Braille 5/29/2010
Along the wall are little bumps
From some disease, like zits or mumps,
Like codes for some small, mute society
Left hidden there at the back of the library.
And each dot seems a useless blotch,
A blemish in a well-wound watch.
To some it's just a background hum,
Some quiet static or someone's gum
That's under a desk at the back of the library.
And yet, these dots can somehow bind
The outside world inside the mind.
They tell of stars and fire's spark,
Small lights inside a world of dark.
Yet we are blind to see them there
As if we're blinded by the glare
That blinds the ones who see them in
The darkness there beneath their skin.
And some of us will pass them by,
Just like a spider or a fly,
Or crack some jokes about it all,
About the zits along the wall.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Beauty Post #2
I recognize that I live in a relatively sheltered, Christian environment and am often out of touch with society. However, from what I've heard of songs and discussions on the local Christian radio station, and from the little I know of public school, it seems that one problem in teen culture today is a lack of self-esteem among girls due to America's media and advertising. A sub-conscious standard for beauty is set by models that cannot be reached. Admittedly, none of the young ladies I know seem to outwardly struggle with this. That could be because my acquaintances are generally Christian or that this is not actually an issue in culture or that it is an issue and is simply not apparent to me.
If it is an issue, I must say (hopefully not insensitively) that I find it ironic that the pinnacle of beauty in God's earthly creation deals with the issue of feeling inadequately beautiful. On the other hand, it makes sense: a violinist who listens to a brilliant virtuoso will be far more disappointed in his own skill than someone who has never played a line of music and listens to that same musician. So I set about to prove the universal beauty of God's second human creation. I thought it would be one of the easiest proofs I had ever attempted, but it turned out to be more difficult than I thought because of the intangible nature of beauty. It is something of which we have an innate understanding, being made in the image of God, but it is difficult to define.
Anyway, let me begin with the three main responses I had previously heard to this cultural problem. I see none of these as logically adequate (though, of course, they may be more in touch with ladies and therefore, convincing, I wouldn't know.)
1. Everyone is made in the image of God and people are therefore the closest thing we have to a standard for beauty.
2. Pictures of supermodels are photoshopped and are pictures of an elite group of women, not a standard for the average person.
3. Many Christian singers have used arguments #1 and #2 and argued that outward beauty doesn't matter because the quality of a woman ought to be in her heart and character. Basically, “you may not be beautiful, but that's OK because quality of character is the important thing.” (Certainly, character is more important than beauty, but in this post, I am arguing that ladies are already beautiful.)
i.e. Crazy Beautiful by Chasen
Don't You Know You're Beautiful by Seabird
Beauty by Ayiesha Woods
So Beautiful and Courage by Superchick
Image by Barlow Girl
Beautiful Disaster by Jon Mclaughlin
to name a few.
These arguments seem to fall short either in remaining out of touch (but how would I know?) or in assuming a lack of physical beauty in the lady. The songs I listed are, in general, excellent songs, but I would take their message a step further to say that beauty does matter and that all women are characterized by it.
I am arguing that beauty is an essential quality of women, that is, beauty is part of their essence. Some say that beauty is like any other gift: some have musical talent, some have leadership skills, some have beauty. I would say that beauty is a necessary part of being a lady.
The great 18-19th century author, Sir Walter Scott, referred to women in passing as “the fair sex” (in Ivanhoe.) He was not trying to state something about the beauty of women, 'fair' was simply a defining characteristic of women to him. In fact, “the fair (or beautiful) sex” seems to have been a sort of cliché of Scott's time. Immanuel Kant and Alexander Pope are merely a couple other famous authors who used this phrase. 'Ugly lady' would have been an oxymoron to these men. In Jane Austen's time, ladies at the bottom of the 'beauty scale' (for lack of a better way of putting it) were never called 'ugly' (nor are they today) but 'plain', that is, average. Any words denoting lack of beauty are unfitting for those women, so we have to call them the average. The only ugly women are fairy tale witches.
The 'scale' doesn't go from 'ugly' to 'beautiful', in fact, our culture's vocabulary has proved that it goes from 'average/plain' to 'drop-dead gorgeous'. English doesn't even have a word to describe the top end of the 'scale', so society had to invent this extreme phrase to describe the kind of extreme beauty that can be seen in some ladies. 'Drop-dead' reminds one of the kind of awe-inspiring splendor the angels invoked in Bible characters.
It is not that some have this incredible beauty and some don't, rather, all have this kind of beauty to varying degrees. It is part of how God made women. In Aristotelean terms, beauty is not an accidental quality but an essential one. That is, beauty is not an outward superfluous characteristic but part of a lady's essence.
At this point, you might ask, “What about elderly ladies? Can you really make a broad generalization for all women?” Certainly, I won't deny that the fall has somewhat corrupted this essence of perfection, but evil cannot destroy anything good or create ugliness, only pervert perfection. The essence of beauty is still present in all women. Again, women are the pinnacle of beauty in God's earthly creation since they are made in his image, and are clearly more beautiful than men (I don't need any proofs of that, do I?)
Secondly, we are so used to seeing immeasurable beauty in our everyday acquaintances that we have lost our child-like wonder at it and our awareness of other beauty. This can even lead us to question the beauty of those whose beauty has faded. Just as Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance recognized Ruth as beautiful until he met a young lass, we should not lose our appreciation for all beauty, even though there is greater beauty in someone else. Seeing the Sistine Chapel is no reason to stop enjoying the brilliance of watercolors. All ladies bear the mark of a Creator who loves and bestows beauty.
This is not as rigorous a proof as I would like it to be, it's more an amalgamation of ideas; I am somewhat relying on your intuition and experience to provide a foundation for my arguments.
One final note: Not being a lady, I cannot fully understand the issues I have addressed and could be more out of touch than a penguin in the Sahara. But perhaps, not having to face these issues gives me an objective, outside insight into it. I hope my thoughts have at least been fodder for the brain (to avoid a well-worn cliché).
And now for a poem. You know I couldn't write a logical essay on beauty and not write a poem on it. :)
Pulchritudo Feminae 4/15/10
How many a poet has turned his hand to tell of one he loves.
Using phrases oft' reused of hair or turtledoves.
Of streaming locks and shining face that far transcend this earth
Which give to him, in simple words, a sort of second birth.
And each man writes his lines to her in earnest from his heart.
Yet millions of these verses are a foretaste of the start.
For exhaustion of this topic can never be attained,
As the beauty of a lady's face can never be explained.
As words pour forth which sound cliche and others will repeat,
It merely shows that words can only reach defeat.
If a lady chance to read this, pray, despair not in your looks,
For your beauty can't be captured in a kingdom full of books.
And to members of the coarser sex, pray, carry on the fight,
And try to tell what can't be told till it be told aright.
If it is an issue, I must say (hopefully not insensitively) that I find it ironic that the pinnacle of beauty in God's earthly creation deals with the issue of feeling inadequately beautiful. On the other hand, it makes sense: a violinist who listens to a brilliant virtuoso will be far more disappointed in his own skill than someone who has never played a line of music and listens to that same musician. So I set about to prove the universal beauty of God's second human creation. I thought it would be one of the easiest proofs I had ever attempted, but it turned out to be more difficult than I thought because of the intangible nature of beauty. It is something of which we have an innate understanding, being made in the image of God, but it is difficult to define.
Anyway, let me begin with the three main responses I had previously heard to this cultural problem. I see none of these as logically adequate (though, of course, they may be more in touch with ladies and therefore, convincing, I wouldn't know.)
1. Everyone is made in the image of God and people are therefore the closest thing we have to a standard for beauty.
2. Pictures of supermodels are photoshopped and are pictures of an elite group of women, not a standard for the average person.
