the possibility. I could have filed a complaint that the school, with its hate speech codes, was unconcerned when such hate speech was directed at an evangelical minister, an invited guest speaker on campus.
They did not communicate with me about the matter, but they did have an emergency meeting concerning it, and changed their policy on allowing such chalkings. Finally I wrote them, and belatedly they sent an apology that was in fact a non-apology seeking to avoid legal complicity. I never had any intent to file any legal action. To do so, based on “hate speech,” would be to betray the power of the Gospel.
At Chase Collegiate I said that far better than the “tolerance” of people who disagree with us, is honoring their “freedom” in a civil society so long as unalienable rights are protected for all people equally. Sadly though, this message was not comprehended except by a small minority of the 100 or so people, faculty and students, crammed into the modest sized auditorium.
In the last question from the audience, a student spoke of having worked in Washington, D.C. that summer. And now that “conservatives” were out of power politically, following the November 6 elections, he asked the panel how such “conservative power could be broken” once and for all.
In my answer I asked the young man if he would like “conservatives” to speak of “breaking his power” in a similar vein. Is not his speech intolerant? I recommended instead that he try to persuade those with whom he disagrees. But he did not understand what I was saying, and most of the audience also did not understand. In their view, hate speech and hate crimes are a one-way street – only committed against homosexuals and other approved groups of people, but not something that can be committed against those who say no to homosexuality.
The answer, from my perspective? Those who call for tolerance while being intolerant will only devolve into greater human pain in the process. Thus, I have the freedom to love and respect them as equal image-bearers of God, in the prayer that eventually they will grasp the beauty and truth of the Gospel. The unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, given by the Creator, are rooted nowhere else.
The homosexual-rights movement is seeking to have crimes defined according to the intent of the mind or heart -- "hate speech” or “hate crimes.” The problem is this: How can law interpret a person’s frame of mind?
Everybody’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and property should be simply protected, and those who violate those rights should be punished according to the law where all people are treated equally. As Thomas Jefferson said, law applies to actions not opinions.
In the panel discussion, I relayed a story of what happened to me at a Mars Hill Forum at Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Connecticut, on April 18, 2002. The forum addressed same-sex marriage, and was scheduled by the sponsors during “Queer Awareness Days” on campus. The sidewalks across the main quad were full of chalkings in support of homosexuality and cognate sexual identities. As I approached the building where I was to speak, there were repeated chalkings, where by name, I was identified as someone who should be homosexually subdued or raped.
This was, indeed, “hate speech” calling for a “hate crime.” About the same time, the despicable Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags.com – whom I had debated – put a cartoon on his website calling for me to be homosexually raped. Thus, both a homosexual and a homosexual-hater wanted the same crime committed against me.
My response? I am free to love those who hate me, and I have no need to resort to the law in such a case – though Wesleyan University might have been afraid of the possibility. I could have filed a complaint that the school, with its hate speech codes, was unconcerned when such hate speech was directed at an evangelical minister, an invited guest speaker on campus.
They did not communicate with me about the matter, but they did have an emergency meeting concerning it, and changed their policy on allowing such chalkings. Finally I wrote them, and belatedly they sent an apology that was in fact a non-apology seeking to avoid legal complicity. I never had any intent to file any legal action. To do so, based on “hate speech,” would be to betray the power of the Gospel.
At Chase Collegiate I said that far better than the “tolerance” of people who disagree with us, is honoring their “freedom” in a civil society so long as unalienable rights are protected for all people equally. Sadly though, this message was not comprehended except by a small minority of the 100 or so people, faculty and students, crammed into the modest sized auditorium.
In the last question from the audience, a student spoke of having worked in Washington, D.C. that summer. And now that “conservatives” were out of power politically, following the November 6 elections, he asked the panel how such “conservative power could be broken” once and for all.
In my answer I asked the young man if he would like “conservatives” to speak of “breaking his power” in a similar vein. Is not his speech intolerant? I recommended instead that he try to persuade those with whom he disagrees. But he did not understand what I was saying, and most of the audience also did not understand. In their view, hate speech and hate crimes are a one-way street – only committed against homosexuals and other approved groups of people, but not something that can be committed against those who say no to homosexuality.
