Family Friday: #yesiamachristian . .. but do I need to hashtag it?

This post will combine all three of my major blog topics:  politics, religion, and personal reflection. :-)

Yesterday, no more than five minutes after I got home, I got a news alert on my iPad reporting a school shooting in Oregon.  I thought, "Here we go again," with a mental yawn, thinking that this might be another false alarm.

Within minutes, after going on Twitter, I learned that this was not the case.  One tweet said, "Early reports say it's bad."  And then I saw CNN:  ten dead, 20 wounded.

I followed reports throughout the day with this sense of, "Again.  Again?  How many more?"  I fear I am becoming desensitized to reports of mass shootings, and I don't like it.  This is something that should never be "normal" for any society.  I don't care if you live in Roseburg, Oregon, Norcross, Georgia, or Haifa, Israel.

When the news announced that President Obama would be speaking about this shooting, I decided not to watch.  I had a feeling of what he would say, and I was right--a call for more gun control.  I did agree with him when he said "we've become numb to this".  He was angry.  And I didn't blame him.

Over the next several hours, a report surfaced that the gunman had lined people up, asked them if they were a Christian, and shot them if they said yes.  Now, a trending hashtag is #YesIAmAChristian.

I'm bothered by these reports.  First of all, they remind me of the Columbine shooting and Cassie Bernall.  She was the young woman who reportedly said "yes" when asked if she believed in God, and was shot for it.  It turned out that she wasn't the one who said "yes", it was another young woman, Valeen Schurr.  Due to the confusion of the day, I can understand why that remark could have been attributed to someone who didn't say it.  I don't want this narrative of "he shot people who said they were Christians" to be shared if it's not true.  Although, an article in the Washington Post did have the headline of "Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killing in 'horrific act of cowardice'".  That's frightening, if true.

But second:  Do I really need to hashtag #YesIAmAChristian in order to prove that I am a Christian? 

I've heard criticism of "hashtag diplomacy".  When #bringbackourgirls was a trending hashtag, I heard comments such as, "How is a hashtag going to help bring them back?"  While Twitter and other social media sites are helpful in spreading news and spreading awareness, if that's all you're going to do, what's a hashtag worth? 

Could #YesIAmAChristian be a form of "hashtag evangelism"?

Several months after the Columbine murders, Family Christian Bookstores began selling T-Shirts, key chains, and other items with the slogan, "Yes I Believe In God".  That was the moment when I started being turned off by Christian merchandising.  To me, that was a shameless, crass attempt to cash in on a family's grief and a horrific tragedy. 

This campaign, #YesIAmAChristian, reminds me of the Facebook memes that say, "Repost if you're not ashamed of Jesus."  So, if I choose not to hit "share", does this mean I'm ashamed of Jesus and that he will be ashamed of me when he comes back? 

If I decide not to tweet #YesIAmAChristian, does this somehow mean I'm not one?  Or that I'm ashamed to say so? 

For the record, yes, I am a Christian.  I would hope that, if someone ever pointed a weapon at me and demanded an answer to that question, I would say, "Yes," and not worry about the consequences.  I would also hope that if I were forced to choose between confessing God or having my family killed . . . I'd confess God.  It would rip my heart out to do it, and I hope I'd never, ever have to make that choice. 

But anyone can hashtag "yes, I am a Christian".  I can sit here at my keyboard and type #YesIAmAChristian as much as I want to--I could tweet it on Twitter, post it on Facebook, over and over and over again--and it wouldn't make me one. 

What makes me a Christian, first of all, is that God loved first.  "We love because he first loved us."  Next, what makes me a Christian is my (albeit imperfect) acceptance and response to that love.  And I carry out my response in how I live, which includes how I treat others. 

Perhaps the shooter really did target Christians in his rampage.  He will have to answer to Christ for his actions. 

Perhaps there were those who did say, "Yes, I am a Christian," and who were murdered for it.  I admire their courage, and I believe God will give them a special welcome. 

And I'm sure that many who are hashtagging #YesIAmAChristian are very, very sincere, and they want to stand by those who were murdered yesterday.  They want to share their faith.  They want to
announce their faith because they don't want to be ashamed of God, ashamed of Jesus. 

But do I really need to hashtag that I am a Christian?

I don't think so.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Worship Wednesday (one day late, again): The original court reporter?

Right now, my ladies' group is doing a study on Beth Moore's "When Godly People Do Ungodly Things".  In one of the lessons, she made the comment that Satan is methodical when he launches his attacks on believers.  She said that he keeps meticulous notes.

If that's true, I wondered, does that make Satan the original court reporter?

Court reporters are committed to making an accurate record of court proceedings.  In that respect, they have to be meticulous and detailed.

