Throughout the early campaign season, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, continually harped on the need to present articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney while seemingly ignoring the fact that he, as a member of the US House of Representatives, could actually do such a thing. I always wondered why he chose to talk about it on the campaign trail as he sought the Democratic nomination for president rather than do something about it as a sitting representative. Well, he finally did it long after he was soundly trounced on the campaign trail and written off as a less-than-serious contender for the nomination.
The Philadelphia Inquirer recently kinda-sorta gave Mr. Kucinich suppressed applause for finally having had the gumption to submit the articles to the House even though the PI also acknowledged the Congress’ complicity in approving and funding the war effort. In the end, the PI gave Kucinich his due: “Having been read into the record, the impeachment articles now are likely to do no more than gather dust in committee. OK. But as least Kucinich did his part to place a footnote in the history books.”
At the VERY least, the articles of impeachment against the president have been read into the record, but what has been accomplished? What may well be noted in history’s footnotes is that there was apparently only one member of the Congress who felt it necessary to frivolously waste time submitting for consideration something that had no chance of even being considered because the president is only months away from being out of office anyway, which is what an impeachment conviction is ultimately designed to do.
If I were to make some kind of prediction, it will be that someone some distant day from now will actually say out loud, “President Bush was impeached” without filling in the rest of the blanks and telling the whole story: there was this one pissed-off congressman from Ohio, if I remember correctly, whom no one seemed to take seriously, but he wanted someone to know that he was here, I guess. The whole impeachment process takes months anyway. By the time the articles might have passed the House and the Senate made ready for the trial, President Bush would be another former president.
The joke is on us. Though impeachment is no laughing matter, one cannot help but to wonder if this is not some lame pay-back for President Clinton’s impeachment which actually did make it to trial in the Senate though he was exonerated. So it remains to be seen whether the next president will be impeached by some congressman with an ax to grind. Meanwhile the price of oil on the worldwide market is making history, and Congress is fighting tooth and nail to continue the current moratorium on domestic drilling. Energy research and development will take a back seat to a new windfall profits tax (which didn’t work 30 years ago), and there has actually been congressional talk about nationalizing this nation’s oil refineries.
Now we are in the midst of an election season. Though Congress will recess probably in August, there is no reason to believe that anything of substance will come from this Congress before then. Democrats will blame Republicans, and Republicans will blame Democrats and we will merrily reelected almost every one of these people all the while giving this Congress its lowest approval rating ever. Nothing will ever change in this Congress until this Congress is changed. If Obama continues to beat McCain over the head with his “more of the same” banner while we reelect the same people who have given us all this and more, “more of the same” will be the least of our worries.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Reflections of the Soul
Genesis 21:8-21
Romans 6:1b-11
Matthew 10:24-39
They say that the true character of a person is revealed in the choices they make when no one is watching. The world does watch, and watches carefully, for signs of faith as Christians work within the demands and expectations of our contemporary culture. Rev. William Obalil, a United Methodist elder in Geneva IL, suggests that the nature of our discipleship is revealed not only in what we do but also in our reasoning as justification for the choices we make. He writes: I fear not many weekly churchgoers are equipped to integrate what we hear and affirm in church with the concrete choices faced each day – at home, school, work, and marketplace. The result is functional atheism. Much of the time we operate as if God were not an active factor, let alone the decisive factor, in our decision-making. Yes, we engage in discrete religious practices. We go to church, we pray, we read the Bible, and we give time and money to acts of mercy. But we also act without considering God as a force to be reckoned with. We weigh a purchase, asking, “Can I afford it?” but not, “Am I being a faithful steward?”
It occurred to me as I reflected on Jesus’ discourse to His disciples that we pay a lot of attention to the life of Christ while He was physically present on the earth, but we do not seriously consider how it might have been for the disciples who followed Jesus throughout His time on earth, who lived and worked and worshipped with Jesus and knew Him to be within eye sight or ear shot. It could well be that the choices made by these disciples were tempered somewhat by the knowledge that Jesus was always nearby. Our theology teaches us that He is still nearby even if only spiritually, but do we really live our everyday lives as if we really believe that?
I have to admit that even as I think about religion or philosophy often and wonder how either may be reflected in what I have already done, I cannot say that I’ve given even half as much thought into something I may be ready to do BEFORE I actually do it. I am actually more inclined to act instinctively according to my own experiences and desires or according to cultural or social expectations and demands – or a little of both. And given the state of the current credit market crunch, for instance, I would suspect that I have not been the only one.
In Matthew’s discourse Jesus seems to be going off in several different directions at the same time almost as if He may be running down a list of generalities and then thinking, “Oh, and by the way …” There is a lot to take in, but the central theme seems to be about the active, and interactive, Divine Presence that responsible disciples should consider at every turn. It is especially revealing in verse 26: “… nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.” It is as if He is saying, ‘you can run but you cannot hide’!
Still, I think this is probably the wrong approach to take when reading and praying this passage. Our theology must never be reduced to perceiving of the Holy Father in such a negative light as that of a task master who rules with an iron fist because in verse 27 Jesus moves to something a little more positive in encouraging us to share what we know. This must surely be an indication that what we will have revealed to us is GOOD NEWS that others need to know about, so understanding something Jesus shares as a veiled threat does not fit well with all that He has tried to teach us.
“Everyone who acknowledges Me …”, contrary to popular belief, is not restricted to an opportunity for martyrdom or an e-mail that comes with the not-so-subtle “threat” “that those who deny Me will be denied …” if we fail to forward the e-mail to “at least 10 people”. Back to the very point that Rev. Obalil was trying to make regarding our moving about at work or school or in the public marketplace, I think maybe this part of Jesus’ discourse has everything to do with how we conduct ourselves and temper our purchase choices. Whether those around us know us as members of a local church or as Christians at all or not, what we do is a reflection of who we are and what we believe to be true. If our decision to act or refrain from acting is not determined by our knowledge that the Lord is nearby, then our act might be construed as a denial of the real presence of Christ. Honestly, this is a pretty overwhelming thought and more than a little unsettling.
“Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone {or anything} as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, either of sin which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness?” Romans 6:16
So whom do we pay homage to? Who gets our time and attention? The answer to these questions is revealed in everything we do, every choice we make. And Jesus does not make it easy for us, either. When He proclaims that He “brings not peace but a sword”, it may be a way of telling us that within this context which will certainly bring challenges that will test our limits, our proclamation – or denial – of Christ will be revealed in how we face up to these challenges, whatever they may be.
It is not an easy thing to be a disciple of Christ, and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise. Think of it this way. There are those who will avoid confrontation at almost all cost, and they mistakenly believe that such avoidance is an indication of weakness or fear. Think for a moment of how much strength is required to bite one’s tongue when one might rather unload on the offending person. It is not hard to curse someone who has wronged us, but it is almost physically painful to withdraw from a confrontation when we would rather not especially when it is our pride, and not the Gospel, that is on the line.
This is the challenge before disciples not only in the way we think through a purchase but in the way we deal with everyday life and everyday people. The world tells us that it is ok to “tell it like it is” or to “do it if it feels good”, but Jesus challenges us to offer something different. To “take up {His} cross” is to put aside our lives and our desires and our natural inclinations. When we are able to do so, it is then when we “lose {our} life for {His} sake” by choosing the spiritual and faith-filled alternative. Only then will our very souls be an accurate and honest reflection of Goodness and Mercy. Only then will our souls be a reflection of Christ when His life becomes ours, and our lives become His. It is what the world is hungry for, and we as disciples are the ones called to provide it.
Romans 6:1b-11
Matthew 10:24-39
They say that the true character of a person is revealed in the choices they make when no one is watching. The world does watch, and watches carefully, for signs of faith as Christians work within the demands and expectations of our contemporary culture. Rev. William Obalil, a United Methodist elder in Geneva IL, suggests that the nature of our discipleship is revealed not only in what we do but also in our reasoning as justification for the choices we make. He writes: I fear not many weekly churchgoers are equipped to integrate what we hear and affirm in church with the concrete choices faced each day – at home, school, work, and marketplace. The result is functional atheism. Much of the time we operate as if God were not an active factor, let alone the decisive factor, in our decision-making. Yes, we engage in discrete religious practices. We go to church, we pray, we read the Bible, and we give time and money to acts of mercy. But we also act without considering God as a force to be reckoned with. We weigh a purchase, asking, “Can I afford it?” but not, “Am I being a faithful steward?”
It occurred to me as I reflected on Jesus’ discourse to His disciples that we pay a lot of attention to the life of Christ while He was physically present on the earth, but we do not seriously consider how it might have been for the disciples who followed Jesus throughout His time on earth, who lived and worked and worshipped with Jesus and knew Him to be within eye sight or ear shot. It could well be that the choices made by these disciples were tempered somewhat by the knowledge that Jesus was always nearby. Our theology teaches us that He is still nearby even if only spiritually, but do we really live our everyday lives as if we really believe that?
I have to admit that even as I think about religion or philosophy often and wonder how either may be reflected in what I have already done, I cannot say that I’ve given even half as much thought into something I may be ready to do BEFORE I actually do it. I am actually more inclined to act instinctively according to my own experiences and desires or according to cultural or social expectations and demands – or a little of both. And given the state of the current credit market crunch, for instance, I would suspect that I have not been the only one.
In Matthew’s discourse Jesus seems to be going off in several different directions at the same time almost as if He may be running down a list of generalities and then thinking, “Oh, and by the way …” There is a lot to take in, but the central theme seems to be about the active, and interactive, Divine Presence that responsible disciples should consider at every turn. It is especially revealing in verse 26: “… nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.” It is as if He is saying, ‘you can run but you cannot hide’!
Still, I think this is probably the wrong approach to take when reading and praying this passage. Our theology must never be reduced to perceiving of the Holy Father in such a negative light as that of a task master who rules with an iron fist because in verse 27 Jesus moves to something a little more positive in encouraging us to share what we know. This must surely be an indication that what we will have revealed to us is GOOD NEWS that others need to know about, so understanding something Jesus shares as a veiled threat does not fit well with all that He has tried to teach us.
“Everyone who acknowledges Me …”, contrary to popular belief, is not restricted to an opportunity for martyrdom or an e-mail that comes with the not-so-subtle “threat” “that those who deny Me will be denied …” if we fail to forward the e-mail to “at least 10 people”. Back to the very point that Rev. Obalil was trying to make regarding our moving about at work or school or in the public marketplace, I think maybe this part of Jesus’ discourse has everything to do with how we conduct ourselves and temper our purchase choices. Whether those around us know us as members of a local church or as Christians at all or not, what we do is a reflection of who we are and what we believe to be true. If our decision to act or refrain from acting is not determined by our knowledge that the Lord is nearby, then our act might be construed as a denial of the real presence of Christ. Honestly, this is a pretty overwhelming thought and more than a little unsettling.
“Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone {or anything} as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, either of sin which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness?” Romans 6:16
So whom do we pay homage to? Who gets our time and attention? The answer to these questions is revealed in everything we do, every choice we make. And Jesus does not make it easy for us, either. When He proclaims that He “brings not peace but a sword”, it may be a way of telling us that within this context which will certainly bring challenges that will test our limits, our proclamation – or denial – of Christ will be revealed in how we face up to these challenges, whatever they may be.
It is not an easy thing to be a disciple of Christ, and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise. Think of it this way. There are those who will avoid confrontation at almost all cost, and they mistakenly believe that such avoidance is an indication of weakness or fear. Think for a moment of how much strength is required to bite one’s tongue when one might rather unload on the offending person. It is not hard to curse someone who has wronged us, but it is almost physically painful to withdraw from a confrontation when we would rather not especially when it is our pride, and not the Gospel, that is on the line.
This is the challenge before disciples not only in the way we think through a purchase but in the way we deal with everyday life and everyday people. The world tells us that it is ok to “tell it like it is” or to “do it if it feels good”, but Jesus challenges us to offer something different. To “take up {His} cross” is to put aside our lives and our desires and our natural inclinations. When we are able to do so, it is then when we “lose {our} life for {His} sake” by choosing the spiritual and faith-filled alternative. Only then will our very souls be an accurate and honest reflection of Goodness and Mercy. Only then will our souls be a reflection of Christ when His life becomes ours, and our lives become His. It is what the world is hungry for, and we as disciples are the ones called to provide it.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Ultimate Father’s Day Gift: by regeneration through baptism to give back to the Holy Father what was first His
2 Kings 5:1-15a
1 Peter 3:18-22
John 3:1-8
Before there can be any serious discussion about baptism, it is important for man to consider a couple of important theological truths:
1) man alone cannot cleanse and restore a soul by any means, and
2) the power and might of the Lord’s hand cannot be defined or restricted by any amount of water.
Exploring baptism, then, must necessarily revolve around what baptism is and who the Major Player is. There are obviously contrasts between denominations and traditions as to how baptism is practiced – and I hasten to add that NONE are “wrong” - but regardless of the chosen method or timing it must always be remembered that baptism is a time of celebration because it is the regeneration of life itself. It is also the very best that we can give to the Holy Father, most appropriately on this Father’s Day because we are taking those who once belonged to the world and are offering them back to the Him.
In and of itself baptism is a mystery which theologians have tried for generations to explain, but it does have profound significance in what it means to the life of Christ’s Holy Church because baptism is not necessarily an “individualized” event; it involves – in fact, REQUIRES – participation from the whole church because of what the whole Church represents: the very Body of Christ. Baptism, like so many other elements, is an act of worship as a Sacrament because it involves the spoken Word of the Lord our God AND our response.
Baptism is an act of initiation in which those who step forth voluntarily or those who are presented in faith are offered to the Lord in His Holy Church and in the presence of the entire congregation. Regardless of whether these who are presented can speak for themselves or will have someone speaking in their behalf, baptism as a Sacrament of Christ’s Holy Church brings them – BY AN ACT OF THE LORD GOD – into the fold of the faith and Christ’s Holy Church Universal which knows no denominational or geographic boundaries.
But when we try to determine for ourselves the appropriate age for baptism or the “proper” method by which man baptizes or restricts from the covenantal Sacrament those we determine are not worthy or ready or able, the essence of the Sacrament is diminished and we are left with more confusion than comfort, more division than unification. And when we try to determine for ourselves the precise prescription by taking what is only inferred in Scripture, we actually move further away from the Holy than we draw near by becoming bogged down in senseless arguments about rules man has created along the way.
Baptism is, now and always, an act of the Lord God. Our stepping forward is an act of faith. I think maybe it is important to understand the nature of the Covenant we enter into at baptism by looking back at the Covenant the Lord made with Abraham with circumcision as a sign of that Covenant. Listen carefully to the words of Genesis 17:9-14: “The Lord said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep My Covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is My Covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your offspring after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the Covenant between Me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slaves born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall My Covenant be in your flesh an everlasting Covenant.”
Take care not to get hung up on circumcision itself because in exploring the NATURE of the Covenant we must also remember the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-33. Paul and Silas had been imprisoned after casting out a demon, and while they were there they began signing hymns and praising the Lord God in the presence of the other prisoners. Then there was a great earthquake; chains were broken and the doors of the prison were opened. The jailer awoke and saw all this and was about to kill himself because he thought all the prisoners had fled, but then he heard Paul call out to him. The jailer came to believe and as a result of his own faith, “he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:33b).