The answer, from my perspective? Those who call for tolerance while being intolerant will only devolve into greater human pain in the process. Thus, I have the freedom to love and respect them as equal image-bearers of God, in the prayer that eventually they will grasp the beauty and truth of the Gospel. The unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, given by the Creator, are rooted nowhere else.
Monday, October 19, 2009
True Stories (1): The Response of A Hare Krishna Devotee
On the night before my wedding, in August 1977, I was picking up a friend at the Pittsburgh International Airport. As I entered the main terminal, a young woman follower of the Hare Krishna sect approached me in her long flowing cotton dress and impoverished look.
She had a bundle of two-day old carnations, and without my permission, walked up and attempted to pin one to my lapel. The Hare Krishna drill was to then ask you for a donation to an unspecified “children’s charity” or such, when in reality it was going to be used to support the sect.
So I instinctively lifted both my hands, palms out, and said, “No thank you. I am a follower of Jesus.”
She immediately replied, “I am a follower of Jesus too.” In other scenarios this would have been a great invitation for an open-ended theological discussion on who Jesus is according to the Bible, and what a Hindu understanding might be. But I had my friend to meet, and the flight had already arrived.
So I surprised myself by speaking what the Holy Spirit gave me in that moment, “No you aren’t.” I had never been this bold, nor would I plan this type of response in my mind, presuming to know the status of a person’s soul.
When I did, I literally saw a darkness enter her soul and manifest as demons dancing in her eyes. She turned away quickly, uttering a mantra in Hindi. I was taken aback.
Jesus addressed this reality in the Sermon on the Mount:
"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23).
For those of us who seek to live in the light, we will always look at people eyeball to eyeball, able to honestly give answer to any question posed. Had this woman been a true follower of Jesus, she would have easily spoken of Jesus, and not retreated into a Hindi mantra.
It is no joy to challenge someone so dramatically. But Jesus certainly did in many scenarios. The question today ultimately centers on: "Who is Jesus?" The Jesus of the Bible, or some other "jesus"?
She had a bundle of two-day old carnations, and without my permission, walked up and attempted to pin one to my lapel. The Hare Krishna drill was to then ask you for a donation to an unspecified “children’s charity” or such, when in reality it was going to be used to support the sect.
So I instinctively lifted both my hands, palms out, and said, “No thank you. I am a follower of Jesus.”
She immediately replied, “I am a follower of Jesus too.” In other scenarios this would have been a great invitation for an open-ended theological discussion on who Jesus is according to the Bible, and what a Hindu understanding might be. But I had my friend to meet, and the flight had already arrived.
So I surprised myself by speaking what the Holy Spirit gave me in that moment, “No you aren’t.” I had never been this bold, nor would I plan this type of response in my mind, presuming to know the status of a person’s soul.
When I did, I literally saw a darkness enter her soul and manifest as demons dancing in her eyes. She turned away quickly, uttering a mantra in Hindi. I was taken aback.
Jesus addressed this reality in the Sermon on the Mount:
"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23).
For those of us who seek to live in the light, we will always look at people eyeball to eyeball, able to honestly give answer to any question posed. Had this woman been a true follower of Jesus, she would have easily spoken of Jesus, and not retreated into a Hindi mantra.
It is no joy to challenge someone so dramatically. But Jesus certainly did in many scenarios. The question today ultimately centers on: "Who is Jesus?" The Jesus of the Bible, or some other "jesus"?
Friday, June 5, 2009
A Simple Way to Reverse the Economic Crisis
State and federal law are out of control, increasingly complex and destroying religious, political and economic freedom. Complexity allows dishonesty to fester in dark unknown corners until it bites you. Simplicity, openness and truth go hand in hand.
In my book, "The Six Pillars of Honest Politics," I have detailed proposals to reduce Connecticut law (and this can be done with other states as well) from 17,000 pages to 22 (including a simplified Constitution), and the U.S. Code from 48,000 pages to 14 (including a simplified Constitution).
At the state level where it especially matters (and secondarily at the federal level), I have reduced all business law to a simple paragraph.
There would be only three types of legal contract:
1. The "simple open contract" is 50 words or less;
2. The "regular open contract" is 51-300 words; and
3. The "closed contract" is 301 or more words.
The law would only require that all legal contracts be specified as to which type they are.
It is very hard to lie in less than 50 words, and thus the marketplace would drive businesses to do the "simple open contract" perhaps 90 percent of the time. The "regular open contract" is suitable for more details in certain cases, and the "closed contract" is suitable for large business deals where lawyers and accountants are represented on both sides.