3. Many Christian singers have used arguments #1 and #2 and argued that outward beauty doesn't matter because the quality of a woman ought to be in her heart and character. Basically, “you may not be beautiful, but that's OK because quality of character is the important thing.” (Certainly, character is more important than beauty, but in this post, I am arguing that ladies are already beautiful.)
i.e. Crazy Beautiful by Chasen
Don't You Know You're Beautiful by Seabird
Beauty by Ayiesha Woods
So Beautiful and Courage by Superchick
Image by Barlow Girl
Beautiful Disaster by Jon Mclaughlin
to name a few.
These arguments seem to fall short either in remaining out of touch (but how would I know?) or in assuming a lack of physical beauty in the lady. The songs I listed are, in general, excellent songs, but I would take their message a step further to say that beauty does matter and that all women are characterized by it.
I am arguing that beauty is an essential quality of women, that is, beauty is part of their essence. Some say that beauty is like any other gift: some have musical talent, some have leadership skills, some have beauty. I would say that beauty is a necessary part of being a lady.
The great 18-19th century author, Sir Walter Scott, referred to women in passing as “the fair sex” (in Ivanhoe.) He was not trying to state something about the beauty of women, 'fair' was simply a defining characteristic of women to him. In fact, “the fair (or beautiful) sex” seems to have been a sort of cliché of Scott's time. Immanuel Kant and Alexander Pope are merely a couple other famous authors who used this phrase. 'Ugly lady' would have been an oxymoron to these men. In Jane Austen's time, ladies at the bottom of the 'beauty scale' (for lack of a better way of putting it) were never called 'ugly' (nor are they today) but 'plain', that is, average. Any words denoting lack of beauty are unfitting for those women, so we have to call them the average. The only ugly women are fairy tale witches.
The 'scale' doesn't go from 'ugly' to 'beautiful', in fact, our culture's vocabulary has proved that it goes from 'average/plain' to 'drop-dead gorgeous'. English doesn't even have a word to describe the top end of the 'scale', so society had to invent this extreme phrase to describe the kind of extreme beauty that can be seen in some ladies. 'Drop-dead' reminds one of the kind of awe-inspiring splendor the angels invoked in Bible characters.
It is not that some have this incredible beauty and some don't, rather, all have this kind of beauty to varying degrees. It is part of how God made women. In Aristotelean terms, beauty is not an accidental quality but an essential one. That is, beauty is not an outward superfluous characteristic but part of a lady's essence.
At this point, you might ask, “What about elderly ladies? Can you really make a broad generalization for all women?” Certainly, I won't deny that the fall has somewhat corrupted this essence of perfection, but evil cannot destroy anything good or create ugliness, only pervert perfection. The essence of beauty is still present in all women. Again, women are the pinnacle of beauty in God's earthly creation since they are made in his image, and are clearly more beautiful than men (I don't need any proofs of that, do I?)
Secondly, we are so used to seeing immeasurable beauty in our everyday acquaintances that we have lost our child-like wonder at it and our awareness of other beauty. This can even lead us to question the beauty of those whose beauty has faded. Just as Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance recognized Ruth as beautiful until he met a young lass, we should not lose our appreciation for all beauty, even though there is greater beauty in someone else. Seeing the Sistine Chapel is no reason to stop enjoying the brilliance of watercolors. All ladies bear the mark of a Creator who loves and bestows beauty.
This is not as rigorous a proof as I would like it to be, it's more an amalgamation of ideas; I am somewhat relying on your intuition and experience to provide a foundation for my arguments.
One final note: Not being a lady, I cannot fully understand the issues I have addressed and could be more out of touch than a penguin in the Sahara. But perhaps, not having to face these issues gives me an objective, outside insight into it. I hope my thoughts have at least been fodder for the brain (to avoid a well-worn cliché).
And now for a poem. You know I couldn't write a logical essay on beauty and not write a poem on it. :)
Pulchritudo Feminae 4/15/10
How many a poet has turned his hand to tell of one he loves.
Using phrases oft' reused of hair or turtledoves.
Of streaming locks and shining face that far transcend this earth
Which give to him, in simple words, a sort of second birth.
And each man writes his lines to her in earnest from his heart.
Yet millions of these verses are a foretaste of the start.
For exhaustion of this topic can never be attained,
As the beauty of a lady's face can never be explained.
As words pour forth which sound cliche and others will repeat,
It merely shows that words can only reach defeat.
If a lady chance to read this, pray, despair not in your looks,
For your beauty can't be captured in a kingdom full of books.
And to members of the coarser sex, pray, carry on the fight,
And try to tell what can't be told till it be told aright.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Beauty Post #1
Truth, beauty, and goodness are "Trancendentals", or qualities inherent in the Creator and therefore in Creation. There is objective truth and objective goodness (some things are always true, some things always evil.) It would seem then that there is objective beauty (some things are beautiful, others are not; it's not just a matter of personal taste.) Is it wrong then to listen to "unbeautiful" or perhaps unskillful music? How do we define objective beauty when it comes to music? As humans, we have an innate sense of what sounds good and what doesn't (based on the fact that we are made in the image of God.) Is this all we have to go on when determining what is beautiful music? Can we say that certain person's "music tastes" are objectively wrong? I have personally come to the conclusion that there is some standard for music, but that we can't make many dogmatic statements about what that standard is because of a lack of Biblical direction on it. When it comes to truth and goodness, Scripture gives us direct commands on what is right or not. When it comes to music, we essentially just have the fact that we are made in the image of God and he understands what is beautiful music, so we have some innate guidelines. I welcome any other thoughts or conclusions.
(Just to clarify, I'm not talking about music that is bad because of immoral lyrics. That should be rejected on the basis of objective goodness. I'm talking about beauty inherent in the musical notes.)
(Just to clarify, I'm not talking about music that is bad because of immoral lyrics. That should be rejected on the basis of objective goodness. I'm talking about beauty inherent in the musical notes.)
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Concerning things around necks
Here are a couple more re-runs from Facebook. Again, these two poems arose from totally different inspirations; though afterwards, I noticed disturbing similarities between them, which made me decide to post them together. The first one is about Roman slave collars. The second one is about ties (it's not about anyone in particular, just someone who doesn't like their job.) Take that for what it's worth. There is no real connection between what I was trying to convey in each poem, just some superficial similarities.
Roman Slave Collars 3/22/2010
The iron ring beneath his head,
With dire wish: to see him dead,
Tightens tighter round and round
Like echoes off the frigid ground.
A ceaseless circle without end,
A token of eternity,
Of bondage whence he cannot flee.
The Tie 3/25/2010
An exclamation upside down:
A tie at odds with solemn frown
And somber suit which this man wears,
Who looks around with sickly stares.
His head: a point that yells a shout
The line below leaves none in doubt:
This punctuation mark means noise
Which makes no sense with this man's poise,
Nor with his silent attitude,
His mask-like face or languid mood.
He feels a rope that steals his breath
That ever wishes for his death.
Roman Slave Collars 3/22/2010
The iron ring beneath his head,
With dire wish: to see him dead,
Tightens tighter round and round
Like echoes off the frigid ground.
A ceaseless circle without end,
A token of eternity,
Of bondage whence he cannot flee.
The Tie 3/25/2010
An exclamation upside down:
A tie at odds with solemn frown
And somber suit which this man wears,
Who looks around with sickly stares.
His head: a point that yells a shout
The line below leaves none in doubt:
This punctuation mark means noise
Which makes no sense with this man's poise,
Nor with his silent attitude,
His mask-like face or languid mood.
He feels a rope that steals his breath
That ever wishes for his death.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Miscellaneous Poems #2
I wrote this first one while hiking in the Spanish Peaks. It is about going from the monotonous plod of hiking to the enjoyable rhythmic pattern where you forget you are hiking.
The Hike 8/17/2009
Plod:
Step slide
drag.
Plod;
One foot
Before the other hits the
ground is wet from all the
raining down like music from an instru-
meant to stay at home today and have a
rest of all the hikers want to stop and head on
backpacks feel so heavy but I
think we should keep hiking 'cause I think I found the
flow.