Scripture does not tell us how many members the jailer’s family had nor are we told the ages of those who were baptized. What we can take from Acts and from Genesis is the very same message we can take from the life of Christ: we who know the Truth are responsible for the spiritual well-being of those who do not. Baptism is a sign of the Lord’s New Covenant just as circumcision was a sign of the Lord’s Covenant to Abraham. And just as Abraham was responsible for all those in his charge, child or slave or child of a slave, we are also responsible for those in our own charge especially when they cannot speak for themselves.
Most importantly of all is the Word which comes from Christ Himself: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) but take heart because this is not a threat of condemnation but is, instead, a PROMISE of LIFE! Baptism is a rite of passage, an initiation into the New Covenant by which all of mankind is invited to enter. There is no word of restriction as to who may come or who may be presented. The Word of the Lord God calls all of humanity into the New Covenant which is Christ the Lord. The initiation into this New Covenant is Baptism, and it begins the journey for all who desire the Peace and the Life of Christ not only for themselves but also for those whom they love. And it is an ultimate act of love and faith to give back to the Holy Father those who have been entrusted to us.
Baptism is an act of the Lord God Himself in His fullness and mercy. Let not man, by his finite wisdom and limited understanding, attempt to diminish the Lord’s mighty Hand. Amen.
1 Peter 3:18-22
John 3:1-8
Before there can be any serious discussion about baptism, it is important for man to consider a couple of important theological truths:
1) man alone cannot cleanse and restore a soul by any means, and
2) the power and might of the Lord’s hand cannot be defined or restricted by any amount of water.
Exploring baptism, then, must necessarily revolve around what baptism is and who the Major Player is. There are obviously contrasts between denominations and traditions as to how baptism is practiced – and I hasten to add that NONE are “wrong” - but regardless of the chosen method or timing it must always be remembered that baptism is a time of celebration because it is the regeneration of life itself. It is also the very best that we can give to the Holy Father, most appropriately on this Father’s Day because we are taking those who once belonged to the world and are offering them back to the Him.
In and of itself baptism is a mystery which theologians have tried for generations to explain, but it does have profound significance in what it means to the life of Christ’s Holy Church because baptism is not necessarily an “individualized” event; it involves – in fact, REQUIRES – participation from the whole church because of what the whole Church represents: the very Body of Christ. Baptism, like so many other elements, is an act of worship as a Sacrament because it involves the spoken Word of the Lord our God AND our response.
Baptism is an act of initiation in which those who step forth voluntarily or those who are presented in faith are offered to the Lord in His Holy Church and in the presence of the entire congregation. Regardless of whether these who are presented can speak for themselves or will have someone speaking in their behalf, baptism as a Sacrament of Christ’s Holy Church brings them – BY AN ACT OF THE LORD GOD – into the fold of the faith and Christ’s Holy Church Universal which knows no denominational or geographic boundaries.
But when we try to determine for ourselves the appropriate age for baptism or the “proper” method by which man baptizes or restricts from the covenantal Sacrament those we determine are not worthy or ready or able, the essence of the Sacrament is diminished and we are left with more confusion than comfort, more division than unification. And when we try to determine for ourselves the precise prescription by taking what is only inferred in Scripture, we actually move further away from the Holy than we draw near by becoming bogged down in senseless arguments about rules man has created along the way.
Baptism is, now and always, an act of the Lord God. Our stepping forward is an act of faith. I think maybe it is important to understand the nature of the Covenant we enter into at baptism by looking back at the Covenant the Lord made with Abraham with circumcision as a sign of that Covenant. Listen carefully to the words of Genesis 17:9-14: “The Lord said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep My Covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is My Covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your offspring after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the Covenant between Me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slaves born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall My Covenant be in your flesh an everlasting Covenant.”
Take care not to get hung up on circumcision itself because in exploring the NATURE of the Covenant we must also remember the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-33. Paul and Silas had been imprisoned after casting out a demon, and while they were there they began signing hymns and praising the Lord God in the presence of the other prisoners. Then there was a great earthquake; chains were broken and the doors of the prison were opened. The jailer awoke and saw all this and was about to kill himself because he thought all the prisoners had fled, but then he heard Paul call out to him. The jailer came to believe and as a result of his own faith, “he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:33b).
Scripture does not tell us how many members the jailer’s family had nor are we told the ages of those who were baptized. What we can take from Acts and from Genesis is the very same message we can take from the life of Christ: we who know the Truth are responsible for the spiritual well-being of those who do not. Baptism is a sign of the Lord’s New Covenant just as circumcision was a sign of the Lord’s Covenant to Abraham. And just as Abraham was responsible for all those in his charge, child or slave or child of a slave, we are also responsible for those in our own charge especially when they cannot speak for themselves.
Most importantly of all is the Word which comes from Christ Himself: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) but take heart because this is not a threat of condemnation but is, instead, a PROMISE of LIFE! Baptism is a rite of passage, an initiation into the New Covenant by which all of mankind is invited to enter. There is no word of restriction as to who may come or who may be presented. The Word of the Lord God calls all of humanity into the New Covenant which is Christ the Lord. The initiation into this New Covenant is Baptism, and it begins the journey for all who desire the Peace and the Life of Christ not only for themselves but also for those whom they love. And it is an ultimate act of love and faith to give back to the Holy Father those who have been entrusted to us.
Baptism is an act of the Lord God Himself in His fullness and mercy. Let not man, by his finite wisdom and limited understanding, attempt to diminish the Lord’s mighty Hand. Amen.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Judgment vs Experience: eye on the future or lessons from the past?
National Review Online editor and political commentator Jonah Goldberg recently explored the apparent contrast between Senator Barack Obama, the now-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Senator John McCain, the still-presumptive Republican presidential nominee that will pit not only philosophical but experiential differences between these two parties as well as between these two men. His conclusion: “…Obama is locked into a position despite the facts on the ground (regarding the Iraqi war front). Obama may indeed have great (not ‘greater’) judgment, but his record shows little experience employing it.”
Can it be that the continuing presence in Iraq is going to be the sole issue in this presidential campaign while there are so many other issues the next president will have to confront? No doubt the Democrats gained a slim majority in the Congress from the 2006 mid-term elections based almost entirely on the war in Iraq (congressional ethics a distance second, it seems), but is the nation so war-fatigued that a single issue can define an entire presidential race? If this is so, Senator McCain’s experience, regardless of how it is measured, may get trumped by Senator Obama’s perceived judgment only because too many Americans are tired of it all. The question remains, however, whether judgment is a natural attribute that some are born with or if judgment is born of experience. After all, one cannot judge fire to be hot without having been burned or at least have felt the heat.
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having once said: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other”, and Socrates seems to agree: “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” In other words, both seem to suggest that the only way we are ever going to gain the ability to make sound judgment calls is through experiences by which we have gained knowledge. None of this is to say that Obama lacks judgment in whatever it is that he has endured in his 46 years of life, but being a lawyer and a former state senator (and a very short-term US senator) does not equip one to deal with the issues that will face the next US president.
Since some have sought to draw parallels between Obama and JFK in charisma, charm, and relative youth, there have been suggestions during this campaign that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the US and the USSR to the brink of nuclear war, was wrought as much by JFK’s relative inexperience in dealing with a leader like Khrushchev beforehand as by Soviet Cold War military strategy. Such speculation may be unfair without significant context, but it may also be a fair assessment and comparison in how Obama may choose to work and negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding world-wide terrorism if he is indeed serious about talking with either nation’s leaders without preconditions. It could be dangerous to enter into such discussions without a significant knowledge of history and the root causes of these conflicts, and it will be a huge miscalculation to assume that it is only “poverty”. It will be an especially dire mistake to presume that the centuries-old conflict only got “bad” during the Bush administration.
Still, who is to say that a fresh face and a willingness to try something new will not bring a new perspective? There is a lot to be said for learning from mistakes of the past, but it is unclear whether such comparisons to past conflicts can adequately inform the US within the context of the challenges we face today around the globe. There is a lot to be said for straight talk from an experienced warrior who can perhaps stare down a rogue state leader and not blink or stutter. With McCain’s experience, however, comes the knowledge of a man who has come close more than once to physical confrontations even within the Senate with those whom he has had serious disagreements with. This is a time for calm, measured, calculated responses borne from solid experience. It will not be a training ground for newbies, and it certainly cannot be a school yard brawl as when hot-headed kids lose their tempers and don’t what else to do besides lash out.
It seems that genuine experience breeds unshakable confidence and sound judgment, but judgment without contextual experience can breed arrogance or grave miscalculations. Either way, a serious and experienced adversary can and will isolate, expose, and exploit the inevitable weakness. If this is actually what happened between JFK and Khrushchev, then it can be reasonable to assume that Khrushchev backed down in Cuba as a reasonable, measured response. If a similar confrontation occurs under these contemporary circumstances with this enemy that seems willing to die for its cause no matter the total outcome, one can only guess what that outcome may be.
The reality is that we are a nation at war whether we like it or not. The “world community” has not lost respect for us. It is that they see the US now not only as a partner with Israel but also as the same potential adversary: if you hit us, we will hit you back. Somehow, the “world community” does not seem to understand this, and US citizens are coming into a new presidential contest wanting security without understanding that the US, nor Israel, can simply lay down arms and expect others to follow suit.
This enemy we now face will not simply go away nor is there a national entity with which to negotiate. Which will we choose to confront this reality: judgment without context or experience, or experience by which judgment can be made? It seems to me that the next decade, and perhaps beyond, will be determined by the choice we will make in November.
Can it be that the continuing presence in Iraq is going to be the sole issue in this presidential campaign while there are so many other issues the next president will have to confront? No doubt the Democrats gained a slim majority in the Congress from the 2006 mid-term elections based almost entirely on the war in Iraq (congressional ethics a distance second, it seems), but is the nation so war-fatigued that a single issue can define an entire presidential race? If this is so, Senator McCain’s experience, regardless of how it is measured, may get trumped by Senator Obama’s perceived judgment only because too many Americans are tired of it all. The question remains, however, whether judgment is a natural attribute that some are born with or if judgment is born of experience. After all, one cannot judge fire to be hot without having been burned or at least have felt the heat.
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having once said: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other”, and Socrates seems to agree: “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” In other words, both seem to suggest that the only way we are ever going to gain the ability to make sound judgment calls is through experiences by which we have gained knowledge. None of this is to say that Obama lacks judgment in whatever it is that he has endured in his 46 years of life, but being a lawyer and a former state senator (and a very short-term US senator) does not equip one to deal with the issues that will face the next US president.
Since some have sought to draw parallels between Obama and JFK in charisma, charm, and relative youth, there have been suggestions during this campaign that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the US and the USSR to the brink of nuclear war, was wrought as much by JFK’s relative inexperience in dealing with a leader like Khrushchev beforehand as by Soviet Cold War military strategy. Such speculation may be unfair without significant context, but it may also be a fair assessment and comparison in how Obama may choose to work and negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding world-wide terrorism if he is indeed serious about talking with either nation’s leaders without preconditions. It could be dangerous to enter into such discussions without a significant knowledge of history and the root causes of these conflicts, and it will be a huge miscalculation to assume that it is only “poverty”. It will be an especially dire mistake to presume that the centuries-old conflict only got “bad” during the Bush administration.
Still, who is to say that a fresh face and a willingness to try something new will not bring a new perspective? There is a lot to be said for learning from mistakes of the past, but it is unclear whether such comparisons to past conflicts can adequately inform the US within the context of the challenges we face today around the globe. There is a lot to be said for straight talk from an experienced warrior who can perhaps stare down a rogue state leader and not blink or stutter. With McCain’s experience, however, comes the knowledge of a man who has come close more than once to physical confrontations even within the Senate with those whom he has had serious disagreements with. This is a time for calm, measured, calculated responses borne from solid experience. It will not be a training ground for newbies, and it certainly cannot be a school yard brawl as when hot-headed kids lose their tempers and don’t what else to do besides lash out.
It seems that genuine experience breeds unshakable confidence and sound judgment, but judgment without contextual experience can breed arrogance or grave miscalculations. Either way, a serious and experienced adversary can and will isolate, expose, and exploit the inevitable weakness. If this is actually what happened between JFK and Khrushchev, then it can be reasonable to assume that Khrushchev backed down in Cuba as a reasonable, measured response. If a similar confrontation occurs under these contemporary circumstances with this enemy that seems willing to die for its cause no matter the total outcome, one can only guess what that outcome may be.
The reality is that we are a nation at war whether we like it or not. The “world community” has not lost respect for us. It is that they see the US now not only as a partner with Israel but also as the same potential adversary: if you hit us, we will hit you back. Somehow, the “world community” does not seem to understand this, and US citizens are coming into a new presidential contest wanting security without understanding that the US, nor Israel, can simply lay down arms and expect others to follow suit.
This enemy we now face will not simply go away nor is there a national entity with which to negotiate. Which will we choose to confront this reality: judgment without context or experience, or experience by which judgment can be made? It seems to me that the next decade, and perhaps beyond, will be determined by the choice we will make in November.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Ideas and Ideals
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the actor Alec Baldwin “promised” in 2004 that if President Bush were to be reelected, he would leave the country. Well, President Bush was reelected, and I do not recall the banner heralding or mourning Mr. Baldwin’s departure. Now in 2008 actress Susan Sarandon is “threatening” to leave the country if John McCain is elected president and I am left wondering: am I missing something? Should I care what Ms. Sarandon thinks so much so that she will leave the country and my life will become a meaningless existence, void of anything of substance because of her departure?
One of the great (and equally infuriating) things about this republic is that we hold elections pretty regularly. Call it a job evaluation by which we determine whether those who currently hold the office have been living up to our expectations. Here’s the thing, though. The other voting members of the “committee” may not agree with my assessment, and those who disagree with me may well outnumber me. When the votes are counted, it will matter little how passionate I might have been about my own evaluation. What makes all this work, though, is my willingness to suck it up, respect the choices my opponents have made, and then make the most of it.
Sadly, we don’t seem to have this so much anymore. Far too many across this vast land have digressed to such a point that we no longer merely disagree with one another; we take disagreement as a personal affront to all that we hold near and dear. We take disagreement as a personal attack that requires a direct and equally personal counterattack, and we sincerely hope that we draw at least as much blood as we felt was taken from us. While doing this, we “charge” the other with sedition, accuse them of treason, and question their loyalty and patriotism when they do not agree with us. We call them just about any name that can be legally printed, and we feel like we are the only “true” defenders of this nation’s ideals.
I will grant that I will be gravely concerned about the direction of this country if either Democratic candidate wins the White House and the Democrats expand their majority in the Congress primarily because I am a Republican with Libertarian inclinations. I disagree with Democrats at almost every turn although I applaud them for sounding like a broken record in their insistence that we not forget about the MILLIONS of Americans who cannot afford good health care or health insurance. These are important issues that require some serious work, but calling names or leaving the country will not address the problems, let alone solve them.