If we think about it, and imagine every contract we ever sign, from credit cards to cell phones to used cars to property leases to stock sales, we would not be in the mess we are today if such laws had been the norm. The dishonesty in top-down government and top-down business would be overcome quite largely. Burdensome government bureaucracy would disappear, and the marketplace would explode with new jobs. If one state made this law, it would become a nationwide magnet for new businesses, and other states would then compete...
All that is needed are biblically accountable legislatures. The idea of the "simple contract" would have broad and eager support among the voting population.
In my book, "The Six Pillars of Honest Politics," I have detailed proposals to reduce Connecticut law (and this can be done with other states as well) from 17,000 pages to 22 (including a simplified Constitution), and the U.S. Code from 48,000 pages to 14 (including a simplified Constitution).
At the state level where it especially matters (and secondarily at the federal level), I have reduced all business law to a simple paragraph.
There would be only three types of legal contract:
1. The "simple open contract" is 50 words or less;
2. The "regular open contract" is 51-300 words; and
3. The "closed contract" is 301 or more words.
The law would only require that all legal contracts be specified as to which type they are.
It is very hard to lie in less than 50 words, and thus the marketplace would drive businesses to do the "simple open contract" perhaps 90 percent of the time. The "regular open contract" is suitable for more details in certain cases, and the "closed contract" is suitable for large business deals where lawyers and accountants are represented on both sides.
If we think about it, and imagine every contract we ever sign, from credit cards to cell phones to used cars to property leases to stock sales, we would not be in the mess we are today if such laws had been the norm. The dishonesty in top-down government and top-down business would be overcome quite largely. Burdensome government bureaucracy would disappear, and the marketplace would explode with new jobs. If one state made this law, it would become a nationwide magnet for new businesses, and other states would then compete...
All that is needed are biblically accountable legislatures. The idea of the "simple contract" would have broad and eager support among the voting population.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
First the Gospel, Then Politics...
In May of 1982 I took a shower – which is not to say I haven’t taken one since. In the early morning I do some of my best thinking and praying, and the shower is a great place.
Over the years I have engaged in some fun shadow-boxing debates in my showers. In 1982 I was working my way through Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. That spring in Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis was challenging the sitting Governor Edward King in the Democratic primary. Dukakis had been defeated as an incumbent by King in 1978, but went on to defeat him in 1982, and win the governorship again in 1982 and 1986, before running for President.
At that time my interest in politics was minimal. I would vote, but my trajectory was Christian ministry, with the aim to minister the Gospel in the culture in some, as of yet, undefined way.
Nonetheless, I found myself debating both King and Dukakis while taking that shower. At the end, they had nothing more to say. So I asked: “Gentlemen, don’t you realize that for everything you say you care about, the answers are in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”
They were silent. So I continued in prayer, “Lord, don’t these gentlemen realize that for everything they say they care about, the answers are in the Gospel?”
Now I knew the Lord agreed with me, especially since I was agreeing with him first. So I continued in prayer, with a thought I had never expressed before, “Lord, you need some theologically well-trained people in politics.”
Then the Lord answered me as clearly as ever, “Good idea John. Any suggestions?” I knew I was in trouble. When the Lord thus spoke to me, I am giving reference to one of those exceptional times in life, when through the clutter of human thoughts, anxieties and activities, the heavens part for a moment, and the Lord speaks at a level prior to and deeper than the intellect and the emotions, yet discernible through them in my sensory perceptions.
For those of us who have some training in translation, and in my case, especially in terms of biblical Hebrew and Greek, we realize it is an art. All language is a creature of culture, and thus cultural knowledge is crucial – the culture of the original text and the culture into which the text is being translated. I could have also translated what the Lord said to me as: “Any volunteers?”
So I threw my hands into the air and reacted, “No Lord! You know I would never go anywhere where I would have to compromise my faith.”
This reaction revealed much within me. Through the 1970s and the beginnings of a new round (historically speaking) of evangelical participation in politics, I was skeptical. From a distance, I saw too often the willingness of Christians to compromise their convictions for the sake of momentary political gain. I was not interested in such a world. I instinctively distrusted it.
Then the Lord spoke again, most clearly: “Would I ever call you anywhere where you would have to compromise your faith? Maybe your faith is too small.”