Simply, Satan Stumbles 8/27/2009
How simply it seems, Satan slips and stumbles,
tumbles, toppling top to toe to
nothing.
Like a massive marionette made of makeshift materials
but impressive in its paint and imposing power, but
no.
Merely made of misshapen martyrs,
past their prime and perfect purpose, one
cut:
a simple slice of strings and Satan stumbles so
far
down.
The Hike 8/17/2009
Plod:
Step slide
drag.
Plod;
One foot
Before the other hits the
ground is wet from all the
raining down like music from an instru-
meant to stay at home today and have a
rest of all the hikers want to stop and head on
backpacks feel so heavy but I
think we should keep hiking 'cause I think I found the
flow.
Simply, Satan Stumbles 8/27/2009
How simply it seems, Satan slips and stumbles,
tumbles, toppling top to toe to
nothing.
Like a massive marionette made of makeshift materials
but impressive in its paint and imposing power, but
no.
Merely made of misshapen martyrs,
past their prime and perfect purpose, one
cut:
a simple slice of strings and Satan stumbles so
far
down.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Mothers' Day
At a maternal request, I am posting a Mothers' Day poem from a week ago.
Mothers' Day 5/9/2010
Happy Mothers' Day to a very special mother!
For how would I turn out today if God had sent another?
And I don't know what I would do
If God had not determined you
To be my mom and help me on the way.
I know that he has placed you here
With extra care so you can steer
My life with care and watch that I don't stray.
And though I don't say "thanks" enough,
And bother you with little stuff,
I hope my love for you is plain to see.
And though you aren't perfect, sure,
I am no mother connoisseur.
You're just the perfect mom that God could give to me.
Mothers' Day 5/9/2010
Happy Mothers' Day to a very special mother!
For how would I turn out today if God had sent another?
And I don't know what I would do
If God had not determined you
To be my mom and help me on the way.
I know that he has placed you here
With extra care so you can steer
My life with care and watch that I don't stray.
And though I don't say "thanks" enough,
And bother you with little stuff,
I hope my love for you is plain to see.
And though you aren't perfect, sure,
I am no mother connoisseur.
You're just the perfect mom that God could give to me.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Christian Lobbying
This is my Junior thesis paper on Christian lobbying which I will be defending tomorrow. It's kind of long. So if for some reason you feel like reading it all, I hope you find it interesting and challenging. Also, I'm kind of busy right now so the two postings on beauty that I promised may have to wait a bit. I just realized that this post has no poetry in it so here's a little something...
Christian Lobbying! It's so great!
It will help improve your state!
Stay informed! Participate!
Place a vote when ten and eight!
Talk to people! Make a call!
If you're not sure, then just start small!
Christian Lobbying
While people have tried to influence those in power since there has been government, formal lobbying did not begin until around the early 1800's in America. The term “lobby” probably originated in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington DC where people often gathered to give their opinions to President Ulysses S. Grant who relaxed there (Byrd). Early lobbying likely came from war veterans who hired representatives to lobby on their behalf to receive compensation for war efforts.
It was during this time that lobbying began to gain the poor reputation that many perceive today. Early lobbyists often resorted to subtle flattery and even bribery. For instance, “in 1850, Samuel Colt gave away a free pistol to the twelve-year old son of a representative as a mild encouragement to sign a patent bill” (Byrd). One also reads of companies hiring attractive female lobbyists to lavishly entertain representatives. One US newspaper columnist of 1869 put it this way, “…winding in and out through the long, devious basement passage, crawling through the corridors, trailing its slimy length from gallery to committee room, at last it lies stretched at full length on the floor of Congress—this dazzling reptile, this huge, scaly serpent of the lobby (Byrd).”
You may still think of lobbying as having these serpentine, “used car salesman” connotations. But while lobbying is still not perfect today, progress was made in 1948 when legislation passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. This Act requires lobbyists to report all accounts of funds and expenses, among other things, to the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House. It is partly a result of this act that lobbying looks very different today. Most lobbyists today merely seek to present those in government with the issues and convince them of their own position without deceit. In general, they are simply driven by a desire to improve their nation. Even if lawmakers do not agree with the lobbyists with whom they meet, lobbying can help them be aware of the different sides of the topics. Today's senators and representatives face innumerable complex problems on which they must vote, and lobbying can increase their awareness of the nuances of the subjects.
This can take a number of forms. In general, to lobby is to try to influence public officials for or against a specific cause (American Heritage Dictionary). This includes both “insider” and “outsider” lobbying. Insider lobbying involves direct access to political leaders. This means meeting with lawmakers, providing committees and offices with information, and testifying in committee. This is mostly done while the legislature is in session which, in Montana, happens for ninety days, once every two years. Examples of outsider lobbying include protests, writing letters to legislators, and media activity that raise awareness for a certain position. This sort of lobbying draws on communities at large and is often referred to as “grassroots.” A famous example of successful outsider lobbying is the civil rights movement. Both of these methods, insider and outsider lobbying, are admirable. However, not all instances of these methods are justifiable. For instance, we must draw a line at bribery. As soon as a lobbyist offers some other sort of personal gain to a government official, lobbying oversteps its proper boundaries. Everything else I mentioned such as meeting with lawmakers, testifying, calling senators about issues, getting to know representatives, these are proper methods of advocacy.
I mentioned that these lobbying techniques have been well used in the past, such as during the civil rights movement. But we aren't facing serious segregation or tyranny. Is this sort of action really necessary today? Our society is definitely in need of this positive Christian-based change. It is now very difficult to ignore the moral decline all around us, especially among youths. Gone are the days when the biggest problems in school were cheating on tests and playing hooky. Today's schools, especially those of inner-city neighborhoods, deal with suicide, drugs, and teen pregnancies. Nor is crime limited to teens or adults. As journalist John Dilulio observed, “We're not just talking about teenagers... We're talking about elementary school youngsters who pack guns instead of lunches. We're talking about kids who have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future.” We cannot let this continue. We cannot allow the values on which this country was founded to be compromised. We can make a change. This change can come through lobbying. I believe that it is crucial for Montana Christians to be involved in religious lobbying in some capacity on behalf of Christian values, especially those relating to families.
But before I discuss lobbying in depth, let me discuss why Christians should be involved in government at all. Thus, I will first provide four arguments in favor of getting involved in government. After that, I will argue that our nation must adhere to Christian values, beginning in the family, in order for us to succeed politically. Then, I will address why we need Christian lobbying.
The first and most foundational concept to realize is that it is crucial to integrate our faith with government and make a difference. As Christians, our religion is not bound by church walls. It has often been said that we are to be in the world, but not of it. What does this look like, and why does it matter? Why shouldn't we just focus on building up and edifying the church? Among a plethora of reasons, I will list only four.
First of all, we must recognize that, as Christians, we have the most potential to move the government in the best direction. We have God's revelation of how we are to live and respond to rulers. We can make a difference. Those without Christ can certainly understand how government ought to operate and can strive for virtue. However, we can combine this with God's revelation and thus strive for a higher standard. If anyone can bring government to its fullest potential, it ought to be Christians.
Another issue which Christians must face is spiritual warfare. This is something that our ever more secular society cannot address. As Christians, we need to integrate our faith with the world around us to face today's spiritual warfare. Our nation faces a battle of ideas on both political and spiritual levels, and we must fight on both. For instance, when defending marriage as a union between one man and one woman, we as Christians understand that God has established marriage in this way and has forbidden the perversion of it. In this situation, God's revelation gives us the foundation and motivation to defend the sanctity of marriage. But what reason would a non-Christian legislator have to question homosexuality? In order to combat on this spiritual level we must have the educational and mental tools needed to find and hold to the truth. However, when lobbying for Christian issues in a secular government we cannot effectively appeal to Scripture. While not hiding our faith, we must instead engage on the political and secular level. This should not compromise our coherence as lobbyists. If what we believe is true, the rest of the world, including secular reasoning, should line up and agree with Christian values.