Listening to the ugliness which is out there and growing more pronounced and profane, I am left to wonder exactly what it is we truly care about as a nation, as a people. Some claim that this nation is sliding toward the abyss because we have lost our Christian heritage and will ultimately face the Judgment Day with less than sufficient hope, but does this sort of message not betray the essence of the Christian faith? And are these charges and accusations not coming from Christians themselves who express nothing but raw hatred and disdain toward those with whom they disagree? Does this name-calling and finger-pointing not betray the principles of all that Jesus tried to teach us?
I am concerned, as a Christian, about the steady movement this nation is making toward homosexual marriage as an accepted practice and lifestyle and I am left wondering what sort of impact this will have on church and society, but I am not quite prepared to issue a proclamation of judgment that all homosexuals will be eternally condemned. This, too, betrays the ideal of the Christian faith that judgment will bring judgment. Is genuine hatred any less sinful than homosexuality?
It is certainly not cultural diversity that defines a people; it is commonality. What, pray tell, do Americans hold in common with one another? What principle or ideal do we commonly embrace as a people working toward a common goal? For that matter, what might be the common goal? That we need to respect one another is something we should all aspire to, but where will it take us? The “progressives” (formerly known as “liberals”) insist that we must continue to move forward. Fair enough, but where are we headed? Conservatives insist that we need to hold on to the past. Equally fair, but how far back are we willing to go?
This is an angry country, and we continually elect people into office who not only affirm our anger but also attempt to tell us who is to blame for all our misery. Republicans blamed President Clinton, and now Democrats blame President Bush. And we blame one another even though I am pretty sure that few of us can really pin down exactly what we are so anxious about that we are willing to destroy one another in our vain efforts to identify exactly what the problem may actually be. Denzel Washington’s character, Herman Boone, in the movie “Remember the Titans”, in his effort to bring white and black football players together as a common team with a common goal said it best while standing at a cemetery in Gettysburg PA: “If we do not learn to come together as a team, we will also be destroyed just as they (the buried soldiers) were.”
It is true enough, as Herman Boone also told his team, that we do not have to like one another, but we must learn to respect one another. And this requires the highest of Christian ideals: that we love one another. This does not mean that we have fond and warm feelings of emotion toward those with whom we would disagree, but it does mean that for the sake of others we would be willing to put self aside. That is the essence of Christian love, and it is identified by our genuine faith. It proves beyond any measure of doubt that we earnestly and honestly believe what Jesus said.
This is where we are isolated and identified as a people of common value, and it begins with us because we proclaim THE TRUTH of Christ and His Word. Anything less is the beginning of our ending, and politics will not even be given honorable mention on our headstone.
One of the great (and equally infuriating) things about this republic is that we hold elections pretty regularly. Call it a job evaluation by which we determine whether those who currently hold the office have been living up to our expectations. Here’s the thing, though. The other voting members of the “committee” may not agree with my assessment, and those who disagree with me may well outnumber me. When the votes are counted, it will matter little how passionate I might have been about my own evaluation. What makes all this work, though, is my willingness to suck it up, respect the choices my opponents have made, and then make the most of it.
Sadly, we don’t seem to have this so much anymore. Far too many across this vast land have digressed to such a point that we no longer merely disagree with one another; we take disagreement as a personal affront to all that we hold near and dear. We take disagreement as a personal attack that requires a direct and equally personal counterattack, and we sincerely hope that we draw at least as much blood as we felt was taken from us. While doing this, we “charge” the other with sedition, accuse them of treason, and question their loyalty and patriotism when they do not agree with us. We call them just about any name that can be legally printed, and we feel like we are the only “true” defenders of this nation’s ideals.
I will grant that I will be gravely concerned about the direction of this country if either Democratic candidate wins the White House and the Democrats expand their majority in the Congress primarily because I am a Republican with Libertarian inclinations. I disagree with Democrats at almost every turn although I applaud them for sounding like a broken record in their insistence that we not forget about the MILLIONS of Americans who cannot afford good health care or health insurance. These are important issues that require some serious work, but calling names or leaving the country will not address the problems, let alone solve them.
Listening to the ugliness which is out there and growing more pronounced and profane, I am left to wonder exactly what it is we truly care about as a nation, as a people. Some claim that this nation is sliding toward the abyss because we have lost our Christian heritage and will ultimately face the Judgment Day with less than sufficient hope, but does this sort of message not betray the essence of the Christian faith? And are these charges and accusations not coming from Christians themselves who express nothing but raw hatred and disdain toward those with whom they disagree? Does this name-calling and finger-pointing not betray the principles of all that Jesus tried to teach us?
I am concerned, as a Christian, about the steady movement this nation is making toward homosexual marriage as an accepted practice and lifestyle and I am left wondering what sort of impact this will have on church and society, but I am not quite prepared to issue a proclamation of judgment that all homosexuals will be eternally condemned. This, too, betrays the ideal of the Christian faith that judgment will bring judgment. Is genuine hatred any less sinful than homosexuality?
It is certainly not cultural diversity that defines a people; it is commonality. What, pray tell, do Americans hold in common with one another? What principle or ideal do we commonly embrace as a people working toward a common goal? For that matter, what might be the common goal? That we need to respect one another is something we should all aspire to, but where will it take us? The “progressives” (formerly known as “liberals”) insist that we must continue to move forward. Fair enough, but where are we headed? Conservatives insist that we need to hold on to the past. Equally fair, but how far back are we willing to go?
This is an angry country, and we continually elect people into office who not only affirm our anger but also attempt to tell us who is to blame for all our misery. Republicans blamed President Clinton, and now Democrats blame President Bush. And we blame one another even though I am pretty sure that few of us can really pin down exactly what we are so anxious about that we are willing to destroy one another in our vain efforts to identify exactly what the problem may actually be. Denzel Washington’s character, Herman Boone, in the movie “Remember the Titans”, in his effort to bring white and black football players together as a common team with a common goal said it best while standing at a cemetery in Gettysburg PA: “If we do not learn to come together as a team, we will also be destroyed just as they (the buried soldiers) were.”
It is true enough, as Herman Boone also told his team, that we do not have to like one another, but we must learn to respect one another. And this requires the highest of Christian ideals: that we love one another. This does not mean that we have fond and warm feelings of emotion toward those with whom we would disagree, but it does mean that for the sake of others we would be willing to put self aside. That is the essence of Christian love, and it is identified by our genuine faith. It proves beyond any measure of doubt that we earnestly and honestly believe what Jesus said.
This is where we are isolated and identified as a people of common value, and it begins with us because we proclaim THE TRUTH of Christ and His Word. Anything less is the beginning of our ending, and politics will not even be given honorable mention on our headstone.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Our gods ... or our God?
Isaiah 49:8-16a
Psalm 131
1 Corinthians 4:1-5
Matthew 6:24-34
“Hell is where you get what you want and have to live with it.”
- Stanley Hauerwas
How much is “too much”? How little is “not enough”? And by what standard do we measure either? Obviously the standard will depend on any number of variables including what part of the world we live in, but even in the United States we constantly debate these questions and wonder how it can be that some have far more than they can possibly need in a lifetime while others struggle just to make it through the day. The politicians try their level best to convince us that the so-called “middle class” is getting hammered while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. No matter what the particular issue is, there never seems to be a point in which contentment is ever achieved because once we reach a particular plateau we raise the standard. And we raise this standard according to society’s, and our own, expectations.
I think it is a mistake to believe that what Jesus is talking about in Matthew’s Gospel is restricted only to material goods; the entire sixth chapter has more to do with the conflicts which most of us endure in discovering where we are versus where we should be. The “needs” to which Jesus refers are the very basics of what we require: food and clothing, although we might also add shelter and transportation to the list. Beyond this, however, what more is there?
Even if we expand the list of basics to more accurately fit our own lives and our sense of need according to our particular circumstances, the whole point that Jesus is making has little to do with material acquisition. I think maybe it has more to do with the choices we make and the reasons for those choices in the context of His admonition to “seek first the kingdom of G-d and His righteousness”. Only when this is achieved, He seems to suggest, will we find our genuine needs fulfilled.
Strictly speaking, what needs could we possibly have beyond food and clothing? Some would suggest that my particular needs cannot be fairly compared to the needs of others, that it is unfair to suggest that any one of us could establish an acceptable standard by which genuine needs can be measured, and this would be a fair statement. I think the problem most of us might have with this passage is that what we think we need (or want) may be in direct conflict with what has perhaps been ordered for our lives and, most likely, our confusion between “want” and “need”. Spiritually speaking, where does this passage take us? How can we know that the “stuff” we have is not in some way restricting our ability to pray, for instance, with a clear mind and conscience? How can we know that we are making choices that may conflict with what Jesus is encouraging us to do?
I think perhaps the key word in this entire passage is “worry”. Who among us has not laid awake at night at one time or another in our lives worrying about one thing or another? I know that when I was younger and my wife and I were just starting out, I lost a lot of sleep worrying about how the bills were going to get paid. When I lost my job earlier this year, the first couple of weeks were perhaps the most difficult period of my entire life because, as I had shared previously, I had my entire existence, my very identity, enmeshed with my job. So when I lost my job, I lost my identity. Who among us has not faced similar challenges especially when so much depends on our paychecks?
It’s not easy living in today’s society, and I know there is a lot of intense concern about which way we may be headed especially in the context of the price of a gallon of fuel. I freely admit to you that I am gravely concerned about whether my wife and I will be able to sell our home before we leave for Magnolia. Carrying that mortgage for too long is going to be a huge financial burden for us. But this is the rub, isn’t it? I am concerned about something I cannot control. I might be able to manipulate a newspaper ad to get more people to look at the house, but I cannot force anyone to buy it.
Fuel and food prices, both of which are beyond our control, continue to worry so many yet there is little any one of us can do about it, so it is as Jesus says: Why are you so worried about tomorrow when you still have today to deal with? And will your lives be somehow enhanced or lengthened by worrying?
Our gifts to the Kingdom of Heaven are entirely dependent on how well we use what has been divinely bestowed on us, so “seeking the Kingdom” must be considered within the context of what we have each been called to do. Equally as important, however, is to consider the Living Word which seeks to offer to us “abundant life” not only in the Age To Come but also in the age in which we find ourselves.
Tomorrow is coming, and the great challenge to us all is to determine WHICH GOD we will choose to get us through it. Will it be the Eternal, Ageless and Living God who continues to work in and through the lives of His faithful, or will it be some lifeless god of this age which even within its lifeless existence continually demands, devours and ultimately destroys?
Worry not, dear friends. Our heavenly Father knows what we need. If we believe Jesus enough to get us into Heaven, it should not be a far stretch to believe Him enough to get us through today. We can then worry about tomorrow when it comes.
Psalm 131
1 Corinthians 4:1-5
Matthew 6:24-34
“Hell is where you get what you want and have to live with it.”
- Stanley Hauerwas
How much is “too much”? How little is “not enough”? And by what standard do we measure either? Obviously the standard will depend on any number of variables including what part of the world we live in, but even in the United States we constantly debate these questions and wonder how it can be that some have far more than they can possibly need in a lifetime while others struggle just to make it through the day. The politicians try their level best to convince us that the so-called “middle class” is getting hammered while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. No matter what the particular issue is, there never seems to be a point in which contentment is ever achieved because once we reach a particular plateau we raise the standard. And we raise this standard according to society’s, and our own, expectations.
I think it is a mistake to believe that what Jesus is talking about in Matthew’s Gospel is restricted only to material goods; the entire sixth chapter has more to do with the conflicts which most of us endure in discovering where we are versus where we should be. The “needs” to which Jesus refers are the very basics of what we require: food and clothing, although we might also add shelter and transportation to the list. Beyond this, however, what more is there?
Even if we expand the list of basics to more accurately fit our own lives and our sense of need according to our particular circumstances, the whole point that Jesus is making has little to do with material acquisition. I think maybe it has more to do with the choices we make and the reasons for those choices in the context of His admonition to “seek first the kingdom of G-d and His righteousness”. Only when this is achieved, He seems to suggest, will we find our genuine needs fulfilled.
Strictly speaking, what needs could we possibly have beyond food and clothing? Some would suggest that my particular needs cannot be fairly compared to the needs of others, that it is unfair to suggest that any one of us could establish an acceptable standard by which genuine needs can be measured, and this would be a fair statement. I think the problem most of us might have with this passage is that what we think we need (or want) may be in direct conflict with what has perhaps been ordered for our lives and, most likely, our confusion between “want” and “need”. Spiritually speaking, where does this passage take us? How can we know that the “stuff” we have is not in some way restricting our ability to pray, for instance, with a clear mind and conscience? How can we know that we are making choices that may conflict with what Jesus is encouraging us to do?
I think perhaps the key word in this entire passage is “worry”. Who among us has not laid awake at night at one time or another in our lives worrying about one thing or another? I know that when I was younger and my wife and I were just starting out, I lost a lot of sleep worrying about how the bills were going to get paid. When I lost my job earlier this year, the first couple of weeks were perhaps the most difficult period of my entire life because, as I had shared previously, I had my entire existence, my very identity, enmeshed with my job. So when I lost my job, I lost my identity. Who among us has not faced similar challenges especially when so much depends on our paychecks?
It’s not easy living in today’s society, and I know there is a lot of intense concern about which way we may be headed especially in the context of the price of a gallon of fuel. I freely admit to you that I am gravely concerned about whether my wife and I will be able to sell our home before we leave for Magnolia. Carrying that mortgage for too long is going to be a huge financial burden for us. But this is the rub, isn’t it? I am concerned about something I cannot control. I might be able to manipulate a newspaper ad to get more people to look at the house, but I cannot force anyone to buy it.
Fuel and food prices, both of which are beyond our control, continue to worry so many yet there is little any one of us can do about it, so it is as Jesus says: Why are you so worried about tomorrow when you still have today to deal with? And will your lives be somehow enhanced or lengthened by worrying?
Our gifts to the Kingdom of Heaven are entirely dependent on how well we use what has been divinely bestowed on us, so “seeking the Kingdom” must be considered within the context of what we have each been called to do. Equally as important, however, is to consider the Living Word which seeks to offer to us “abundant life” not only in the Age To Come but also in the age in which we find ourselves.
Tomorrow is coming, and the great challenge to us all is to determine WHICH GOD we will choose to get us through it. Will it be the Eternal, Ageless and Living God who continues to work in and through the lives of His faithful, or will it be some lifeless god of this age which even within its lifeless existence continually demands, devours and ultimately destroys?
Worry not, dear friends. Our heavenly Father knows what we need. If we believe Jesus enough to get us into Heaven, it should not be a far stretch to believe Him enough to get us through today. We can then worry about tomorrow when it comes.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Memorial Day 2008
Several years ago I worked with a retired sailor whose tours of duty included time in Vietnam as well as other posts around the world. Back to work after a Memorial Day weekend, he was dismayed that during worship services that Sunday the pastor did little more than to mention Memorial Day in a pastoral prayer. The Navy man felt as though the pastor had somehow betrayed the fallen by failing to make the essence of Memorial Day the focus of the worship service. This man was not too open to the possibility that the pastor’s focus was true and proper in giving thanks to the Lord for our nation and her principles as well as for those who were willing to put themselves in harm’s way, to fight for those who could not – or would not – fight for themselves. For the Navy man, this was completely inadequate.