But the more I've thought about it, the more I wonder how accurate I am being in using that analogy. You see, while Satan is meticulous, he's also very selective in the "facts" he uses in his meticulous notes.  He may have very methodical and meticulous notes on our sins and weaknesses, and all the mistakes we've made, but he leaves out stuff like God's forgiveness, love and grace.

If it's true that our sins are removed as far as the east is from the west (see Psalm 103:12), then I wonder if God is the one that "strikes from the record" the sins He has removed from us.

After all, isn't He more meticulous than Satan?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

The stupid is strong on Facebook!

It happens every few years.  A Facebook status goes around saying the following:

"Better safe than sorry is right. Channel 11 News was just talking about this change in Facebook's privacy policy. Better safe than sorry. As of September 27th at 09:30 p.m. Eastern standard time, I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement atleast once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and paste."

This time, it's been paired with the following status:  

"Now it's official! It has been published in the media. Facebook has just released the entry price: £5.99 to keep the subscription of your status to be set to "private". If you paste this message on your page, it will be offered free (I said paste not share)." 

Some versions of the above statuses are, "Channel 13 News was just talking about this change," and "Facebook has just released the entry price:  $5.99 to keep your status 'private'."

It sounds so official.  There's just one problem:  It's not true.

The hoax-busting site Snopes.com has debunked this rumor many, many times.  If, for whatever reason, you don't trust Snopes, check here, and here, and here.  Or, Google "Facebook privacy hoax" and see the number of links that come up.  At last search, there were nearly 140 news articles covering this story, and I'm sure the number will be climbing.  

Yesterday, I was amazed at the number of times I saw people copy and paste the above statuses. Some of them were people that are normally pretty intelligent.  

What is it about social media that makes people check their brains at the door?  

Indeed, the stupid is strong on Facebook.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: A.B.

So, John Boehner is out as Speaker of the House, effective next month.  There's a list of people who are glad to see him go.

I'm not a fan of him leading the constant "caving" of the Republican Party.

My question is, though, what is life going to be like A.B. -- After Boehner?

Will Kevin McCarthy be elected next speaker?  Will he be the one to take a tough stand against Democrats?  Will he be the the party leader that people want?

Or will we have another speaker that will end up caving?

Or will we end up having so much fighting that nothing will get done?

I appreciate the need to stand on principle, and there are times when people need to do just that.  But unless our legislative branch learns to work together--and that may mean not getting every single thing you want--our Congress is going to swallow itself alive.  I am reminded of a verse in the book of Galatians:  if you keep biting and devouring each other, watch out or you may be destroyed by each other.

There has been so much biting and devouring going on in the United States Congress that all 435 members could be tried and convicted of political cannibalism.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Worship Wednesday (one day late): "Righteous anger"

I got very angry on Sunday night and stayed that way for two days.  And I'm still angry, but not with the intensity of those two days.

It began with an email.  I will not share the content of the email, because what is more important to me is my reaction to it.

I got angry.  I confess that it was an out-of-proportion anger.  I didn't yell, scream, rant, or rave, and I didn't send back an angry email to the person (although I did respond to it with a short note.  I didn't address my reaction because it would not have been appropriate to share my out-of-proportion reaction to the sender.)

But I got angry. 

Some of the things I got angry about, I'm sure, were self-pitying and self-righteous.  But one of the things I got angry about was the way I and others have been treated by abusive religion. 

There are people who use the Bible, and use religion, as a method of controlling and abusing people.  They beat people over the head with Scripture and then use "I say/do this because I love you," as a reason/excuse to do so. 

They take Scripture out of context, or twist those Scriptures, and use them as a basis for their "doctrine".  And you know what's scary about that?  They honestly believe that they are telling and teaching the truth!  Hitler honestly and sincerely believed that Aryans were the "master race" and that Jews, Slavs, and others were inferior.  More recently, in the Rwandan genocide, Hutus referred to Tsutis as "cockroaches".  (The movie Hotel Rwanda opens with a radio broadcast referring to "cockroaches".)  In the US, many whites believed that blacks were intellectually and socially inferior to whites.  (Some still do, sadly.) 

I am doing a Bible study with my Tuesday ladies' group.  Yesterday I found myself making notes like, "How do I know the author is telling the truth?"

I've been there.  I've been part of two groups that used Scripture for their own purposes.  I've had the pressure put on me to "invite everything that moves" to church, and the scripture in John 15 used as a  motivation:  "he who remains in me will bear much fruit . . . he cuts off every branch that bears no fruit" (my paraphrase).  "Fruit" is defined as "souls", and here's the reason it's defined as "souls":  because fruit reproduces fruit, and Christians are to reproduce other Christians.  Therefore, if you are not reproducing other Christians, you are not "bearing fruit" and you will be cut off. 