However, some would deny the spiritual element of politics and argue for a detachment from the seeming corruption of government. They might argue that the world is fallen and that we should not get caught up in it. This idea is ultimately founded on the heresy of gnosticism. This is a belief that places the spiritual realm on a higher level than the physical realm and believes earthly things to be inherently corrupt. However, when God created, he called the universe “very good.” When it fell from its perfection through mankind's disobedience, he called man to cultivate the earth, bringing it back under God's rule. So, we are not to abandon the world, but to purify it. It is inherently good, not evil. When Christ came to earth, he did not merely forgive sins and reach the lost; he made the sick well, made the lame walk, and the blind see. He cared about physical practical needs. We must be like Christ and reach out to a fallen and imperfect government. We cannot separate the secular and the spiritual.
Lastly, God created all things, and therefore all things connect and relate. Not only can we not separate our politics and theology but we need to connect them. For instance, our Biblical interpretation of the book of Romans, chapter 13 will affect our view of government, and whether we like it or not, our government's property laws affect our church buildings. God is not merely a God over the church. He is a God over music and virtue and food and government. Our walk with Christ should impact our relationships with friends, strangers, and our nation's leaders. We are called to reach all parts of God's vast and diverse creation, including government.
However, as important as this cultural change is, in reality, cultural change must begin on a personal level. That is, the virtue of the individual forms the virtue of the nation. We cannot hold the view that we are just part of the masses, and that our actions will ultimately not affect the overall nation. It is each person—me and you—that make up the United States. G.K. Chesterton was once asked by The Times to answer the question, “What's wrong with the world?” Chesterton was invited among a number of eminent authors to write an essay on the subject. Certainly, we would expect a man as brilliant as Chesterton to have a lot to say on the subject of what's wrong with the world, but his response was actually the shortest of all, “Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton.” We should also hold this humble view, that it is not the government, or entertainment, or terrorism that is wrong in the world. It is each one of us. It is me. We must understand that each sin we commit affects the rest of humanity. Even if it does not affect others directly, it will affect our thoughts and therefore our interaction with others. Only once we recognize that it is ourselves that need reform can we reform the world around us.
But how? How can we move forward into a better future seeking the kind of values intended for the nation by our forefathers. The change begins in the home. Just as it is among our youth that the seeds of poor character are sprouting today, it is among the family that values of honesty, hard work, and godliness can be cultivated tomorrow. Good books and life experience cannot guarantee virtuous change. Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” The foundation children receive often shapes their character, and therefore their communities, their government, and ultimately their nation. If our families instill virtue in their children, if we take action with the integrity and passion of our forefathers, and if we are emboldened to make a difference, we can make sure that our country also holds to these foundational virtues.
However, this virtuous progress in the family cannot be accomplished if the sanctity of marriage is not defended and if schools are not providing a proper foundation. It cannot be accomplished if the value of human life is shattered by abortion and physician assisted suicide. To ensure laws that protect these family values we must make our faith effectual in government. But is lobbying the right way? I believe it is. First, I will state some arguments for lobbying. Then, I will respond to those that would advise against lobbying entirely. Finally, I will close with some practical ways in which you can be involved in your local or state government.
First of all, we must engage in lobbying simply because it is happening anyway. Whether we like it or not, citizens who intend well but mean ill for our country are lobbying already. Author and statesman Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This is very true. If the Montana Right to Life Association stops lobbying will Planned Parenthood as well? If the ACLJ stops lobbying, will the ACLU? We cannot stand idly by and allow the wrong people to guide our nation's leaders. Certainly lobbying has an impact, and if Christians can effect virtuous change legally, shouldn't we? If we can make our country a better place simply by sending a representative to the capital or by sending a letter, why wouldn't we?
Secondly, policy makers can benefit from the expertise and creative ideas of citizens. Since the United States is a republic and not a complete democracy, our lawmakers and representatives cannot fully research issues associated with each of the individuals they represent. In other words, a legislator cannot understand schools as well as a teacher, and understand the economy as well as a banker, and understand cattle as well as a rancher, and understand the army as well as a military officer, all at the same time. It is simply not possible to acquire the life experience and knowledge of a multitude of citizens. They are necessarily limited in their understanding of specific problems. Through lobbying, anyone can provide our leaders with the knowledge they need to to make informed decisions. People who are closer to the real problems of our nation can make government officials aware of issues that will influence their decisions even if they do not agree with the lobbyists. How will policy makers understand the vast spectrum of concerns they face if we do not tell them?
About two years ago, I had the privilege of visiting the Montana state capital and seeing our legislature in action. I remember a bill somewhere in the order of 50 pages that was brought up for a vote. One gentleman spoke, urging the members present not to vote for the bill, reminding them that very few of them had read it in its entirety. This was one of many bills that the representatives simply did not have time to read. Lobbyists can provide the knowledge necessary to make an informed vote. Again, even if lawmakers do not agree with the lobbyists with whom they meet, lobbying can help them be aware of the different sides of the topic, the pros and cons of each position. Lobbyists do not force leaders into a certain course of action, the decision is still made independently.
Thirdly, lobbying is crucial because it is the most involved method we have of creating necessary change, short of running for office. And change is needed. America is facing the deaths of about 1.3 million innocent unborn children every year in the United States due to abortions (Abortion Statistics). Since Roe v. Wade there have been almost fifty million abortions in the United States. This is over twice as many deaths as during the entire holocaust of World War II (Downward Trend Continues; Niewyk and Nicosia 45). I mentioned earlier that the civil rights movement used a great deal of lobbying and was applauded for its peaceful means of correcting injustice. How much more should we lobby for the lives of our citizens than for their rights? The simple act of peaceful lobbying was certainly admirable in the civil rights movement and it is undeniably important against the issues of today, such as abortion.
However, some would argue that lobbying is not a means by which our founders intended government to operate. As a republic, it seems that our founders intended us to trust decisions to our elected leaders. Not everyone may receive exactly what they want, but if we don't try to influence our leaders (who are often more educated than us) and allow them to do what they were elected to do, it will work out for the good of the people whether we can see it or not. Imagine if every minute faction of the United States not only tried to elect leaders but also tried to get those leaders to do the will of their small part of the population. How could the government function? The government is not subject to the people, the people are subject to the government. Our founders imagined a people who casted their votes and accepted the leadership of those who were chosen to represent the people. Lobbying would have been out of the question.
However, while this may be sound in theory, after more than two centuries of experience, it is more important that we make decisions based on what we see works, rather than on past theories. Certainly our founding fathers were brilliant men and provided an unparalleled foundation for our country, but they could not see the future. Even Aristotle had fundamentally flawed ideas about laws of motion and friction, which we reject today. We must be willing to question the authority of our founders in light of today's issues.
But you may ask, what's wrong with limiting our influence to voting in elections as our founders intended? Restricting our political influence to voting may be good in theory, but not always in practice. Simply participating in elections does not always suffice. Often we see examples of corruption in the voting system called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the practice of adjusting the boundaries of electoral districts to ensure a majority of a certain party in each district. Earlier in United States history, white officials would sometimes set up districts to include just enough of the white population to cancel out the votes of the black population and therefore win as many districts as possible. Today this can be done along party lines rather than racial lines. As a general trend, cities tend to contain more democratic voters, and rural areas, more republican voters. Councils can take advantage of this and destroy the impartiality needed for the ideals of our founders to succeed. We cannot deny sin in the world, and for this reason, we cannot always let government run its course. Sometimes we must take action against bias and injustice for the good of the truth (Alan Guttmacher Institute). And again, if we limit ourselves to the ballot, we will be pitting our simple vote against the lobbying of the ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations. Because government is not perfect, and faces the powerful advocacy of groups like the ACLU, we must fight in a similar manner: with lobbying.