While I can appreciate the sentiment of the retired sailor who undoubtedly saw more action, more danger and certainly more heartbreak and heartache than I did during my relatively brief stint as a Marine, worship is reserved exclusively for the Lord God and Him alone. Those who have gone before us, those who have fallen in armed conflict throughout our nation’s history, can rightly have a special place in the heart of a grateful nation – as well they should – but they must never be considered a focus of worship on any level lest we come to believe that our salvation and that of the entire nation is dependent on the actions of any selfless man or woman. We must also be mindful, I think, that too much emphasis on dying for one’s country has the potential to romanticize war without fully appreciating that those we memorialize are those who died an unnatural death long before their potential as human beings could be fully realized or appreciated.
There is something else which must be taken into account when memorializing the fallen. While we who signed up to serve certainly knew that there is risk involved in putting on the uniform of the United States military, I think there were few who eagerly anticipated the day when the “ultimate sacrifice” might be required. I was already a husband and father when I enlisted. I did not sign up to become someone’s memory or a lifeless stone in Arlington VA, and I had no designs on dying in combat as the highest ideal of military service. I must also say that I did not eagerly await the day when I could possibly make someone else die for his own country as a means of victory for my own. I believed then, as I believe now, that it was simply time to take my turn to stand watch. Of course I had high ideals about what serving in such a capacity meant, but I honestly do not recall believing much more than that it was my turn to serve.
Assuming that all who have fallen believed as I did when they each signed up, does this somehow diminish the sacrifice that any made? There are countless stories of self-sacrifice and heroism that come from armed conflicts. Indeed, it is inscribed on the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington VA: “Uncommon valor was a common virtue”. It must be remembered that it is the duty of the commander to focus on the mission. Lacking any combat experiences, I will still suggest that in the heat of battle the focus and mission for the fighting soldier will soon enough become survival. It is perhaps the nature of humanity that we have something inherent within us that drives us to survive. We are also social creatures by nature, many with an instinct to protect. This sense of valor must surely be what produces a hero, one who acts with complete disregard for his or her own personal safety for the sake of others. Lest there be any doubt, there is no shortage of such men and women who have served, are serving, or will one day serve.
Let us be mindful this Memorial Day that we do not “celebrate” the premature death of young Americans who died well before their time. We must never fall into the trap of thanking the Lord that these men and women died in our stead. We should mourn their passing and offer undying support for those they left behind. These who continue to mourn and those who will mourn tomorrow are worthy of our focus of support and prayers. To be sure, these were, are and will be the ones who have quite literally given to the nation all that was dear to them.
This Memorial Day let us not glamorize war as the ultimate adventure. Let us instead memorialize those who served in their sense of duty and civic responsibility and were caught up in wars borne of man and his insatiable greed and/or lust for power (and no, this is not a cheap swipe at President Bush!). And let us never forget to honor those wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, and children who are left behind by offering to them our gratitude, our support, and our prayers. The fallen are safely now in the hands of the Almighty; the living are now, and still, in ours.
While I can appreciate the sentiment of the retired sailor who undoubtedly saw more action, more danger and certainly more heartbreak and heartache than I did during my relatively brief stint as a Marine, worship is reserved exclusively for the Lord God and Him alone. Those who have gone before us, those who have fallen in armed conflict throughout our nation’s history, can rightly have a special place in the heart of a grateful nation – as well they should – but they must never be considered a focus of worship on any level lest we come to believe that our salvation and that of the entire nation is dependent on the actions of any selfless man or woman. We must also be mindful, I think, that too much emphasis on dying for one’s country has the potential to romanticize war without fully appreciating that those we memorialize are those who died an unnatural death long before their potential as human beings could be fully realized or appreciated.
There is something else which must be taken into account when memorializing the fallen. While we who signed up to serve certainly knew that there is risk involved in putting on the uniform of the United States military, I think there were few who eagerly anticipated the day when the “ultimate sacrifice” might be required. I was already a husband and father when I enlisted. I did not sign up to become someone’s memory or a lifeless stone in Arlington VA, and I had no designs on dying in combat as the highest ideal of military service. I must also say that I did not eagerly await the day when I could possibly make someone else die for his own country as a means of victory for my own. I believed then, as I believe now, that it was simply time to take my turn to stand watch. Of course I had high ideals about what serving in such a capacity meant, but I honestly do not recall believing much more than that it was my turn to serve.
Assuming that all who have fallen believed as I did when they each signed up, does this somehow diminish the sacrifice that any made? There are countless stories of self-sacrifice and heroism that come from armed conflicts. Indeed, it is inscribed on the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington VA: “Uncommon valor was a common virtue”. It must be remembered that it is the duty of the commander to focus on the mission. Lacking any combat experiences, I will still suggest that in the heat of battle the focus and mission for the fighting soldier will soon enough become survival. It is perhaps the nature of humanity that we have something inherent within us that drives us to survive. We are also social creatures by nature, many with an instinct to protect. This sense of valor must surely be what produces a hero, one who acts with complete disregard for his or her own personal safety for the sake of others. Lest there be any doubt, there is no shortage of such men and women who have served, are serving, or will one day serve.
Let us be mindful this Memorial Day that we do not “celebrate” the premature death of young Americans who died well before their time. We must never fall into the trap of thanking the Lord that these men and women died in our stead. We should mourn their passing and offer undying support for those they left behind. These who continue to mourn and those who will mourn tomorrow are worthy of our focus of support and prayers. To be sure, these were, are and will be the ones who have quite literally given to the nation all that was dear to them.
This Memorial Day let us not glamorize war as the ultimate adventure. Let us instead memorialize those who served in their sense of duty and civic responsibility and were caught up in wars borne of man and his insatiable greed and/or lust for power (and no, this is not a cheap swipe at President Bush!). And let us never forget to honor those wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, and children who are left behind by offering to them our gratitude, our support, and our prayers. The fallen are safely now in the hands of the Almighty; the living are now, and still, in ours.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Pay as you go
The Democrats, upon taking majority control of the Congress in 2006, made “pay as you go” a staple of what they promised to bring to the management of the US government. In a nutshell, it was simply this: if we cannot afford it, we will not take it. The problem with such a premise, however, is not whether we can genuinely afford something but whether we can withstand the actuality that if it is a program that promises the sun and the moon and the stars to voters, there will be a tax increase to pay for it. With the Democrat’s top two contenders for the presidency and with the very real prospect of an overwhelming and virtually veto-proof Democratic majority in the Congress in 2008, it promises to be a very expensive next term for Americans regardless of who occupies the White House in 2009.
“Pay as you go” is a good idea for American households as the current national credit crisis will testify. Americans, as evidenced by the crumbling mortgage market, have been buying more than they can actually afford and not only with homes. Consumer credit levels also indicate that many American households lack the discipline required to save for those big-ticket items that only a few short years ago would have required lay-away programs or savings accounts. Over the years in efforts to sell more stuff, companies that once specialized in making this stuff became their own financiers and made buying their stuff much easier, offering credit to less-than-creditworthy consumers which did nothing more than to create more havoc in the credit markets. And the cycle goes endlessly on.
The difference between the American consumer and the American Congress in a “pay as you go” scheme can be boiled down to this: consumers cannot go to their employers and “take” a pay raise in order to finance their enhanced lifestyles while Congress can put a dress on a pig and convince Americans that the latest tax increase is for our own good, sort of like President Clinton’s record-breaking tax increase. Like in other “revenue enhancements” or “investments” (government dressing the pig), regardless of what any may choose to call it, the government will take it whether we can afford it or not and Americans will do with less. Why? Because some government “leader” has a New Idea that will somehow make our lives better in the long run. And in the coming potential Democrat-controlled Congress and possibly a Democratic president, the American consumer’s life is about to be “enhanced” to an unbelievable level because the Congress is determined to “pay as you go”.
For the poor and the so-called Middle Class, it all sounds good when the Congress promises to make the rich “pay their fair share”, and it especially sounds good when a skilled political strategist can convince a politician that this is what the rank-and-file citizen wants to hear because that politician is seeking to “help” us by hammering someone else. What they fail to tell us, however, is that the rich folks in this country pay their lawful taxes according to the laws established by the very Congress that promises to “get ‘em” (the rich) for us. This is to say, there are enormous loopholes in the US tax code which enables those with means to pay less in taxes by substantial write-offs. These write-offs were brought to light during the 2004 presidential campaign as John Kerry and John Edwards were promising to soak the rich in order to pay off the growing deficit. Vice President Cheney reminded John Edwards during their debate that Mr. Edwards wrote off some $600,000.00 worth of income by certain investments that were protected by the tax code (Senator Kerry was also enjoying some of the same tax shelter benefits because both he and Senator Edwards were both men of substantial means).
The only thing wrong with this scenario is that it pointed out that the only reason rich people are not paying their “fair share” is that Congress has granted them the means by which to avoid such payments. Rich people have resources that enable them to make substantial write-offs, and there is nothing illegal about it. Many are highly questionable as to whether the tax code is fair, but the Congress created the laws which enable the rich to write off. Rather than repeal these laws and make the tax code more equitable, there is talk of “penalty” taxes reminiscent of the Clinton administration on incomes exceeding presumably the ambiguous line between Middle Class and rich.
In a “pay as you go” environment it is much easier to take more money to finance questionable expenses than to roll up one’s sleeves and figure out that something is actually not affordable. It is much easier to “soak the rich” in order to appease the masses than to simply say to these masses, “We simply cannot afford this”, especially in an election year.
The Congress lacks the ability or the will to simply say “no” to more government programs and bail-outs which makes the “pay as you go” promise to America perhaps one of the most dangerous, ill-advised, and expensive governments we will ultimately be forced to endure and in the end the poor will still be poor but will be receiving more government aid, the middle class will still struggle to make ends meet, and the rich will still have their write-offs because too many members of Congress also take advantage of these same write-offs. Honestly, would any of us deliberately choose to cut our own throats?
“Pay as you go” has to go far beyond simply making the ends meet. The premise must be founded upon the reality that there is only so much money to go around, and the government can only take so much out of the US economy without substantial harm. Let us hope that these Democrats who have promised us all that is under the sun can actually deliver responsibly and recognize that material wealth, in and of itself, is not the enemy of a sound economy or responsible government.
“Pay as you go” is a good idea for American households as the current national credit crisis will testify. Americans, as evidenced by the crumbling mortgage market, have been buying more than they can actually afford and not only with homes. Consumer credit levels also indicate that many American households lack the discipline required to save for those big-ticket items that only a few short years ago would have required lay-away programs or savings accounts. Over the years in efforts to sell more stuff, companies that once specialized in making this stuff became their own financiers and made buying their stuff much easier, offering credit to less-than-creditworthy consumers which did nothing more than to create more havoc in the credit markets. And the cycle goes endlessly on.
The difference between the American consumer and the American Congress in a “pay as you go” scheme can be boiled down to this: consumers cannot go to their employers and “take” a pay raise in order to finance their enhanced lifestyles while Congress can put a dress on a pig and convince Americans that the latest tax increase is for our own good, sort of like President Clinton’s record-breaking tax increase. Like in other “revenue enhancements” or “investments” (government dressing the pig), regardless of what any may choose to call it, the government will take it whether we can afford it or not and Americans will do with less. Why? Because some government “leader” has a New Idea that will somehow make our lives better in the long run. And in the coming potential Democrat-controlled Congress and possibly a Democratic president, the American consumer’s life is about to be “enhanced” to an unbelievable level because the Congress is determined to “pay as you go”.
For the poor and the so-called Middle Class, it all sounds good when the Congress promises to make the rich “pay their fair share”, and it especially sounds good when a skilled political strategist can convince a politician that this is what the rank-and-file citizen wants to hear because that politician is seeking to “help” us by hammering someone else. What they fail to tell us, however, is that the rich folks in this country pay their lawful taxes according to the laws established by the very Congress that promises to “get ‘em” (the rich) for us. This is to say, there are enormous loopholes in the US tax code which enables those with means to pay less in taxes by substantial write-offs. These write-offs were brought to light during the 2004 presidential campaign as John Kerry and John Edwards were promising to soak the rich in order to pay off the growing deficit. Vice President Cheney reminded John Edwards during their debate that Mr. Edwards wrote off some $600,000.00 worth of income by certain investments that were protected by the tax code (Senator Kerry was also enjoying some of the same tax shelter benefits because both he and Senator Edwards were both men of substantial means).
The only thing wrong with this scenario is that it pointed out that the only reason rich people are not paying their “fair share” is that Congress has granted them the means by which to avoid such payments. Rich people have resources that enable them to make substantial write-offs, and there is nothing illegal about it. Many are highly questionable as to whether the tax code is fair, but the Congress created the laws which enable the rich to write off. Rather than repeal these laws and make the tax code more equitable, there is talk of “penalty” taxes reminiscent of the Clinton administration on incomes exceeding presumably the ambiguous line between Middle Class and rich.
In a “pay as you go” environment it is much easier to take more money to finance questionable expenses than to roll up one’s sleeves and figure out that something is actually not affordable. It is much easier to “soak the rich” in order to appease the masses than to simply say to these masses, “We simply cannot afford this”, especially in an election year.
The Congress lacks the ability or the will to simply say “no” to more government programs and bail-outs which makes the “pay as you go” promise to America perhaps one of the most dangerous, ill-advised, and expensive governments we will ultimately be forced to endure and in the end the poor will still be poor but will be receiving more government aid, the middle class will still struggle to make ends meet, and the rich will still have their write-offs because too many members of Congress also take advantage of these same write-offs. Honestly, would any of us deliberately choose to cut our own throats?
“Pay as you go” has to go far beyond simply making the ends meet. The premise must be founded upon the reality that there is only so much money to go around, and the government can only take so much out of the US economy without substantial harm. Let us hope that these Democrats who have promised us all that is under the sun can actually deliver responsibly and recognize that material wealth, in and of itself, is not the enemy of a sound economy or responsible government.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Blessed be the Name
Psalm 8
2 Corinthians 13:11-13
Matthew 28:16-20
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.
’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself. William Shakespeare
“A rose by any other name …” is a phrase often used in common speech to settle arguments over what something must be called in order to be accurate. Simply put, it is a challenge to stop “splitting hairs” over something that may otherwise be insignificant. Although I’ve often heard the same thing referring to the foul smell of manure, this comparison would not do for what I hope to achieve in this writing.
For as long as I can remember, it has always struck me as rather odd that the Lord is referred to as simply “God”. The English translations have pretty much narrowed down the references so that no matter the context in which the Lord’s name is invoked, it is simply reduced to “God”. I suppose the reason why it strikes me so strangely is that I was raised by parents who insisted that I address my elders with a title such as Mr. or Mrs. In the south, addressing an elder by first name is ok as long as Mr. or Mrs. is attached to the front. Always, it was taught to me, it is appropriate to show respect for our elders.