I have also had Hebrews 10:24-25--"let us not give up meeting together" used on me as a reason to be at all church events, including showers and weddings.  No excuse was acceptable.  I understand that being at showers and weddings is a way to encourage the people we are honoring, but I want the final decision to be mine as to whether or not I go, and not be "guilt-tripped" into going.  I also understand that a pattern of not meeting with other Christians isn't a good thing, because you do end up cutting yourself off from much-needed support.  But there is a difference between the gentle encouragement to be with other Christians and the guilt trip that's often been put on people to be there.

Jesus had some very harsh words for people who used religion to burden others.  In Matthew 23:4, he talked about those who tied up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders but weren't willing to lift a finger to help them.  I think there are ways we do that with people today.  We hold out certain examples as the way to live the Christian life, and then we--either blatantly or subtly--criticize or guilt-trip people because they cannot or will not live that way.  We talk about people who are "radical" in their faith, who sold everything they had to live in another country, or to go to someplace outside of their "comfort zone", with the implication that "if you don't do this, you're not a 'radical' Christian.  Jesus was 'radical', so why aren't you?" We're all called to live out our faith, but not everyone can or should sell everything they have and move to a third world country, or even to the inner city. 

And what about the formulas we use?  I sometimes think that there are Christians who believe that you must pray according to a certain "formula" (i.e., you must end every.single.prayer with the words, 'in Jesus' name' or else it is not a valid prayer.)  You must "claim" God's blessings and favors (the "name it and claim it" philosophy).  If your prayer is not answered, obviously it is your fault because you didn't have "enough faith" (whatever "enough faith" is) or because you didn't pray it in the "correct" way.  We do need to have faith when we pray, but I wonder if our faith is in "God will give me what I want" rather than "God will do what is best."  (I am often guilty of praying for my comfort or convenience, rather than for the will of God to be done.)

And God forbid that you vote for a political candidate that isn't a Christian.  I have read posts where the Christianity of those who voted for Barack Obama, or any Democrat, is called into question.  I know Christians who did vote for Obama, and while I may hold differing political views, I can't call into question their love for God.  On the other hand, I have serious problems with certain candidates who call themselves "Christians".  Mike Huckabee comes to mind.  I lost respect for him when he defended Josh Duggar after Duggar's confession that he molested his sisters.

On the subject of forgiveness:  I think we manipulate people into a false forgiveness when we demand that the wronged party "instantly" forgive.  I think "forgiveness" in some cases is defined as "you must say the words, 'I forgive you', and then you never think about it or talk about it, ever again; and you act like it never happened.  If you think about it, if you talk about it, if you don't behave as if it never happened, you have not truly 'forgiven'."  I do think we can make the choice to forgive, but 1) carrying out that choice is a long and sometimes difficult process, and 2) forgiving someone does not mean that the offender shouldn't or won't face the consequences of what they have done.  Sometimes an offender needs to face legal consequences.  Sometimes a person needs to distance themselves from another because the offender's behavior is unhealthy or dangerous.  I don't believe that's "unforgiveness". 

It's possible that I am writing this out of selfish anger and frustration, and that this entry speaks to the condition of my own relationship with God at the moment.  But I do believe that there are times when we are called to righteous anger, and when religion or Christianity is misused in a way to manipulate or abuse, that is a cause to get angry.  I am called to forgive those that hurt me and not hold their sin against them. 

On the other hand, I do think that the fact of abuse in the name of Christianity is a cause for righteous anger.

Jesus got angry about it, too.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: A plague on both your parties!

Once again, Armageddon is looming.

I suspect that will be the spin on the coverage of yet another threatened government shutdown. 

I'm not going to sit here and list the reasons why the government may or may not shut down, the threats of the leaders of either party, etc. etc. etc.

What I feel like is best expressed in the words of William Shakespeare in Act Three, Scene One of Romeo and Juliet, right after Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt:  "A plague on both your houses!"

I hold both parties responsible for this mess that has become a ritual every September.  There are the threats to shut the government down, the back-and-forth dance between the parties and houses of Congress, the suspense that lasts up until just a few hours before the deadline, when party leaders walk out victoriously, arm-in-arm, to face the TV news cameras and announce the "bipartisan" deal that they have reached.

Then they go back to work for another year, only to repeat the same charade again next September.

My husband is a federal employee.  In 2013, the government did shut down for 16 days in October.  We were lucky.  We had savings to tide us over, and when the government reopened, government employees that were furloughed did receive back pay. 

We're tired of the games that Congress plays.  It's games like this that make it possible for "non-politicians" to grab and hold the spotlight in this election cycle.  People are angry, and they feel powerless.

As I feel right now.

A plague on both your parties!