In addition, today we are not merely facing issues of an imperfect government. We are facing devastating problems that cut at the heart of the morals of our country. I have already mentioned the millions of annual deaths due to abortion. This sort of horrific massacre far outweighs the injustices of King George that our forefathers faced. In cases such as these, we cannot follow our founders' advice to leave the government alone. Something must be done, and if our elected officials don't do anything, we must.
Other opponents of lobbying might object that we are commanded to obey authority in Scripture, and that lobbying shows a certain discontent and refusal to accept the leaders God has put in place. However, our government is set up with the democratic voice of citizens as a key value. It is crucial for citizens of America to be involved in issues of the state if the government is to represent the people. In addition, the importance of truth and virtue in our leaders should not be overlooked in our civil obedience. While we ought to submit to authority, we should not let the authorities over us make unwise and ungodly decisions as long as we are offered the opportunity to make a difference.
Still others of those against religious lobbying may say that we should leave politics to the politicians. Just as we leave plumbing to plumbers and business to businessmen, we ought to leave politics to those who understand the system best. However, the job of the politician is not like any other job. In the U.S., it is a position elected by citizens and representatives of the citizens, and therefore impacts all citizens. We have a direct interest in the actions of politicians and a civic duty to be involved for the good of the nation.
A final issue that people may use against involvement in the government is the popular understanding of our elected officials as corrupt. Maybe politics is simply too degrading a practice for Christians to participate in and remain pure. We must ask ourselves, is the corrupting effect of hunger for power enough reason to stay away from politics? It is certainly true that there is an innate desire for power and influence in each of us. So is involvement in politics simply playing with fire? Are there some things that we as Christians should simply stay out of to avoid falling into temptation? This is a valid point. Throughout history, political power has led many well-meaning people to a tragic moral decline. In response, however, we must see that this damaging effect on leaders is far from universally true. Politicians are simply normal, imperfect people; however, their actions affect more people and therefore seem all the more vicious when misguided. Secondly, I would like to point out is that lobbyists do not directly hold positions of power. They merely influence those who do. Thus, I would imagine that the temptation faced by lobbyists for seizing more power is much smaller than that of, say, a senator or governor.
But I will admit that the strength of one man or woman is not always enough to resist the temptations that come from proximity to power. However, Christian lobbyists and officials need not trust in their own strength. They are assisted by the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. James 1:5 tells us, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” Prayer is a powerful tool for ensuring proper motives in government and it should not be underestimated. Finally, we must look at the alternative. Sure, there is a certain danger associated with government action, but the dangers, if we take no action, are far greater. Imagine a country where human life is only valued as long as it is useful. Or imagine a country where Christian schools and bookstores are required to hire homosexual employees against their principles (Federal Research Council). Or imagine a country where a high school senior is forbidden to make references to her faith in here own graduation speech (Bozeman Daily Chronicle). This hypothetical country is not far off from reality. But corruption is no reason to give up on government. If it is corrupt, that should provide us with all the more encouragement to get involved since we must live with the decisions of our government. We must reach out into creation and make a difference for Christ.
So it is important to make our faith effective in the secular world around us, but what does this look like in government and how do we accomplish this? First of all, stay informed. You cannot act if you don't know what to act on. The Family Research Council is a national organization that offers free updates on policy issues via email. I would encourage you to start by subscribing to receive these updates which you can do at their website, familyresearchcouncil.org, or just frc.org. This will inform you of pro-Christian and anti-Christian bills while the legislature is in session. During the interim period when there is no session, the emails will keep track of other relevant issues such as court cases. Montana Family Foundation has a similar newsletter which you can subscribe to at their website, montanafamily.org. If you are able to vote, do the research on the candidates. Again, other organizations make this easy. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family jointly put out a voting scorecard that lets you know how Congress members have voted on family issues in the past. Montana Family Foundation also releases a voter guide before each election which can be found at their website.
Once you are informed, act. Vote if you can. This is the simplest and most obvious way to be effective in government, but it should not be overlooked. Your vote counts. Secondly, the newsletters I mentioned sometimes provide specific senators or Congressmen whom you can call, send a letter, or even text, especially during the state session. Call. Send letters. These are powerful tools. My dad recently told me of a time he was at the state capitol while it was in session and a bill was brought up for debate. Montana state senator, Mike Wheat got up and basically said, “I don't know the details of this bill, but I do know that I received a number of calls from the people in Bozeman whom I am representing. They requested that I vote yes on this bill and that's what I'm going to do.” Senator Wheat recognized the passion for the issue demonstrated by the callers and he recognized his responsibility to Montanans and that determined his vote. This was one of many bills and he probably just did not have time to research it. The research and concern of his constituents was able to make a difference in this scenario. We must not be afraid to take action.
Short of sheer numbers, personal relationships with officials can also go a long way. People respect the opinions of friends, and senators and representatives are just normal people with friends. You can get to know your senators. Attend local political events such as fund-raisers and luncheons so you can get acquainted with lawmakers and leaders. Even if you have only met them once, having made a good impression, your call about a bill will be all the more persuasive. If you can cultivate a relationship, even better. Look for opportunities to volunteer or donate financially to organizations such as Montana Family Foundation and The Family Research Council that already have established lobbying systems. This can seem intimidating, especially as a teen. But you can build confidence through experience, by simply starting at the best opportunity you have to initiate a relationship. Also, if you are a teen, Montana participates in an excellent annual program for Christian teens called teenpact which seeks to give you the tools to become an effective Christian citizen. Teenpact is a four-day series of classes and activities which teaches students about how Montana government works and how we can make our faith effectual in it through hands-on experience. While I have been unable to go in past years, friends to whom I have spoken about it found it enjoyable and applicable.
Lastly, we often underestimate the effect one person can have on the world around him, or, as Tim Echols, author of Real Citizenship, terms it, the “power of one.” In his book, Mr. Echols tells numerous illustrative stories of this impact one can have. For example, he tells of a Delta flight to Colorado Springs which included a highly inappropriate music video as part of the in-flight entertainment. He sent an email of complaint and after a cordial exchange of a few messages, Delta promised to remove the video from their flights and even to review their programming policy to ensure that such content was not shown again (Echols, 31-3). With just three emails Mr. Echols was able to purify a little piece of our culture. This could not have happened if he had merely mourned the decline of our country's morals as I so often do. He took action. We too must act in order to see change around us. I would encourage you to find where you can lobby today.
Bibliography
1. Gamwell, Franklin I. Politics as a Christian Vocation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2005.
2. Wood, James E., Jr., ed. Religion and Politics. Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 1983.
3. Dionne, E. J., Jr., Elshtain, Jean Bethke, and Kayla M. Drogosy, eds. One Electorate Under God?: A Dialogue on Religion and American Politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution P, 2004.
4. Forsythe, Clarke D. Politics for the Greatest Good. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009.
5. Forster, Greg. The Contested Public Square. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008.
6. Dunn, Charles W., ed. Religion in American Politics. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly P, 1989.
7. Beckwith, Francis J. Politics for Christians. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010.
8. VanDrunen, David M. "Christ and the State." Escondido, CA. 1/15/2010.
9. Byrd, Robert C. “Lobbyists” 1987. referenced: 4/20/2010 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd_History_Lobbying.htm
10. “Abortion Statistics” Alan Guttmacher Institute. http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm referenced: 4/23/2010
11. Dilulio, John J. Jr. Moral Poverty. Chicago Tribune
12. The Democracy Center. http://www.democracyctr.org/library/california/lobbying.htm referenced: 4/30/2010
13. “Downward Trend Continues” National Right to Life. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html referenced: 4/30/2010
14. Niewyk, Donald L.; Nicosia, Francis R. The Columbia guide to the Holocaust. West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2000.