The Marine Corps is no exception to this rule. Everyone has a title, or rank, and it always precedes the person’s last name such as Captain Smith or Corporal Jones. And because the military has strict rules regarding fraternization, addressing superiors by rank maintains a certain degree of separation between the higher ranking officers and the enlisted. It all has to do with discipline and respect, and it matters especially on the battlefield in the midst of carrying out a mission. If we are too familiar or too chummy with those who outrank us and they command us to do something we would rather not do, we might feel free to question the order in the presence of others especially if the order or command does not suit us. In such a situation, such delays can cause the unnecessary loss of life or limb, the mission itself is in jeopardy, and the “former” leader’s role is forever diminished.
It has also been my experience that being too chummy in the workplace can be detrimental to the morale of the work force because supervisors will always have their favorites and by their actions make these favorites well known to the rest of the crew. It is also reasonable that genuine friendships can develop between these bosses and the favorites among the rank-and-file. It’s all fine and dandy until the boss has to actually fulfill the role of “boss” in order to get something done. It is then when the “boss” will find out who his or her friends really are or worse, the “boss” may consistently assign those less-than-desirable duties to someone not in his “inner circle”. Sooner or later, this imbalance will manifest itself in morale-diminishing ways. No matter how you slice it, nothing good will come of it and “fair” is the last thing that will be evident.
Last but certainly not least, the degree of separation in the home is also important for many of the same reasons. Children do not need their parents to be “buddies”; they need their parents to be the parents. Children need the guidance, the wisdom, the experience, and the discipline that can only come from responsible, godly parents who see their roles as leaders of the household not purely for the sake of a well-ordered home but also as opportunities to teach their children how to function not only culturally but also theologically. We as parents have an opportunity, in fact an obligation, to teach our children how to respect the Holy Father. We should also probably pay a little extra attention to how we teach our children to address the Lord. We would not allow our children to call us by our first names for what should be obvious reasons. Why would we teach them to address our Holy God and Father with any less respect?
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7
This commandment has too often been oversimplified so that many will misunderstand that a familiar swear word is the prime example of what this commandment actually means. However, Judaism takes this commandment very seriously, and I wonder if Christians would not do well to follow this example of reverence and respect.
In the first place, at least in the Hebrew language, “God” is not the Lord’s name. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any reference to an actual proper name that can be attributed to the Lord. And according to some scholars, attempting to restrict Him to a single, proper name is akin to attempting to strictly define Him in human terms which, of course, is impossible. In the second place, in Judaism the Lord’s name is unspoken outside of a worship setting. It has been suggested that this particular prohibition stems from Ezekiel which is set in Babylon during the Exile. The Jews were in what was considered to be an “unclean” land which would have been unworthy of His Holiness and give “unclean” people the opportunity to besmirch the Holy Name (Hashem) since the Jews were, for lack of a better word, imprisoned. How “mighty” could be a God who would allow such a thing to happen to His chosen people?
Speaking His name so casually, in the context of this prohibition, suggests a certain lack of reverence and respect and diminishes the degree of separation in which it is understood that He is the Holy God worthy of intense awe and respect. We have casually come to understand Jesus in purely human terms as our “buddy” without realizing or even appreciating the reverence with which He is both addressed in the Gospels and referred to in the Epistles. He was “teacher”, “master”, “lord”, or “messiah” but never simply “Jesus”. Even if we get an image in our mind’s eye that the Lord laughed, joked, and played with His friends and certainly with children, there was still a degree of separation between Him and His disciples. It could well have been from an understanding and appreciation for the tradition and practice that may stem from Ezekiel’s time and school, but the disciples still acknowledged by manner of address that Jesus was not exactly their “equal”.
Is there a useful purpose in even worrying about something as seemingly inconsequential as what His name actually is or in a proper way of addressing or referring to Him? “A rose by any other name …” seems to fit here. After all, what we call Him cannot by any means change His essence. Is it just a language thing? I respectfully submit to you that the manner in which we address Him or refer to Him has everything to do with how seriously we regard Him and His Word. Think of how many Christians are involved in the political process and how nasty the campaigns progressively grow over the years. The name-calling, the accusations, the finger-pointing, fact-twisting and quote-manipulation, the overall nastiness is no indication of what we claim to believe and if the evidence of how we regard the Lord Himself is not apparent in our words or deeds, there exists no evidence at all. It grows progressively nasty from generation to generation because we are teaching our children by our example.
Or perhaps it is that what we really believe and how seriously we regard the Lord is entirely evident in our irreverence for life and disrespect toward our fellow man, especially those with whom we have disagreements, political or theological.
I think maybe it all matters in how we regard the so-called “Great Commission”. The words are attributed to the Risen Christ, spoken by “the word made flesh”. If we really believe that the Lord God and the Christ are One and the same, then we must believe that the words come to us from the Almighty Himself who does not show an inclination to mince words. A spoken word from Him is The Word, and we will receive it in the same manner in which we regard Him.
If we have no respect, no real respect, or reverence for Him or His Essence, then we can have no real respect for His Word. We will feel free to “talk back” or to sass Him just as children will sass an adult if they have not been taught respect for genuine authority. Or it could be like the buck private who lacks any sense of discipline or respect for authority when he is ordered to “duck” but chooses instead to turn and question the reason for the order. It is then when not only is his life in danger, but he also compromises the well-being of his entire unit, each member depending on the other to do what he is supposed to do.
The Lord created an entire world in six days. When the world threatened to overwhelm us, He came to us to show us the way home. That He is entitled to our respect and awe is an understatement.
2 Corinthians 13:11-13
Matthew 28:16-20
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.
’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself. William Shakespeare
“A rose by any other name …” is a phrase often used in common speech to settle arguments over what something must be called in order to be accurate. Simply put, it is a challenge to stop “splitting hairs” over something that may otherwise be insignificant. Although I’ve often heard the same thing referring to the foul smell of manure, this comparison would not do for what I hope to achieve in this writing.
For as long as I can remember, it has always struck me as rather odd that the Lord is referred to as simply “God”. The English translations have pretty much narrowed down the references so that no matter the context in which the Lord’s name is invoked, it is simply reduced to “God”. I suppose the reason why it strikes me so strangely is that I was raised by parents who insisted that I address my elders with a title such as Mr. or Mrs. In the south, addressing an elder by first name is ok as long as Mr. or Mrs. is attached to the front. Always, it was taught to me, it is appropriate to show respect for our elders.
The Marine Corps is no exception to this rule. Everyone has a title, or rank, and it always precedes the person’s last name such as Captain Smith or Corporal Jones. And because the military has strict rules regarding fraternization, addressing superiors by rank maintains a certain degree of separation between the higher ranking officers and the enlisted. It all has to do with discipline and respect, and it matters especially on the battlefield in the midst of carrying out a mission. If we are too familiar or too chummy with those who outrank us and they command us to do something we would rather not do, we might feel free to question the order in the presence of others especially if the order or command does not suit us. In such a situation, such delays can cause the unnecessary loss of life or limb, the mission itself is in jeopardy, and the “former” leader’s role is forever diminished.
It has also been my experience that being too chummy in the workplace can be detrimental to the morale of the work force because supervisors will always have their favorites and by their actions make these favorites well known to the rest of the crew. It is also reasonable that genuine friendships can develop between these bosses and the favorites among the rank-and-file. It’s all fine and dandy until the boss has to actually fulfill the role of “boss” in order to get something done. It is then when the “boss” will find out who his or her friends really are or worse, the “boss” may consistently assign those less-than-desirable duties to someone not in his “inner circle”. Sooner or later, this imbalance will manifest itself in morale-diminishing ways. No matter how you slice it, nothing good will come of it and “fair” is the last thing that will be evident.
Last but certainly not least, the degree of separation in the home is also important for many of the same reasons. Children do not need their parents to be “buddies”; they need their parents to be the parents. Children need the guidance, the wisdom, the experience, and the discipline that can only come from responsible, godly parents who see their roles as leaders of the household not purely for the sake of a well-ordered home but also as opportunities to teach their children how to function not only culturally but also theologically. We as parents have an opportunity, in fact an obligation, to teach our children how to respect the Holy Father. We should also probably pay a little extra attention to how we teach our children to address the Lord. We would not allow our children to call us by our first names for what should be obvious reasons. Why would we teach them to address our Holy God and Father with any less respect?
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7
This commandment has too often been oversimplified so that many will misunderstand that a familiar swear word is the prime example of what this commandment actually means. However, Judaism takes this commandment very seriously, and I wonder if Christians would not do well to follow this example of reverence and respect.
In the first place, at least in the Hebrew language, “God” is not the Lord’s name. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any reference to an actual proper name that can be attributed to the Lord. And according to some scholars, attempting to restrict Him to a single, proper name is akin to attempting to strictly define Him in human terms which, of course, is impossible. In the second place, in Judaism the Lord’s name is unspoken outside of a worship setting. It has been suggested that this particular prohibition stems from Ezekiel which is set in Babylon during the Exile. The Jews were in what was considered to be an “unclean” land which would have been unworthy of His Holiness and give “unclean” people the opportunity to besmirch the Holy Name (Hashem) since the Jews were, for lack of a better word, imprisoned. How “mighty” could be a God who would allow such a thing to happen to His chosen people?
Speaking His name so casually, in the context of this prohibition, suggests a certain lack of reverence and respect and diminishes the degree of separation in which it is understood that He is the Holy God worthy of intense awe and respect. We have casually come to understand Jesus in purely human terms as our “buddy” without realizing or even appreciating the reverence with which He is both addressed in the Gospels and referred to in the Epistles. He was “teacher”, “master”, “lord”, or “messiah” but never simply “Jesus”. Even if we get an image in our mind’s eye that the Lord laughed, joked, and played with His friends and certainly with children, there was still a degree of separation between Him and His disciples. It could well have been from an understanding and appreciation for the tradition and practice that may stem from Ezekiel’s time and school, but the disciples still acknowledged by manner of address that Jesus was not exactly their “equal”.
Is there a useful purpose in even worrying about something as seemingly inconsequential as what His name actually is or in a proper way of addressing or referring to Him? “A rose by any other name …” seems to fit here. After all, what we call Him cannot by any means change His essence. Is it just a language thing? I respectfully submit to you that the manner in which we address Him or refer to Him has everything to do with how seriously we regard Him and His Word. Think of how many Christians are involved in the political process and how nasty the campaigns progressively grow over the years. The name-calling, the accusations, the finger-pointing, fact-twisting and quote-manipulation, the overall nastiness is no indication of what we claim to believe and if the evidence of how we regard the Lord Himself is not apparent in our words or deeds, there exists no evidence at all. It grows progressively nasty from generation to generation because we are teaching our children by our example.
Or perhaps it is that what we really believe and how seriously we regard the Lord is entirely evident in our irreverence for life and disrespect toward our fellow man, especially those with whom we have disagreements, political or theological.
I think maybe it all matters in how we regard the so-called “Great Commission”. The words are attributed to the Risen Christ, spoken by “the word made flesh”. If we really believe that the Lord God and the Christ are One and the same, then we must believe that the words come to us from the Almighty Himself who does not show an inclination to mince words. A spoken word from Him is The Word, and we will receive it in the same manner in which we regard Him.
If we have no respect, no real respect, or reverence for Him or His Essence, then we can have no real respect for His Word. We will feel free to “talk back” or to sass Him just as children will sass an adult if they have not been taught respect for genuine authority. Or it could be like the buck private who lacks any sense of discipline or respect for authority when he is ordered to “duck” but chooses instead to turn and question the reason for the order. It is then when not only is his life in danger, but he also compromises the well-being of his entire unit, each member depending on the other to do what he is supposed to do.
The Lord created an entire world in six days. When the world threatened to overwhelm us, He came to us to show us the way home. That He is entitled to our respect and awe is an understatement.
Monday, May 12, 2008
the REAL Pursuit of Happiness
There is a non-profit program offering academic enrichment, martial arts, media production classes, mentoring, exposure to renowned writers such as Rudyard Kipling, and field trips to places like Washington. All this is made possible to enable young children from the Mississippi Delta to dream beyond the borders of their small and empoverished existence. It began as Freedom Summer 1964 when college kids descended on Mississippi to teach black children in so-called freedom schools and help register their parents to vote. In a nutshell, it is a program that offers to children an opportunity to see something much bigger than life in the Delta.
There are currently 42 kids enrolled in the program. According to writer Leonard Pitts, Jr., the families of these kids are asked to pay $300 per year. The program is funded with this money as well as grants from donors such as the Kellogg Foundation. According to Mr. Pitts, these enrolled students (from middle school and up) “see their reading scores improve by a grade level and overall grades rise by 15 percent. These same children who stick with the program and make it to that sixth year have so far had 100 percent college enrollment and high school graduation rates."
These are awesome numbers, but notice that there seems to be something missing. Mr. Pitts mentions no government assistance or interference. Couple this with such schools as Harvard and Stanford waiving tuition fees for enrolling students who qualify both financially and academically, and we have a formula for success for young people who had previously never thought it possible to be a “laser tech”, as one student aspires to be, and attend such high-end schools as MIT or Harvard.
There is more about this project that I don’t know, but this I do know: it is the essence of the United States and the American Dream that these young people have every reason to hope for and dream of. I think we have mistakenly thought of The American Dream as restricted only to a notion of working in fields of endeavor we had never thought possible or attending college or finally buying our own home. The true essence of all that is good is found in the young people who volunteer their time and talents to make such dreams possible and the students who make the most of it.
We have mistakenly believed the American Dream to be defined and summarized by owning our own homes, but I think it goes much deeper than material possessions. When we are free to pursue anything, especially that which extends beyond self, and be completely free from government intervention, we embody all that this nation holds dear to its heart, and the “pursuit of happiness” takes on a whole new meaning.
The Freedom Project was founded in 1998 by Chris Myers Asch and Shawn Raymond, alumni of Teach for America, which recruits recent college graduates to teach in urban and rural schools, and by Charles McLaurin, an organizer of the original Freedom Summer. How much more amazing can the American Dream actually be when we come to realize the profound impact such unselfish dreams can have on dreams yet to be realized? And all without a government that more and more seeks to be all things to all people.
Thank you, Mr. Pitts, for bringing this to our attention. It is refreshing to read of such things within an election season in which politicians “promise” the same things but never seem to deliver.
There are currently 42 kids enrolled in the program. According to writer Leonard Pitts, Jr., the families of these kids are asked to pay $300 per year. The program is funded with this money as well as grants from donors such as the Kellogg Foundation. According to Mr. Pitts, these enrolled students (from middle school and up) “see their reading scores improve by a grade level and overall grades rise by 15 percent. These same children who stick with the program and make it to that sixth year have so far had 100 percent college enrollment and high school graduation rates."
These are awesome numbers, but notice that there seems to be something missing. Mr. Pitts mentions no government assistance or interference. Couple this with such schools as Harvard and Stanford waiving tuition fees for enrolling students who qualify both financially and academically, and we have a formula for success for young people who had previously never thought it possible to be a “laser tech”, as one student aspires to be, and attend such high-end schools as MIT or Harvard.