That was certainly true. In the intervening 27 years I have sought to grow my faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and in knowledge of the written Word of God. I have sought to have my biblical and evangelical faith well tested in the face of the most capable and motivated skeptics, so as to be able to represent Jesus the Messiah in the temporal political culture.
It equals “first the Gospel, then politics…” In this proper priority, we recognize that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and hence the power to pursue true happiness, which all people yearn for, are rooted uniquely in the Creator, the God of the Bible, Yahweh Elohim, as he reveals the biblical order of creation in Genesis 1-2. And it is Jesus the Messiah who fulfills the trajectory begun there.
The word “politics” traces to a Greek term in classical antiquity -– polis –- that which referred to a walled city in which culture was preserved against the countryside with its wild animals, marauders or foreign armies. Thus, in its proper sense, “politics” today refers to the arenas of family and church (and other religious institutions), and to government, education, media, business, science and the arts; and to all cognate disciplines, professions or fields.
The Gospel applies to all, and when we look at rigorously, it proves to be “Good News” to all people of good will.
Over the years I have engaged in some fun shadow-boxing debates in my showers. In 1982 I was working my way through Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. That spring in Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis was challenging the sitting Governor Edward King in the Democratic primary. Dukakis had been defeated as an incumbent by King in 1978, but went on to defeat him in 1982, and win the governorship again in 1982 and 1986, before running for President.
At that time my interest in politics was minimal. I would vote, but my trajectory was Christian ministry, with the aim to minister the Gospel in the culture in some, as of yet, undefined way.
Nonetheless, I found myself debating both King and Dukakis while taking that shower. At the end, they had nothing more to say. So I asked: “Gentlemen, don’t you realize that for everything you say you care about, the answers are in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”
They were silent. So I continued in prayer, “Lord, don’t these gentlemen realize that for everything they say they care about, the answers are in the Gospel?”
Now I knew the Lord agreed with me, especially since I was agreeing with him first. So I continued in prayer, with a thought I had never expressed before, “Lord, you need some theologically well-trained people in politics.”
Then the Lord answered me as clearly as ever, “Good idea John. Any suggestions?” I knew I was in trouble. When the Lord thus spoke to me, I am giving reference to one of those exceptional times in life, when through the clutter of human thoughts, anxieties and activities, the heavens part for a moment, and the Lord speaks at a level prior to and deeper than the intellect and the emotions, yet discernible through them in my sensory perceptions.
For those of us who have some training in translation, and in my case, especially in terms of biblical Hebrew and Greek, we realize it is an art. All language is a creature of culture, and thus cultural knowledge is crucial – the culture of the original text and the culture into which the text is being translated. I could have also translated what the Lord said to me as: “Any volunteers?”
So I threw my hands into the air and reacted, “No Lord! You know I would never go anywhere where I would have to compromise my faith.”
This reaction revealed much within me. Through the 1970s and the beginnings of a new round (historically speaking) of evangelical participation in politics, I was skeptical. From a distance, I saw too often the willingness of Christians to compromise their convictions for the sake of momentary political gain. I was not interested in such a world. I instinctively distrusted it.
Then the Lord spoke again, most clearly: “Would I ever call you anywhere where you would have to compromise your faith? Maybe your faith is too small.”
That was certainly true. In the intervening 27 years I have sought to grow my faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and in knowledge of the written Word of God. I have sought to have my biblical and evangelical faith well tested in the face of the most capable and motivated skeptics, so as to be able to represent Jesus the Messiah in the temporal political culture.
It equals “first the Gospel, then politics…” In this proper priority, we recognize that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and hence the power to pursue true happiness, which all people yearn for, are rooted uniquely in the Creator, the God of the Bible, Yahweh Elohim, as he reveals the biblical order of creation in Genesis 1-2. And it is Jesus the Messiah who fulfills the trajectory begun there.
The word “politics” traces to a Greek term in classical antiquity -– polis –- that which referred to a walled city in which culture was preserved against the countryside with its wild animals, marauders or foreign armies. Thus, in its proper sense, “politics” today refers to the arenas of family and church (and other religious institutions), and to government, education, media, business, science and the arts; and to all cognate disciplines, professions or fields.
The Gospel applies to all, and when we look at rigorously, it proves to be “Good News” to all people of good will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)