15. Burke, Edmund. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Edmund_Burke/ referenced: 5/7/2010
16. Federal Research Council. “Fight ENDA.” https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?c=CHECKOUT&dmy=8B2F9E90-09FC-E9A1-381970512F693CEB&CFID=5660015&CFTOKEN=522ae7fcfd9e61e6-DF38A721-0145-555D-777857A9EA4914A9#confirm referenced: 5/12/2010
17. Bozeman Daily Chronicle. “Judge says grad's free speech wasn't violated.” 2009 (date unknown)
18. Echols, Tim G. Real Citizenship. Alamogordo, NM: Brunson Pub, 2004
Christian Lobbying! It's so great!
It will help improve your state!
Stay informed! Participate!
Place a vote when ten and eight!
Talk to people! Make a call!
If you're not sure, then just start small!
Christian Lobbying
While people have tried to influence those in power since there has been government, formal lobbying did not begin until around the early 1800's in America. The term “lobby” probably originated in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington DC where people often gathered to give their opinions to President Ulysses S. Grant who relaxed there (Byrd). Early lobbying likely came from war veterans who hired representatives to lobby on their behalf to receive compensation for war efforts.
It was during this time that lobbying began to gain the poor reputation that many perceive today. Early lobbyists often resorted to subtle flattery and even bribery. For instance, “in 1850, Samuel Colt gave away a free pistol to the twelve-year old son of a representative as a mild encouragement to sign a patent bill” (Byrd). One also reads of companies hiring attractive female lobbyists to lavishly entertain representatives. One US newspaper columnist of 1869 put it this way, “…winding in and out through the long, devious basement passage, crawling through the corridors, trailing its slimy length from gallery to committee room, at last it lies stretched at full length on the floor of Congress—this dazzling reptile, this huge, scaly serpent of the lobby (Byrd).”
You may still think of lobbying as having these serpentine, “used car salesman” connotations. But while lobbying is still not perfect today, progress was made in 1948 when legislation passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. This Act requires lobbyists to report all accounts of funds and expenses, among other things, to the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House. It is partly a result of this act that lobbying looks very different today. Most lobbyists today merely seek to present those in government with the issues and convince them of their own position without deceit. In general, they are simply driven by a desire to improve their nation. Even if lawmakers do not agree with the lobbyists with whom they meet, lobbying can help them be aware of the different sides of the topics. Today's senators and representatives face innumerable complex problems on which they must vote, and lobbying can increase their awareness of the nuances of the subjects.
This can take a number of forms. In general, to lobby is to try to influence public officials for or against a specific cause (American Heritage Dictionary). This includes both “insider” and “outsider” lobbying. Insider lobbying involves direct access to political leaders. This means meeting with lawmakers, providing committees and offices with information, and testifying in committee. This is mostly done while the legislature is in session which, in Montana, happens for ninety days, once every two years. Examples of outsider lobbying include protests, writing letters to legislators, and media activity that raise awareness for a certain position. This sort of lobbying draws on communities at large and is often referred to as “grassroots.” A famous example of successful outsider lobbying is the civil rights movement. Both of these methods, insider and outsider lobbying, are admirable. However, not all instances of these methods are justifiable. For instance, we must draw a line at bribery. As soon as a lobbyist offers some other sort of personal gain to a government official, lobbying oversteps its proper boundaries. Everything else I mentioned such as meeting with lawmakers, testifying, calling senators about issues, getting to know representatives, these are proper methods of advocacy.
I mentioned that these lobbying techniques have been well used in the past, such as during the civil rights movement. But we aren't facing serious segregation or tyranny. Is this sort of action really necessary today? Our society is definitely in need of this positive Christian-based change. It is now very difficult to ignore the moral decline all around us, especially among youths. Gone are the days when the biggest problems in school were cheating on tests and playing hooky. Today's schools, especially those of inner-city neighborhoods, deal with suicide, drugs, and teen pregnancies. Nor is crime limited to teens or adults. As journalist John Dilulio observed, “We're not just talking about teenagers... We're talking about elementary school youngsters who pack guns instead of lunches. We're talking about kids who have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future.” We cannot let this continue. We cannot allow the values on which this country was founded to be compromised. We can make a change. This change can come through lobbying. I believe that it is crucial for Montana Christians to be involved in religious lobbying in some capacity on behalf of Christian values, especially those relating to families.
But before I discuss lobbying in depth, let me discuss why Christians should be involved in government at all. Thus, I will first provide four arguments in favor of getting involved in government. After that, I will argue that our nation must adhere to Christian values, beginning in the family, in order for us to succeed politically. Then, I will address why we need Christian lobbying.
The first and most foundational concept to realize is that it is crucial to integrate our faith with government and make a difference. As Christians, our religion is not bound by church walls. It has often been said that we are to be in the world, but not of it. What does this look like, and why does it matter? Why shouldn't we just focus on building up and edifying the church? Among a plethora of reasons, I will list only four.
First of all, we must recognize that, as Christians, we have the most potential to move the government in the best direction. We have God's revelation of how we are to live and respond to rulers. We can make a difference. Those without Christ can certainly understand how government ought to operate and can strive for virtue. However, we can combine this with God's revelation and thus strive for a higher standard. If anyone can bring government to its fullest potential, it ought to be Christians.
Another issue which Christians must face is spiritual warfare. This is something that our ever more secular society cannot address. As Christians, we need to integrate our faith with the world around us to face today's spiritual warfare. Our nation faces a battle of ideas on both political and spiritual levels, and we must fight on both. For instance, when defending marriage as a union between one man and one woman, we as Christians understand that God has established marriage in this way and has forbidden the perversion of it. In this situation, God's revelation gives us the foundation and motivation to defend the sanctity of marriage. But what reason would a non-Christian legislator have to question homosexuality? In order to combat on this spiritual level we must have the educational and mental tools needed to find and hold to the truth. However, when lobbying for Christian issues in a secular government we cannot effectively appeal to Scripture. While not hiding our faith, we must instead engage on the political and secular level. This should not compromise our coherence as lobbyists. If what we believe is true, the rest of the world, including secular reasoning, should line up and agree with Christian values.
However, some would deny the spiritual element of politics and argue for a detachment from the seeming corruption of government. They might argue that the world is fallen and that we should not get caught up in it. This idea is ultimately founded on the heresy of gnosticism. This is a belief that places the spiritual realm on a higher level than the physical realm and believes earthly things to be inherently corrupt. However, when God created, he called the universe “very good.” When it fell from its perfection through mankind's disobedience, he called man to cultivate the earth, bringing it back under God's rule. So, we are not to abandon the world, but to purify it. It is inherently good, not evil. When Christ came to earth, he did not merely forgive sins and reach the lost; he made the sick well, made the lame walk, and the blind see. He cared about physical practical needs. We must be like Christ and reach out to a fallen and imperfect government. We cannot separate the secular and the spiritual.
Lastly, God created all things, and therefore all things connect and relate. Not only can we not separate our politics and theology but we need to connect them. For instance, our Biblical interpretation of the book of Romans, chapter 13 will affect our view of government, and whether we like it or not, our government's property laws affect our church buildings. God is not merely a God over the church. He is a God over music and virtue and food and government. Our walk with Christ should impact our relationships with friends, strangers, and our nation's leaders. We are called to reach all parts of God's vast and diverse creation, including government.
However, as important as this cultural change is, in reality, cultural change must begin on a personal level. That is, the virtue of the individual forms the virtue of the nation. We cannot hold the view that we are just part of the masses, and that our actions will ultimately not affect the overall nation. It is each person—me and you—that make up the United States. G.K. Chesterton was once asked by The Times to answer the question, “What's wrong with the world?” Chesterton was invited among a number of eminent authors to write an essay on the subject. Certainly, we would expect a man as brilliant as Chesterton to have a lot to say on the subject of what's wrong with the world, but his response was actually the shortest of all, “Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton.” We should also hold this humble view, that it is not the government, or entertainment, or terrorism that is wrong in the world. It is each one of us. It is me. We must understand that each sin we commit affects the rest of humanity. Even if it does not affect others directly, it will affect our thoughts and therefore our interaction with others. Only once we recognize that it is ourselves that need reform can we reform the world around us.