There is more about this project that I don’t know, but this I do know: it is the essence of the United States and the American Dream that these young people have every reason to hope for and dream of. I think we have mistakenly thought of The American Dream as restricted only to a notion of working in fields of endeavor we had never thought possible or attending college or finally buying our own home. The true essence of all that is good is found in the young people who volunteer their time and talents to make such dreams possible and the students who make the most of it.
We have mistakenly believed the American Dream to be defined and summarized by owning our own homes, but I think it goes much deeper than material possessions. When we are free to pursue anything, especially that which extends beyond self, and be completely free from government intervention, we embody all that this nation holds dear to its heart, and the “pursuit of happiness” takes on a whole new meaning.
The Freedom Project was founded in 1998 by Chris Myers Asch and Shawn Raymond, alumni of Teach for America, which recruits recent college graduates to teach in urban and rural schools, and by Charles McLaurin, an organizer of the original Freedom Summer. How much more amazing can the American Dream actually be when we come to realize the profound impact such unselfish dreams can have on dreams yet to be realized? And all without a government that more and more seeks to be all things to all people.
Thank you, Mr. Pitts, for bringing this to our attention. It is refreshing to read of such things within an election season in which politicians “promise” the same things but never seem to deliver.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Back to the Basics
A few years ago I had a serious conflict with my own faith after having read a particular book that turned everything I thought I believed to be true upside down. It was not so much that my own faith was not strong enough to withstand such a challenge. Instead it turned out to be that the faith I thought to be my own actually belonged to all those who had taught me as a child. More than anything, I believed whatever I did believe not because I had learned to embrace it but because the faith was never my own; it belonged to everyone else. To simply be told that “this is what you are supposed to believe” either because the Church said so, or because you might go to hell if you don’t is just not good enough. It never was, and it never will be.
Because I found myself somewhat lost and perceived my doubts as a genuine spiritual crisis, I decided that I had to go back to the basics and start over. To help facilitate this new journey, I decided to attend worship at a Jewish temple in Little Rock. It turned out to be a Reformed congregation, but I don’t think this mattered much. What mattered most was that, at least in my own mind, I was exploring the faith that Jesus called His own. It also mattered that the worship experience was interesting because it was new, but it was also difficult to keep up because most of the service was in Hebrew. Thankfully, however, there was enough English scattered here and there that I was able to at least stay with the flow. The worship was pure and honest even if it was almost entirely read from a prayer book. The entire congregation was involved.
I’ve not attended worship at the temple since so I cannot say that this is how it is each Sabbath, but the salvation story of the Exodus is told from the time of Abraham all the way to Moses. It made me think of Ezekiel and the return to basics that seemed to be the theme of his proclamation to the Jews in Babylon, that the exile was the nation’s punishment for turning its back on YHWH; therefore it was time to remember the story, tell it over and again, and then teach it. Even in the midst of exile, the people of Judah were reminded that they were a people set apart for one clear purpose: to glorify YHWH to the nations. Instead, what had gotten them into hot water with the Lord was their willingness to be assimilated into the foreign cultures which surrounded them. Their distinction as a people had been lost and, ultimately, so had their freedom.
A couple of weeks ago as I was packing some books in preparation for my move, I came across a book that had been given to me some time ago entitled Old Testament Theology in Outline by Walther Zimmerli. It is a back-to-basics approach to study of the Hebrew texts which, of course, have to come before we can fully comprehend or even appreciate the New Testament. In fact, it is my considered opinion that the New Testament has virtually no context apart from the Hebrew texts.
I suppose what has gotten me back on this religious back-to-basics kick is the feeling that, more and more, we as a church are more in the business of marketing and advertising than in worship and ministry. I have a hard time putting into words exactly what I feel about modern religion in America, but I find the media advertising to be border-line distasteful simply because folks already know there are churches and they already know where most of them are located. I don’t think this is the intent, but advertising religion or a particular denomination on TV is almost like a deodorant commercial in that the marketing folks are attempting to manipulate viewers into trying their product.
I realize that “manipulate” may be too strong a word for the actual intent, but is there worship or ministry in spending millions of dollars for media advertising? And if our advertising actually gets them into the door, what will we show them once they arrive? My heart tells me that a seeker should come into a door of any church, regardless of denomination, and find pure and honest worship, not feeble attempts at entertainment or the grasping of straws in a vain effort to provide “something for everyone” … everyone, that is, except the Lord God Himself.
This is to say that I have found at some churches I have visited an attempt by the church itself to focus its attention in manner and matter of worship on the congregation and their particular likes and dislikes. I wonder how much attention is actually given to whether or not a particular gathering is pleasing to the Holy Father? Is it “good enough” that there are many persons in attendance even if their focus is not on the Lord? Is it “good enough” that we would suggest that the Lord does not care where we attend church just as long as we simply “show up”? What, exactly, is “good enough” for the Holy God and Father of the Faith? What, exactly, is “good enough” for the God of the Exodus? What, exactly, is “good enough” for the God of the New Covenant who offers Eternal Life to all who would come to drink of the Living Water of Christ?
For that matter, what, exactly, constitutes good and proper “worship”? What, exactly, is required of us that our time in church would be “good enough” for the Holy God and Father of our Faith? What, exactly, constitutes proper worship of the God of the Exodus? What, exactly, is pleasing in the sight of the God and Father of the New Covenant? What, exactly, is a means of worship by which we would dare to approach the Altar from whence flows the Living Water of the Christ?
Of course the true worship of the Lord God must not be restricted to our corporate time together. To glorify the Lord is to speak to His true essence, to live our faith and practice our religion in such a way that His will is evident to non-believers. To glorify is relatively simple to explore and to define. What is true and proper worship, however, might be a little trickier but find it, identify it, and embrace it we must. But we must also do it in such a way that our entire focus is on Him alone and what we choose to bring to Him.
I think maybe the essence of true and genuine worship revolves around this relatively simple concept: what do WE bring to the Table of the Lord? I think there must also be a certain level of expectation as well. In other words, do we come to worship with the full expectation that we will encounter the Holy Spirit, to be renewed and refreshed as well as equipped by the Lord to carry out His perfect will according to those gifts which have been divinely imparted to us as individuals? I think maybe this is the essence of Pentecost and is thus the essence of the Holy God and Father of the New Covenant.
We as believers are indeed a people set apart from the rest of our contemporary culture, but we cannot face this culture alone lest we become party to the prevailing culture. This, too, is the essence of Pentecost. It is who we are, or at least it is who we claim to be. Whether it is good and true depends entirely upon whether or not we are willing; “able” rests securely in the mighty hand of the Holy God of the Exodus, the Holy God of the New Covenant, the Holy God and Father of our deliverance.
Peace be with you.
Because I found myself somewhat lost and perceived my doubts as a genuine spiritual crisis, I decided that I had to go back to the basics and start over. To help facilitate this new journey, I decided to attend worship at a Jewish temple in Little Rock. It turned out to be a Reformed congregation, but I don’t think this mattered much. What mattered most was that, at least in my own mind, I was exploring the faith that Jesus called His own. It also mattered that the worship experience was interesting because it was new, but it was also difficult to keep up because most of the service was in Hebrew. Thankfully, however, there was enough English scattered here and there that I was able to at least stay with the flow. The worship was pure and honest even if it was almost entirely read from a prayer book. The entire congregation was involved.
I’ve not attended worship at the temple since so I cannot say that this is how it is each Sabbath, but the salvation story of the Exodus is told from the time of Abraham all the way to Moses. It made me think of Ezekiel and the return to basics that seemed to be the theme of his proclamation to the Jews in Babylon, that the exile was the nation’s punishment for turning its back on YHWH; therefore it was time to remember the story, tell it over and again, and then teach it. Even in the midst of exile, the people of Judah were reminded that they were a people set apart for one clear purpose: to glorify YHWH to the nations. Instead, what had gotten them into hot water with the Lord was their willingness to be assimilated into the foreign cultures which surrounded them. Their distinction as a people had been lost and, ultimately, so had their freedom.
A couple of weeks ago as I was packing some books in preparation for my move, I came across a book that had been given to me some time ago entitled Old Testament Theology in Outline by Walther Zimmerli. It is a back-to-basics approach to study of the Hebrew texts which, of course, have to come before we can fully comprehend or even appreciate the New Testament. In fact, it is my considered opinion that the New Testament has virtually no context apart from the Hebrew texts.
I suppose what has gotten me back on this religious back-to-basics kick is the feeling that, more and more, we as a church are more in the business of marketing and advertising than in worship and ministry. I have a hard time putting into words exactly what I feel about modern religion in America, but I find the media advertising to be border-line distasteful simply because folks already know there are churches and they already know where most of them are located. I don’t think this is the intent, but advertising religion or a particular denomination on TV is almost like a deodorant commercial in that the marketing folks are attempting to manipulate viewers into trying their product.
I realize that “manipulate” may be too strong a word for the actual intent, but is there worship or ministry in spending millions of dollars for media advertising? And if our advertising actually gets them into the door, what will we show them once they arrive? My heart tells me that a seeker should come into a door of any church, regardless of denomination, and find pure and honest worship, not feeble attempts at entertainment or the grasping of straws in a vain effort to provide “something for everyone” … everyone, that is, except the Lord God Himself.
This is to say that I have found at some churches I have visited an attempt by the church itself to focus its attention in manner and matter of worship on the congregation and their particular likes and dislikes. I wonder how much attention is actually given to whether or not a particular gathering is pleasing to the Holy Father? Is it “good enough” that there are many persons in attendance even if their focus is not on the Lord? Is it “good enough” that we would suggest that the Lord does not care where we attend church just as long as we simply “show up”? What, exactly, is “good enough” for the Holy God and Father of the Faith? What, exactly, is “good enough” for the God of the Exodus? What, exactly, is “good enough” for the God of the New Covenant who offers Eternal Life to all who would come to drink of the Living Water of Christ?
For that matter, what, exactly, constitutes good and proper “worship”? What, exactly, is required of us that our time in church would be “good enough” for the Holy God and Father of our Faith? What, exactly, constitutes proper worship of the God of the Exodus? What, exactly, is pleasing in the sight of the God and Father of the New Covenant? What, exactly, is a means of worship by which we would dare to approach the Altar from whence flows the Living Water of the Christ?
Of course the true worship of the Lord God must not be restricted to our corporate time together. To glorify the Lord is to speak to His true essence, to live our faith and practice our religion in such a way that His will is evident to non-believers. To glorify is relatively simple to explore and to define. What is true and proper worship, however, might be a little trickier but find it, identify it, and embrace it we must. But we must also do it in such a way that our entire focus is on Him alone and what we choose to bring to Him.
I think maybe the essence of true and genuine worship revolves around this relatively simple concept: what do WE bring to the Table of the Lord? I think there must also be a certain level of expectation as well. In other words, do we come to worship with the full expectation that we will encounter the Holy Spirit, to be renewed and refreshed as well as equipped by the Lord to carry out His perfect will according to those gifts which have been divinely imparted to us as individuals? I think maybe this is the essence of Pentecost and is thus the essence of the Holy God and Father of the New Covenant.
We as believers are indeed a people set apart from the rest of our contemporary culture, but we cannot face this culture alone lest we become party to the prevailing culture. This, too, is the essence of Pentecost. It is who we are, or at least it is who we claim to be. Whether it is good and true depends entirely upon whether or not we are willing; “able” rests securely in the mighty hand of the Holy God of the Exodus, the Holy God of the New Covenant, the Holy God and Father of our deliverance.
Peace be with you.
Monday, April 28, 2008
It Occurs to Me ...
“He who covers his sins shall not prosper; but those who confess and forsake them shall have mercy.” Proverbs 28:13
It occurs to me as I awake and start lining out my day that I pay little attention to the Lord and His way for my day. Instead I make my coffee, get the newspaper and see what happened in the world, check the online news services for updated information, and then decide what I need to be doing today especially since I’m preparing to sell my home and relocate for my first full-time pastorate. Though it is difficult to classify what I do as I line out my day as “sinful”, failing to give the Lord His due as I prepare to start my day certainly has the potential to keep that door open.
Being spiritually ambivalent is dangerous because there is no gray area when it comes to our allegiance to the Lord just as Jesus told His disciples that “he who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.” (Matthew 12:30) I think maybe it is as simple as this: if we do not align ourselves with Him first thing each day we risk facing each day alone. We may not be actively involved in evil, but we may also miss something good.
To merely exist until death is not the way of a disciple of Christ. We have a charge to keep and a task to go about in whatever way is conducive to our particular gifts. It is to our advantage and certainly to His glory that we be mindful of this as the core of our existence and do our work and go about our day just as if we had invited Him to walk with us. Imagine a world behaving as if the Prince of Peace were watching!
It occurs to me as I awake and start lining out my day that I pay little attention to the Lord and His way for my day. Instead I make my coffee, get the newspaper and see what happened in the world, check the online news services for updated information, and then decide what I need to be doing today especially since I’m preparing to sell my home and relocate for my first full-time pastorate. Though it is difficult to classify what I do as I line out my day as “sinful”, failing to give the Lord His due as I prepare to start my day certainly has the potential to keep that door open.
Being spiritually ambivalent is dangerous because there is no gray area when it comes to our allegiance to the Lord just as Jesus told His disciples that “he who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.” (Matthew 12:30) I think maybe it is as simple as this: if we do not align ourselves with Him first thing each day we risk facing each day alone. We may not be actively involved in evil, but we may also miss something good.
To merely exist until death is not the way of a disciple of Christ. We have a charge to keep and a task to go about in whatever way is conducive to our particular gifts. It is to our advantage and certainly to His glory that we be mindful of this as the core of our existence and do our work and go about our day just as if we had invited Him to walk with us. Imagine a world behaving as if the Prince of Peace were watching!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
IF
Acts 17:22-31
1 Peter 3:13-22
John 14:15-21
If we were to paint a portrait of our faith - not what we think it should be nor what we think it is but rather how it really is - what might it look like? What sorts of colors and hews and shapes and abstracts would be involved in order to proclaim a faith by which we declare ourselves redeemed or saved or preserved or whatever other word we may choose to describe that faith and what it really means to us – or whether it really means anything at all?
Would it look like a Picasso with the weird faces that don’t really look like faces? Might it look like an abstract that in most ways may resemble only what could be more accurately described as a paint spill? Would it be a colorful clown that might amuse some but might also remind others of “Pennywise”, the spooky clown featured in the Stephen King novel and movie It? Or perhaps it might look something like a landscape, a serene waterfall cascading down from a snow-capped mountain backdrop feeding a creek that courses its way through a meadow with soft rolling hills featuring nature at its finest and purest?