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Family Friday: Home for sale

For the first time since 1968, there will soon be a For Sale sign on a house in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The owner can no longer maintain the property, therefore, they need to sell the house.

Zillow describes the house as a 1,191 square foot single family home built in 1959.  It has eight rooms, nine if you count the utility room, where the washing machine, dryer, and extra freezer are located.   It also has a carport, which is a garage without a door.

It's built out of concrete block with a flat roof.  Originally, the house was painted tan with brown accents.  It's now painted green, which is a more attractive color.  

There are two ways to get into the house.  Most people use the kitchen door, which is just off the carport.  There is a front door, which used to have louvered windows that you could open so you could see who was on the other side without opening the door.  Now, the front door is solid, except for a small window where you can look out and see who's outside.  The mailbox is to the right of the door.

The house consists of three bedrooms, one bath, a living room, a dining room, and a Florida room. People in other areas would refer to it as a "den" or a "family room".  Florida rooms are excellent if you have family dropping by that need a place to sleep, or if you need a place to work on your taxes, or use a computer (or a typewriter) for your homework, or to try and write a book.  If you want to put an extra TV in, this is the best room to do it.  Or, if you have a family member who wants to learn to play the piano, you can put the piano here.

If you choose to use the back room as a bedroom, the person whose bedroom it is may not have very much privacy.  There's a door to the Florida room from that bedroom, and people are in the habit of walking through that bedroom to get to the Florida room, although you can get to the Florida room from the carport just as easily.The two rooms in the house that have undergone extensive renovation are the bathroom and the kitchen.  Over the years, the kitchen has gotten new cabinets, a new oven, a microwave, and a dishwasher.  It's also had the floor covered over, first with sticky tile, later with stone tile.  If you want to get down to the original floor, it's made of a material called terrazzo.

The bathroom used to be at the end of a small hallway which had a linen closet and another closet where extra clothes were kept.  The owners decided to make the bathroom bigger, and knocked out a couple of the walls.  This gave them more space in the bathroom for storage.  There's a good sized shower in the bathroom, and you can adjust the spray on the shower head if you want to give yourself a good massage.  However, if you want to take a bath, you'll need to install a bathtub.  The owner's spouse, due to a debilitating illness, could no longer climb into a tub.  

There's also central air and heating in the house.  This wasn't always so.  The owners had central air and heating installed about 30 years ago, mainly for the cost savings.  Without central air, it's necessary to run the air all night long during the summer to keep the house cool enough to sleep. After the flue caught fire in the furnace, the owners decided to install the central heating.  

The carpeting has been replaced at least twice, and possibly more.  The owner believes in keeping a tidy house, so the carpet that's in the house now is in good shape.  Some of the furniture went with the owner into assisted living, but the furniture that's still there is also usable.  If you wish to keep some of the furniture and the appliances, perhaps the owner will knock a few thousand dollars off of the purchase price.  

The house sits on a 7,571 square foot lot, seventy feet wide, 108 feet deep.  In 1968, there were three trees and a small bush in the front yard.  In the back yard, there were a couple of tangerine trees, a couple of pine trees, and a larger tree in the corner of the back yard that once housed a tree house. There were also hedges in the back yard, and bushes that divided the north side of the property from the house next door.  

Various plants, including ground cover, decorate the front and back yard. There's also a toolshed, in case you want to do some work with a hammer and saw and don't want to make a mess in the house. Both of the yards are ideal to play in, or to just sit out back and daydream.

Over the years, most of the trees have been removed, mainly because it was easier for the owner to take care of the yard without all of the trees.  Now, the front yard is a small expanse of St. Augustine grass, with a little bit of Bermuda grass, and a concrete walkway sprinkled with gravel that leads from the driveway up to the front door.  In the side yard on the north side of the property, there used to be two melaluca trees that were excellent for climbing.  The owner had those trees removed because they were highly allergic to the flowers that bloomed every spring.  You may still find the roots of the trees in the yard if you look hard enough.

The back yard is fenced off from the front yard.  The fence makes the back yard secure if you have children or pets.

There's an elementary school about four blocks away, within easy walking or biking distance.  This makes the neighborhood an ideal one for families with young children.  When the kids get older, they will probably have to ride the bus to school.

In the interest of full disclosure, you do need to know that there was a death in that house.  No need to worry, it was not a murder, suicide, or other violent death.  The owner's spouse died peacefully in one of the bedrooms after suffering from the debilitating illness mentioned above.  

Zillow gives the house's original purchase price as $12,500.  Currently, they give a possible purchase price of $153,384.  Due to the vagaries of the housing market, you may be able to negotiate a cheaper price.  Or, if you decide you want to rent for a while. Zillow suggests a monthly cost of $1,289.

To whoever eventually buys this house, I hope you will be happy there.

I was.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.