But how? How can we move forward into a better future seeking the kind of values intended for the nation by our forefathers. The change begins in the home. Just as it is among our youth that the seeds of poor character are sprouting today, it is among the family that values of honesty, hard work, and godliness can be cultivated tomorrow. Good books and life experience cannot guarantee virtuous change. Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” The foundation children receive often shapes their character, and therefore their communities, their government, and ultimately their nation. If our families instill virtue in their children, if we take action with the integrity and passion of our forefathers, and if we are emboldened to make a difference, we can make sure that our country also holds to these foundational virtues.
However, this virtuous progress in the family cannot be accomplished if the sanctity of marriage is not defended and if schools are not providing a proper foundation. It cannot be accomplished if the value of human life is shattered by abortion and physician assisted suicide. To ensure laws that protect these family values we must make our faith effectual in government. But is lobbying the right way? I believe it is. First, I will state some arguments for lobbying. Then, I will respond to those that would advise against lobbying entirely. Finally, I will close with some practical ways in which you can be involved in your local or state government.
First of all, we must engage in lobbying simply because it is happening anyway. Whether we like it or not, citizens who intend well but mean ill for our country are lobbying already. Author and statesman Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This is very true. If the Montana Right to Life Association stops lobbying will Planned Parenthood as well? If the ACLJ stops lobbying, will the ACLU? We cannot stand idly by and allow the wrong people to guide our nation's leaders. Certainly lobbying has an impact, and if Christians can effect virtuous change legally, shouldn't we? If we can make our country a better place simply by sending a representative to the capital or by sending a letter, why wouldn't we?
Secondly, policy makers can benefit from the expertise and creative ideas of citizens. Since the United States is a republic and not a complete democracy, our lawmakers and representatives cannot fully research issues associated with each of the individuals they represent. In other words, a legislator cannot understand schools as well as a teacher, and understand the economy as well as a banker, and understand cattle as well as a rancher, and understand the army as well as a military officer, all at the same time. It is simply not possible to acquire the life experience and knowledge of a multitude of citizens. They are necessarily limited in their understanding of specific problems. Through lobbying, anyone can provide our leaders with the knowledge they need to to make informed decisions. People who are closer to the real problems of our nation can make government officials aware of issues that will influence their decisions even if they do not agree with the lobbyists. How will policy makers understand the vast spectrum of concerns they face if we do not tell them?
About two years ago, I had the privilege of visiting the Montana state capital and seeing our legislature in action. I remember a bill somewhere in the order of 50 pages that was brought up for a vote. One gentleman spoke, urging the members present not to vote for the bill, reminding them that very few of them had read it in its entirety. This was one of many bills that the representatives simply did not have time to read. Lobbyists can provide the knowledge necessary to make an informed vote. Again, even if lawmakers do not agree with the lobbyists with whom they meet, lobbying can help them be aware of the different sides of the topic, the pros and cons of each position. Lobbyists do not force leaders into a certain course of action, the decision is still made independently.
Thirdly, lobbying is crucial because it is the most involved method we have of creating necessary change, short of running for office. And change is needed. America is facing the deaths of about 1.3 million innocent unborn children every year in the United States due to abortions (Abortion Statistics). Since Roe v. Wade there have been almost fifty million abortions in the United States. This is over twice as many deaths as during the entire holocaust of World War II (Downward Trend Continues; Niewyk and Nicosia 45). I mentioned earlier that the civil rights movement used a great deal of lobbying and was applauded for its peaceful means of correcting injustice. How much more should we lobby for the lives of our citizens than for their rights? The simple act of peaceful lobbying was certainly admirable in the civil rights movement and it is undeniably important against the issues of today, such as abortion.
However, some would argue that lobbying is not a means by which our founders intended government to operate. As a republic, it seems that our founders intended us to trust decisions to our elected leaders. Not everyone may receive exactly what they want, but if we don't try to influence our leaders (who are often more educated than us) and allow them to do what they were elected to do, it will work out for the good of the people whether we can see it or not. Imagine if every minute faction of the United States not only tried to elect leaders but also tried to get those leaders to do the will of their small part of the population. How could the government function? The government is not subject to the people, the people are subject to the government. Our founders imagined a people who casted their votes and accepted the leadership of those who were chosen to represent the people. Lobbying would have been out of the question.
However, while this may be sound in theory, after more than two centuries of experience, it is more important that we make decisions based on what we see works, rather than on past theories. Certainly our founding fathers were brilliant men and provided an unparalleled foundation for our country, but they could not see the future. Even Aristotle had fundamentally flawed ideas about laws of motion and friction, which we reject today. We must be willing to question the authority of our founders in light of today's issues.
But you may ask, what's wrong with limiting our influence to voting in elections as our founders intended? Restricting our political influence to voting may be good in theory, but not always in practice. Simply participating in elections does not always suffice. Often we see examples of corruption in the voting system called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the practice of adjusting the boundaries of electoral districts to ensure a majority of a certain party in each district. Earlier in United States history, white officials would sometimes set up districts to include just enough of the white population to cancel out the votes of the black population and therefore win as many districts as possible. Today this can be done along party lines rather than racial lines. As a general trend, cities tend to contain more democratic voters, and rural areas, more republican voters. Councils can take advantage of this and destroy the impartiality needed for the ideals of our founders to succeed. We cannot deny sin in the world, and for this reason, we cannot always let government run its course. Sometimes we must take action against bias and injustice for the good of the truth (Alan Guttmacher Institute). And again, if we limit ourselves to the ballot, we will be pitting our simple vote against the lobbying of the ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations. Because government is not perfect, and faces the powerful advocacy of groups like the ACLU, we must fight in a similar manner: with lobbying.
In addition, today we are not merely facing issues of an imperfect government. We are facing devastating problems that cut at the heart of the morals of our country. I have already mentioned the millions of annual deaths due to abortion. This sort of horrific massacre far outweighs the injustices of King George that our forefathers faced. In cases such as these, we cannot follow our founders' advice to leave the government alone. Something must be done, and if our elected officials don't do anything, we must.
Other opponents of lobbying might object that we are commanded to obey authority in Scripture, and that lobbying shows a certain discontent and refusal to accept the leaders God has put in place. However, our government is set up with the democratic voice of citizens as a key value. It is crucial for citizens of America to be involved in issues of the state if the government is to represent the people. In addition, the importance of truth and virtue in our leaders should not be overlooked in our civil obedience. While we ought to submit to authority, we should not let the authorities over us make unwise and ungodly decisions as long as we are offered the opportunity to make a difference.
Still others of those against religious lobbying may say that we should leave politics to the politicians. Just as we leave plumbing to plumbers and business to businessmen, we ought to leave politics to those who understand the system best. However, the job of the politician is not like any other job. In the U.S., it is a position elected by citizens and representatives of the citizens, and therefore impacts all citizens. We have a direct interest in the actions of politicians and a civic duty to be involved for the good of the nation.
A final issue that people may use against involvement in the government is the popular understanding of our elected officials as corrupt. Maybe politics is simply too degrading a practice for Christians to participate in and remain pure. We must ask ourselves, is the corrupting effect of hunger for power enough reason to stay away from politics? It is certainly true that there is an innate desire for power and influence in each of us. So is involvement in politics simply playing with fire? Are there some things that we as Christians should simply stay out of to avoid falling into temptation? This is a valid point. Throughout history, political power has led many well-meaning people to a tragic moral decline. In response, however, we must see that this damaging effect on leaders is far from universally true. Politicians are simply normal, imperfect people; however, their actions affect more people and therefore seem all the more vicious when misguided. Secondly, I would like to point out is that lobbyists do not directly hold positions of power. They merely influence those who do. Thus, I would imagine that the temptation faced by lobbyists for seizing more power is much smaller than that of, say, a senator or governor.