To be sure, art is abstract. Art is the attempt to tell a story or express emotions set to colors or music or drawings or even poetic words and phrases. I am not particularly artsy though I love classical music. Some poetry has profound expressions that I sometimes enjoy even if I don’t always understand what the poet is truly trying to say. And as far as paintings go, I look at the picture itself and see only whether it pleases my senses or my sense of style or decoration, neither of which I really have anyway. I only want to determine whether it will match the environment in which I will choose to apply it. In this sense, I couldn’t care less what the artist was trying to say. I need only to know whether it suits me and my own purpose … or whether I even need it at all.
I often wonder how it is that religion and faith fit into our lives and whether these are abstract notions that we find difficult to define, or if they are both something very real, very tangible to which we are affiliated and which we heartily embrace not for our own sakes but for the sake of something much greater and larger than self. How we approach and evaluate our faith may have everything to do with whether we can put it down on paper or canvas or whether we can set it to music beyond picking a favorite hymn. It might also be that we would fall far short of Peter’s encouragement to “be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands of you an accounting for the hope that is in you …” (1 Peter 3:15) Are we able to express this in words or music or a painting that will match the decorum of our soul, or is our faith as abstract and difficult to define as art itself?
Try to consider for a moment what St. Paul is encountering in Athens. Imagine him walking around and taking in the sights and the temples and the statues and the monuments when suddenly he finds the one marked, “To an unknown god”. It is apparent by what is written in Acts that Paul is fully prepared to give a good defense, but he does not tell the story by demanding adherence to a particular doctrine or practice. Instead he chooses to paint a picture by telling a story, and he starts from pretty much the beginning in order to establish a relevant background. It would be the difference between painting a full portrait of our faith or simply taking a snapshot with a Polaroid. Which is going to offer a fuller expression?
Notice also how he not only expresses his own sense of hope but also hands to the Athenians a hope they can possibly embrace for themselves when he states that the earth was inhabited by God’s own creation “so that they would search for God … and find Him.” Paul then adds a little of the words of Athenian poets who expressed that “we, too, are His offspring.” (Acts 17:27-28) It would appear, then, that a story is beginning to take shape without demanding anything of the Athenians except an open ear and an open heart. He appeals to their intellect, most certainly, but he also gives them a perspective from which they can define faith’s foundation. The words he offers to them are not without some meaning and some context within their own society and way of thinking, and he attempts to force nothing upon them that they are not ready for.
Jesus says that the fruit of our love for Him will manifest itself in our obedience to His commandments. If we were to attempt to draw a portrait of this image, what would it look like? Which “commandment” would we choose to portray? It tends to be that we likely have a more negative connotation of what “commandment” may look like, and the image conveyed would probably more resemble a Man of War dressed for battle. “Commandment” is typically associated with “you better not or else” rather than expressing the hope, the foundation, and the opportunities for ministry that abound in its proper context. Before we can paint this portrait to express our own understanding of what it is and what it may look like, we must first be able to embrace it for what it really is.
I never cared much for “or else” theology although I will be the first to submit that there are expectations and moral standards required of us no less so than what the Lord expected and demanded of the Israelites because the purpose of these “commandments” reaches far beyond self. They are our witness, our sure faith, our certain hope that there is something far Greater than what we can hope to attain or to achieve for and by ourselves.
It is, dear friends, the portrait of our faith that identifies a satisfied hunger and a quenched thirst to those so desperately searching for genuine meaning to an otherwise bleak and purposeless existence. It is the portrait that tells the whole story …. IF we are prepared to embrace it ourselves.
1 Peter 3:13-22
John 14:15-21
If we were to paint a portrait of our faith - not what we think it should be nor what we think it is but rather how it really is - what might it look like? What sorts of colors and hews and shapes and abstracts would be involved in order to proclaim a faith by which we declare ourselves redeemed or saved or preserved or whatever other word we may choose to describe that faith and what it really means to us – or whether it really means anything at all?
Would it look like a Picasso with the weird faces that don’t really look like faces? Might it look like an abstract that in most ways may resemble only what could be more accurately described as a paint spill? Would it be a colorful clown that might amuse some but might also remind others of “Pennywise”, the spooky clown featured in the Stephen King novel and movie It? Or perhaps it might look something like a landscape, a serene waterfall cascading down from a snow-capped mountain backdrop feeding a creek that courses its way through a meadow with soft rolling hills featuring nature at its finest and purest?
To be sure, art is abstract. Art is the attempt to tell a story or express emotions set to colors or music or drawings or even poetic words and phrases. I am not particularly artsy though I love classical music. Some poetry has profound expressions that I sometimes enjoy even if I don’t always understand what the poet is truly trying to say. And as far as paintings go, I look at the picture itself and see only whether it pleases my senses or my sense of style or decoration, neither of which I really have anyway. I only want to determine whether it will match the environment in which I will choose to apply it. In this sense, I couldn’t care less what the artist was trying to say. I need only to know whether it suits me and my own purpose … or whether I even need it at all.
I often wonder how it is that religion and faith fit into our lives and whether these are abstract notions that we find difficult to define, or if they are both something very real, very tangible to which we are affiliated and which we heartily embrace not for our own sakes but for the sake of something much greater and larger than self. How we approach and evaluate our faith may have everything to do with whether we can put it down on paper or canvas or whether we can set it to music beyond picking a favorite hymn. It might also be that we would fall far short of Peter’s encouragement to “be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands of you an accounting for the hope that is in you …” (1 Peter 3:15) Are we able to express this in words or music or a painting that will match the decorum of our soul, or is our faith as abstract and difficult to define as art itself?
Try to consider for a moment what St. Paul is encountering in Athens. Imagine him walking around and taking in the sights and the temples and the statues and the monuments when suddenly he finds the one marked, “To an unknown god”. It is apparent by what is written in Acts that Paul is fully prepared to give a good defense, but he does not tell the story by demanding adherence to a particular doctrine or practice. Instead he chooses to paint a picture by telling a story, and he starts from pretty much the beginning in order to establish a relevant background. It would be the difference between painting a full portrait of our faith or simply taking a snapshot with a Polaroid. Which is going to offer a fuller expression?
Notice also how he not only expresses his own sense of hope but also hands to the Athenians a hope they can possibly embrace for themselves when he states that the earth was inhabited by God’s own creation “so that they would search for God … and find Him.” Paul then adds a little of the words of Athenian poets who expressed that “we, too, are His offspring.” (Acts 17:27-28) It would appear, then, that a story is beginning to take shape without demanding anything of the Athenians except an open ear and an open heart. He appeals to their intellect, most certainly, but he also gives them a perspective from which they can define faith’s foundation. The words he offers to them are not without some meaning and some context within their own society and way of thinking, and he attempts to force nothing upon them that they are not ready for.
Jesus says that the fruit of our love for Him will manifest itself in our obedience to His commandments. If we were to attempt to draw a portrait of this image, what would it look like? Which “commandment” would we choose to portray? It tends to be that we likely have a more negative connotation of what “commandment” may look like, and the image conveyed would probably more resemble a Man of War dressed for battle. “Commandment” is typically associated with “you better not or else” rather than expressing the hope, the foundation, and the opportunities for ministry that abound in its proper context. Before we can paint this portrait to express our own understanding of what it is and what it may look like, we must first be able to embrace it for what it really is.
I never cared much for “or else” theology although I will be the first to submit that there are expectations and moral standards required of us no less so than what the Lord expected and demanded of the Israelites because the purpose of these “commandments” reaches far beyond self. They are our witness, our sure faith, our certain hope that there is something far Greater than what we can hope to attain or to achieve for and by ourselves.
It is, dear friends, the portrait of our faith that identifies a satisfied hunger and a quenched thirst to those so desperately searching for genuine meaning to an otherwise bleak and purposeless existence. It is the portrait that tells the whole story …. IF we are prepared to embrace it ourselves.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Right and the Wrong
I cannot help but to wonder exactly what the real issue is behind the legal raid at the FLDS compound in west Texas that has led to the removal of over 400 children who will presumably be placed in foster care pending a thorough investigation of what was really happening inside this enclosed community of polygamous Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). It should be noted here that these do not have official ties to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the LDS having stopped the practice of polygamy many moons ago.
To be sure, the law was granted an excuse to raid the compound by an anonymous, alleged 16-year-old girl who made a phone call and insisted that she had been forced to marry a 50-year-old man and bear his children. In our greater society, this is just plain wrong not only because of her age but because we just do not believe in “shotgun weddings” or arranged marriages. It is not our way because women are human beings, not possessions to be bartered or sold. Still, this alleged child-bride has yet to be identified, so we don’t really know who made the call or what actually took place. Given this seemingly insignificant detail, however, we must consider that any disgruntled person could have made that call for any number of reasons. Anonymity has its place but when one is accused of legal transgressions, one must surely have a right to face one’s accusers.
What did the law find upon its raid of the FLDS compound? Judging by the media reports they found a community that looks after itself, cares for one another, shares resources, and educates its happy, healthy children. The only real proof of abuse currently rests exclusively on an as yet unidentified caller. No doubt they will find, or have already found, child brides but what are we really seeing? It is a culture that seems foreign to us because it is different and chooses to segregate itself from American culture (however this may be defined), but there are inconsistencies which should be apparent if we would be willing to look a little more closely and determine whether or not these people are being treated fairly. As it is right now, more than 400 innocent children have been traumatized, but who will have done the real harm: the lifestyle from which the children have been forcibly removed, or American society at large that does not understand such a culture?
In this country the most vocal pro-abortion forces insist, and Arkansas’ own Senator Blanche Lincoln has supported such measures, that girls under the legal age of 18 have a “right” to an abortion if they so choose. Senator Lincoln recently supported a measure that would have allowed any legal-aged adult to transport a minor across state lines – without parental consent - for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, never seeming to consider that the legal adult could well have been the doomed child’s father working to cover up his indiscretion or molestation. In this context, then, if a minor child can make such a life-altering decision on her own and choose her own transport and not be required to notify her parents, why does this same law only recognize her as a “child” who cannot enter into legally binding contracts, including marriage, as she may freely choose?
There is another point to consider in a nation in which it is said that half of all marriages end in divorce. Presumably those who have endured these multiple divorces have remarried. Surely we all know some who have remarried three, four, five times and more only having been legally separated from the previous marriages but having been “sentenced” to alimony payments to the former wives. These men (predominately so) are still held legally responsible by law for the maintenance of these wives, so there is still a legal definition that maintains a tie between the two. In the eyes of the Church, generally speaking, one makes a commitment to God when “the two shall become one flesh” and remain married until death, inseparable by what “God has joined together”.
What have these FLDS done that is so wrong? Aside from ALLEGEDLY forcing – or allowing – minor children to wed, they at least seem to be a little more stable in their relationships than at least half of all married Americans now. The vast majority of these FLDS seem perfectly content with how they live, and there are no allegations I am aware of that they kidnap unwilling participants or brain wash anyone. That their children grow up within such a society in which these seemingly strange practices exist does not make for a need to disturb these communities unless, of course, it can be proved that any form of “slavery” (ie, unwilling participation) actually took place.
What FLDS, Scientology, the Masons, and the Amish and any other closed society or culture has done or does practice and has contributed to American society’s greater misunderstanding is to remain so closed that outsiders cannot get a peek inside to better understand the culture and practices which exist. In the case of those who practice polygamy, it is understandable that they separate themselves from society at large because they are involved in what is deemed to be an illegal practice in this country.
Aside from this, however, and especially in a country in which our “rights” have ultimately become the “gods” we worship, how can we penalize such practices that seem to do no real harm while seeming to celebrate multiple marriages and divorces, child custody battles in which the children are forced to participate and pick sides, and continuing battles over maintenance payments and generally bad blood? I will bet that there has been more harm done to children having been forced to endure bad marriages, selfish parents, and ugly divorce and custody battles than to children who share a home with common wives and one husband.
I do not necessarily condone polygamy. Indeed, the last thing I need in my life is another wife who is smarter than I but if I were financially able to support another wife and successfully divide my emotions and affections in such a way, what would be the real harm done if the home is relatively stable and everyone well cared for? For those Bible-believing Christians the answer might be simple, but even we Christians do not necessarily agree on every little thing so such a standard of measure would be unfair if unrealistic.
I am not sure what the answer is in such cases and I am left with little other recourse than to hope that professionals will be able to ascertain that the children are being cared for responsibly and that the wives are not enslaved in any manner against their own stated will. Will even a legal charge of polygamy against the adults make much difference? Not likely very simply because the faith of the FLDS will help them to endure. If the government of Texas and/or the United States deems subsequent marriages beyond the original to be null and void, it will not likely affect the previously existing household since the vows they took presumably transcend the authority of the government of man.
To be sure, the law was granted an excuse to raid the compound by an anonymous, alleged 16-year-old girl who made a phone call and insisted that she had been forced to marry a 50-year-old man and bear his children. In our greater society, this is just plain wrong not only because of her age but because we just do not believe in “shotgun weddings” or arranged marriages. It is not our way because women are human beings, not possessions to be bartered or sold. Still, this alleged child-bride has yet to be identified, so we don’t really know who made the call or what actually took place. Given this seemingly insignificant detail, however, we must consider that any disgruntled person could have made that call for any number of reasons. Anonymity has its place but when one is accused of legal transgressions, one must surely have a right to face one’s accusers.
What did the law find upon its raid of the FLDS compound? Judging by the media reports they found a community that looks after itself, cares for one another, shares resources, and educates its happy, healthy children. The only real proof of abuse currently rests exclusively on an as yet unidentified caller. No doubt they will find, or have already found, child brides but what are we really seeing? It is a culture that seems foreign to us because it is different and chooses to segregate itself from American culture (however this may be defined), but there are inconsistencies which should be apparent if we would be willing to look a little more closely and determine whether or not these people are being treated fairly. As it is right now, more than 400 innocent children have been traumatized, but who will have done the real harm: the lifestyle from which the children have been forcibly removed, or American society at large that does not understand such a culture?
In this country the most vocal pro-abortion forces insist, and Arkansas’ own Senator Blanche Lincoln has supported such measures, that girls under the legal age of 18 have a “right” to an abortion if they so choose. Senator Lincoln recently supported a measure that would have allowed any legal-aged adult to transport a minor across state lines – without parental consent - for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, never seeming to consider that the legal adult could well have been the doomed child’s father working to cover up his indiscretion or molestation. In this context, then, if a minor child can make such a life-altering decision on her own and choose her own transport and not be required to notify her parents, why does this same law only recognize her as a “child” who cannot enter into legally binding contracts, including marriage, as she may freely choose?
There is another point to consider in a nation in which it is said that half of all marriages end in divorce. Presumably those who have endured these multiple divorces have remarried. Surely we all know some who have remarried three, four, five times and more only having been legally separated from the previous marriages but having been “sentenced” to alimony payments to the former wives. These men (predominately so) are still held legally responsible by law for the maintenance of these wives, so there is still a legal definition that maintains a tie between the two. In the eyes of the Church, generally speaking, one makes a commitment to God when “the two shall become one flesh” and remain married until death, inseparable by what “God has joined together”.