But I will admit that the strength of one man or woman is not always enough to resist the temptations that come from proximity to power. However, Christian lobbyists and officials need not trust in their own strength. They are assisted by the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. James 1:5 tells us, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” Prayer is a powerful tool for ensuring proper motives in government and it should not be underestimated. Finally, we must look at the alternative. Sure, there is a certain danger associated with government action, but the dangers, if we take no action, are far greater. Imagine a country where human life is only valued as long as it is useful. Or imagine a country where Christian schools and bookstores are required to hire homosexual employees against their principles (Federal Research Council). Or imagine a country where a high school senior is forbidden to make references to her faith in here own graduation speech (Bozeman Daily Chronicle). This hypothetical country is not far off from reality. But corruption is no reason to give up on government. If it is corrupt, that should provide us with all the more encouragement to get involved since we must live with the decisions of our government. We must reach out into creation and make a difference for Christ.
So it is important to make our faith effective in the secular world around us, but what does this look like in government and how do we accomplish this? First of all, stay informed. You cannot act if you don't know what to act on. The Family Research Council is a national organization that offers free updates on policy issues via email. I would encourage you to start by subscribing to receive these updates which you can do at their website, familyresearchcouncil.org, or just frc.org. This will inform you of pro-Christian and anti-Christian bills while the legislature is in session. During the interim period when there is no session, the emails will keep track of other relevant issues such as court cases. Montana Family Foundation has a similar newsletter which you can subscribe to at their website, montanafamily.org. If you are able to vote, do the research on the candidates. Again, other organizations make this easy. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family jointly put out a voting scorecard that lets you know how Congress members have voted on family issues in the past. Montana Family Foundation also releases a voter guide before each election which can be found at their website.
Once you are informed, act. Vote if you can. This is the simplest and most obvious way to be effective in government, but it should not be overlooked. Your vote counts. Secondly, the newsletters I mentioned sometimes provide specific senators or Congressmen whom you can call, send a letter, or even text, especially during the state session. Call. Send letters. These are powerful tools. My dad recently told me of a time he was at the state capitol while it was in session and a bill was brought up for debate. Montana state senator, Mike Wheat got up and basically said, “I don't know the details of this bill, but I do know that I received a number of calls from the people in Bozeman whom I am representing. They requested that I vote yes on this bill and that's what I'm going to do.” Senator Wheat recognized the passion for the issue demonstrated by the callers and he recognized his responsibility to Montanans and that determined his vote. This was one of many bills and he probably just did not have time to research it. The research and concern of his constituents was able to make a difference in this scenario. We must not be afraid to take action.
Short of sheer numbers, personal relationships with officials can also go a long way. People respect the opinions of friends, and senators and representatives are just normal people with friends. You can get to know your senators. Attend local political events such as fund-raisers and luncheons so you can get acquainted with lawmakers and leaders. Even if you have only met them once, having made a good impression, your call about a bill will be all the more persuasive. If you can cultivate a relationship, even better. Look for opportunities to volunteer or donate financially to organizations such as Montana Family Foundation and The Family Research Council that already have established lobbying systems. This can seem intimidating, especially as a teen. But you can build confidence through experience, by simply starting at the best opportunity you have to initiate a relationship. Also, if you are a teen, Montana participates in an excellent annual program for Christian teens called teenpact which seeks to give you the tools to become an effective Christian citizen. Teenpact is a four-day series of classes and activities which teaches students about how Montana government works and how we can make our faith effectual in it through hands-on experience. While I have been unable to go in past years, friends to whom I have spoken about it found it enjoyable and applicable.
Lastly, we often underestimate the effect one person can have on the world around him, or, as Tim Echols, author of Real Citizenship, terms it, the “power of one.” In his book, Mr. Echols tells numerous illustrative stories of this impact one can have. For example, he tells of a Delta flight to Colorado Springs which included a highly inappropriate music video as part of the in-flight entertainment. He sent an email of complaint and after a cordial exchange of a few messages, Delta promised to remove the video from their flights and even to review their programming policy to ensure that such content was not shown again (Echols, 31-3). With just three emails Mr. Echols was able to purify a little piece of our culture. This could not have happened if he had merely mourned the decline of our country's morals as I so often do. He took action. We too must act in order to see change around us. I would encourage you to find where you can lobby today.
Bibliography
1. Gamwell, Franklin I. Politics as a Christian Vocation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2005.
2. Wood, James E., Jr., ed. Religion and Politics. Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 1983.
3. Dionne, E. J., Jr., Elshtain, Jean Bethke, and Kayla M. Drogosy, eds. One Electorate Under God?: A Dialogue on Religion and American Politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution P, 2004.
4. Forsythe, Clarke D. Politics for the Greatest Good. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009.
5. Forster, Greg. The Contested Public Square. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008.
6. Dunn, Charles W., ed. Religion in American Politics. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly P, 1989.
7. Beckwith, Francis J. Politics for Christians. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010.
8. VanDrunen, David M. "Christ and the State." Escondido, CA. 1/15/2010.
9. Byrd, Robert C. “Lobbyists” 1987. referenced: 4/20/2010 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd_History_Lobbying.htm
10. “Abortion Statistics” Alan Guttmacher Institute. http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm referenced: 4/23/2010
11. Dilulio, John J. Jr. Moral Poverty. Chicago Tribune
12. The Democracy Center. http://www.democracyctr.org/library/california/lobbying.htm referenced: 4/30/2010
13. “Downward Trend Continues” National Right to Life. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html referenced: 4/30/2010
14. Niewyk, Donald L.; Nicosia, Francis R. The Columbia guide to the Holocaust. West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2000.
15. Burke, Edmund. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Edmund_Burke/ referenced: 5/7/2010
16. Federal Research Council. “Fight ENDA.” https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?c=CHECKOUT&dmy=8B2F9E90-09FC-E9A1-381970512F693CEB&CFID=5660015&CFTOKEN=522ae7fcfd9e61e6-DF38A721-0145-555D-777857A9EA4914A9#confirm referenced: 5/12/2010
17. Bozeman Daily Chronicle. “Judge says grad's free speech wasn't violated.” 2009 (date unknown)
18. Echols, Tim G. Real Citizenship. Alamogordo, NM: Brunson Pub, 2004
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Sunset Gold
I mentioned that my two most common topics for poems are clouds and driving because planes and cars are boring. This is a poem written on a car trip about clouds. Make of that what you will. I was going to continue this the next morning about the sunrise, but I didn't see the sun come up. By the way, I'm hoping to post a series of two posts on beauty soon, so stay tuned!
Sunset Gold 4/30/2010
The stretching clouds are sifting light,
They're sifting out the harsher whites
and desert yellows, just like clumps from softly powdered flour.
And all that's left is sunset gold,
And buttercups from worlds old
forming in a gently drifting ever distant shower.
The golden fingers touch the hills
Of yon' horizon as it fills
the earth with glowing, dusky dimness, hour after hour.
The crimson fingers slowly die,
Their source lets out a silent cry,
the warm caress becomes a grip that slowly loses power.
Sunset Gold 4/30/2010
The stretching clouds are sifting light,
They're sifting out the harsher whites
and desert yellows, just like clumps from softly powdered flour.
And all that's left is sunset gold,
And buttercups from worlds old
forming in a gently drifting ever distant shower.
The golden fingers touch the hills
Of yon' horizon as it fills
the earth with glowing, dusky dimness, hour after hour.
The crimson fingers slowly die,
Their source lets out a silent cry,
the warm caress becomes a grip that slowly loses power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)