What have these FLDS done that is so wrong? Aside from ALLEGEDLY forcing – or allowing – minor children to wed, they at least seem to be a little more stable in their relationships than at least half of all married Americans now. The vast majority of these FLDS seem perfectly content with how they live, and there are no allegations I am aware of that they kidnap unwilling participants or brain wash anyone. That their children grow up within such a society in which these seemingly strange practices exist does not make for a need to disturb these communities unless, of course, it can be proved that any form of “slavery” (ie, unwilling participation) actually took place.
What FLDS, Scientology, the Masons, and the Amish and any other closed society or culture has done or does practice and has contributed to American society’s greater misunderstanding is to remain so closed that outsiders cannot get a peek inside to better understand the culture and practices which exist. In the case of those who practice polygamy, it is understandable that they separate themselves from society at large because they are involved in what is deemed to be an illegal practice in this country.
Aside from this, however, and especially in a country in which our “rights” have ultimately become the “gods” we worship, how can we penalize such practices that seem to do no real harm while seeming to celebrate multiple marriages and divorces, child custody battles in which the children are forced to participate and pick sides, and continuing battles over maintenance payments and generally bad blood? I will bet that there has been more harm done to children having been forced to endure bad marriages, selfish parents, and ugly divorce and custody battles than to children who share a home with common wives and one husband.
I do not necessarily condone polygamy. Indeed, the last thing I need in my life is another wife who is smarter than I but if I were financially able to support another wife and successfully divide my emotions and affections in such a way, what would be the real harm done if the home is relatively stable and everyone well cared for? For those Bible-believing Christians the answer might be simple, but even we Christians do not necessarily agree on every little thing so such a standard of measure would be unfair if unrealistic.
I am not sure what the answer is in such cases and I am left with little other recourse than to hope that professionals will be able to ascertain that the children are being cared for responsibly and that the wives are not enslaved in any manner against their own stated will. Will even a legal charge of polygamy against the adults make much difference? Not likely very simply because the faith of the FLDS will help them to endure. If the government of Texas and/or the United States deems subsequent marriages beyond the original to be null and void, it will not likely affect the previously existing household since the vows they took presumably transcend the authority of the government of man.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Which Way?
Psalm 31:1-5, 15-16
1 Peter 2:2-10
John 14:1-14
A recent Internet discussion on theology reminded me of a couple of things. First I was reminded that no matter how anyone tries to tell us that we are somehow better connected because of the Internet, we are in my opinion somewhat less connected than before because we can typically hide behind the Internet when we want to play dirty or call names while remaining safely anonymous; a personal, human element is missing. Secondly, I was reminded that no matter how much we may consider ourselves “united” or “of one mind”, we are nevertheless a pack of individuals each with a capacity to understand according to our own individual experiences, intellect, and interpretations as well as by where we each happen to be on our own faith journey. Whether any one of us can ultimately claim to be “right”, especially as theology goes, is, in my own opinion, somewhat arrogant; hence the divisiveness of the Church itself.
The Internet challenge was a question pertaining to some of the rather graphic moments as recorded in Joshua, Numbers, and in other OT books as to whether the Lord Himself actually ordained the slaughter of innocent women and children as Israel was preparing to occupy The Promised Land. These are very good books, but they do not paint a very pretty picture of “the people of the Lord” and it makes reconciliation between OT and NT difficult if not impossible for some because this “loving” NT God somehow seems to have a less-than-loving OT past. Especially for those who read and interpret the Bible literally, it can be difficult to reconcile these two images. So if Jesus has presented Himself as the personification of the Lord God and we accept it as written, how do we get comfortable with the OT image of “the mighty smiter”?
Throughout His recorded ministry, Jesus displays the full range of emotions but anger only seems to show itself at the Temple as in Luke 19:45 when He “drives out” the money changers and those who were buying and selling commercially thus making worship in the Temple difficult if not impossible for those with limited means. Yet those who put their hands on Jesus to arrest Him, torture Him, humiliate Him, and ultimately kill Him seemed to walk away scot-free. The OT God was ready to do away with the entire nation of Israel and start over with Moses and his family after the Golden Calf made its appearance due to the fear, impatience, and lack of faith of the “people of God” who had, incidentally, only recently been released from 400 years of harsh slavery. It seemed only to be by the prayerful intervention of Moses that stayed this harsh judgment.
We cannot deny that Israel had it coming, yet the Lord relented by the word of a mere mortal man. Did He relent only because they were Hebrews or only because it was Moses asking? Either way, there seems to be some heavy favoritism considering that those who were slaughtered in Israel’s path prior to their occupation were not Hebrew.
One might suggest that the slaughter was the result of man having gone mad or beyond what was necessary due to the heat and passion of battle and that such atrocities were merely recorded by man but not necessarily divinely ordained. Was this how it was really ordained to have been, or are we looking at the writings of someone attempting to justify the brutality that was committed in the name of their God? Lest we forget, we face an enemy today that makes the same claim against so-called “infidels”.
I sometimes wonder what we really expect from our faith journey or whether we even have expectations except to “go to heaven”. Peter encourages us to “grow in salvation” (1 Peter 2:2) which would imply a continuing dynamic and not necessarily nor exclusively a destination, but he doesn’t really spell out for us what this salvation may look like and what may come of it except that we become “God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:10).
Is this what we should desire? We might think so except for those who have a difficult time with the OT image of the Lord and what He seemed to have expected from His people. For those trying to reconcile the OT God with the NT God, however, this might be a tall order because “God’s own people” slaughtered those who stood between them and the Promised Land, seemingly by divine order. Is this what “salvation” looks like, to acquire what we ultimately desire even at someone else’s expense? After all, they were seeking to capture the Land the Lord promised to them. Should this be our desire; is this “the Way”, the “Truth”? What about the “Life” Jesus claims to be? We may have that life as long as someone else pays the price?
So when Jesus makes His divine claim of being “the way, the truth, and the life”, what sort of claim is being made? In the first place, this is not a stand-alone statement. There is a whole discourse that is transpiring, and the disciples don’t seem to be fully plugged in to what Jesus is trying to tell them. In fact, if there has been any divine image problem in the past (and I think by the confrontations Jesus had with the spiritual leaders throughout the Gospels, there must have been), Jesus is trying now to dispel the notions of a harsh, mean, vindictive God who is nothing more than an Enforcer. This is not to say that there are not lines we must not cross, but there is much more to the Holy Father and a good, sound image of Him than the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees allowed.
The “way” that Jesus is referring to is the lead into the Ultimate Truth about the Lord God, and this “way” is the path to Eternal Life that is offered to us only through a merciful God who came to us IN PERSON because man had nearly completely fouled up His Divine Image. He is a God of judgment and justice and those who turn their backs on Him will eventually answer to Him whether they like it or not. Refusing to believe in a spiritual truth does not make it any less true.
The Truth, however, is not revealed to us so that we may win an argument with a non-Christian. Rather, the Truth is revealed to us so that we may faithfully represent that Truth. The Truth, dear friends, is the accurate portrayal of the Lord our God, and He is depending on us to be faithful to this Image so that the True Covenant of Life may continue to be offered to all … as it was always meant to be and will be forevermore.
1 Peter 2:2-10
John 14:1-14
A recent Internet discussion on theology reminded me of a couple of things. First I was reminded that no matter how anyone tries to tell us that we are somehow better connected because of the Internet, we are in my opinion somewhat less connected than before because we can typically hide behind the Internet when we want to play dirty or call names while remaining safely anonymous; a personal, human element is missing. Secondly, I was reminded that no matter how much we may consider ourselves “united” or “of one mind”, we are nevertheless a pack of individuals each with a capacity to understand according to our own individual experiences, intellect, and interpretations as well as by where we each happen to be on our own faith journey. Whether any one of us can ultimately claim to be “right”, especially as theology goes, is, in my own opinion, somewhat arrogant; hence the divisiveness of the Church itself.
The Internet challenge was a question pertaining to some of the rather graphic moments as recorded in Joshua, Numbers, and in other OT books as to whether the Lord Himself actually ordained the slaughter of innocent women and children as Israel was preparing to occupy The Promised Land. These are very good books, but they do not paint a very pretty picture of “the people of the Lord” and it makes reconciliation between OT and NT difficult if not impossible for some because this “loving” NT God somehow seems to have a less-than-loving OT past. Especially for those who read and interpret the Bible literally, it can be difficult to reconcile these two images. So if Jesus has presented Himself as the personification of the Lord God and we accept it as written, how do we get comfortable with the OT image of “the mighty smiter”?
Throughout His recorded ministry, Jesus displays the full range of emotions but anger only seems to show itself at the Temple as in Luke 19:45 when He “drives out” the money changers and those who were buying and selling commercially thus making worship in the Temple difficult if not impossible for those with limited means. Yet those who put their hands on Jesus to arrest Him, torture Him, humiliate Him, and ultimately kill Him seemed to walk away scot-free. The OT God was ready to do away with the entire nation of Israel and start over with Moses and his family after the Golden Calf made its appearance due to the fear, impatience, and lack of faith of the “people of God” who had, incidentally, only recently been released from 400 years of harsh slavery. It seemed only to be by the prayerful intervention of Moses that stayed this harsh judgment.
We cannot deny that Israel had it coming, yet the Lord relented by the word of a mere mortal man. Did He relent only because they were Hebrews or only because it was Moses asking? Either way, there seems to be some heavy favoritism considering that those who were slaughtered in Israel’s path prior to their occupation were not Hebrew.
One might suggest that the slaughter was the result of man having gone mad or beyond what was necessary due to the heat and passion of battle and that such atrocities were merely recorded by man but not necessarily divinely ordained. Was this how it was really ordained to have been, or are we looking at the writings of someone attempting to justify the brutality that was committed in the name of their God? Lest we forget, we face an enemy today that makes the same claim against so-called “infidels”.
I sometimes wonder what we really expect from our faith journey or whether we even have expectations except to “go to heaven”. Peter encourages us to “grow in salvation” (1 Peter 2:2) which would imply a continuing dynamic and not necessarily nor exclusively a destination, but he doesn’t really spell out for us what this salvation may look like and what may come of it except that we become “God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:10).
Is this what we should desire? We might think so except for those who have a difficult time with the OT image of the Lord and what He seemed to have expected from His people. For those trying to reconcile the OT God with the NT God, however, this might be a tall order because “God’s own people” slaughtered those who stood between them and the Promised Land, seemingly by divine order. Is this what “salvation” looks like, to acquire what we ultimately desire even at someone else’s expense? After all, they were seeking to capture the Land the Lord promised to them. Should this be our desire; is this “the Way”, the “Truth”? What about the “Life” Jesus claims to be? We may have that life as long as someone else pays the price?
So when Jesus makes His divine claim of being “the way, the truth, and the life”, what sort of claim is being made? In the first place, this is not a stand-alone statement. There is a whole discourse that is transpiring, and the disciples don’t seem to be fully plugged in to what Jesus is trying to tell them. In fact, if there has been any divine image problem in the past (and I think by the confrontations Jesus had with the spiritual leaders throughout the Gospels, there must have been), Jesus is trying now to dispel the notions of a harsh, mean, vindictive God who is nothing more than an Enforcer. This is not to say that there are not lines we must not cross, but there is much more to the Holy Father and a good, sound image of Him than the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees allowed.
The “way” that Jesus is referring to is the lead into the Ultimate Truth about the Lord God, and this “way” is the path to Eternal Life that is offered to us only through a merciful God who came to us IN PERSON because man had nearly completely fouled up His Divine Image. He is a God of judgment and justice and those who turn their backs on Him will eventually answer to Him whether they like it or not. Refusing to believe in a spiritual truth does not make it any less true.
The Truth, however, is not revealed to us so that we may win an argument with a non-Christian. Rather, the Truth is revealed to us so that we may faithfully represent that Truth. The Truth, dear friends, is the accurate portrayal of the Lord our God, and He is depending on us to be faithful to this Image so that the True Covenant of Life may continue to be offered to all … as it was always meant to be and will be forevermore.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Social (In)Security
It was not so long ago when President Bush decided to spend some of his “political capital” getting the Congress to engage in a conversation with him about how to shore up Social Security. Today, however, there are upwardly spiraling fuel prices putting the squeeze on transportation, there is a home mortgage crisis about which government leaders are debating to what extent – if any – the government should provide assistance, there is a continuing loss of jobs, and there is a severe credit crunch in this country which essentially means that it is not only the government living on borrowed money. And lest we forget, there is still a war on, a war that will not go away any time soon no matter how much we may wish it so.
When President Bush approached Social Security shortly after his reelection, the nation was told that the System would be flat broke in 40 years. In trying to head off this impending crisis, Mr. Bush made some pretty radical proposals including privatizing a certain portion of Social Security. The devil is in those details, of course, but it is not a point of matter in what I think this government and, indeed, this nation is going to have to do to take Social Security more seriously.
Of course every politician up for reelection will thump his or her chest and tell the nation’s elderly that they need not worry about “their” Social Security, “not while there is still breath in my lungs!”, they say. The promises are sure and true that “no matter what, YOUR Social Security will be safe.” What they don’t say is that in order to fund the sort of shortfalls predicted, there will have to be a massive increase in payroll tax withholding. There was a lot of wind blown, but not much else got done until the midterm elections started to roll around and then the discussion just sort of faded away.
Regardless of how one feels about the proposals President Bush put forth, the fact remains that the funding shortfall issue of Social Security is still hanging over our heads. Now our economy is headed toward recession (depending, of course, upon whom one is speaking to), and everyone with a financial problem is virtually standing on the steps of the Congress with his hand out demanding a government bail-out. And with elections just around the corner, it is a near certain bet that there will be some sort of consumer and/or corporate bail-out beyond the coming rebates in an effort to at least give the illusion that government is “doing something”. And there is still no discussion about how to shore up Social Security.
Where is it written that one is entitled to quit one’s job at the age of 65 and expect the government to subsidize the retirement? Please understand that I am not addressing those who are forced to retire due to ill health; I believe that this alone was the intent of the original Social Security proposal – to keep the elderly who were no longer able to work from starving to death. Today the Social Security Administration sends out periodic statements detailing how long we’ve been working and paying into the system, how much we’ve paid in, and how much we can expect to draw upon reaching that magical moment called “retirement”. In this, the government itself has helped to contribute to the misguided notion that Social Security is some sort of personal “savings account” containing “our” money to which we are entitled. It is, I think, this sense of entitlement that is probably the single greatest factor that will contribute to the soon-to-be colossal tax increases that will be required to maintain the current levels of entitlement.
It is time to address Social Security straight on. No more magical formulas, no more deduct this, claim that, stand on your head and cough. Pure and simple, there are a couple of basic steps to be taken that I believe will put the system back on the right track, the first measure being to eliminate the earnings cap and make all earned income subject to Social Security withholding. The second measure – surely to cause some to temporarily lose their sight – is to establish a means test to qualify for Social Security. To be more plain, wealthy people should not be drawing Social Security. For them it amounts to nothing more than play money for the casinos or gas money for the travel home.
The second measure, of course, is nothing but a pipe dream because of the immense power of the AARP lobby. Elected officials are scared silly of the elderly, and there is a reason why Social Security is known as the “third rail of politics” – you touch it, you die. You’re career as a public official is over, but the public is no less served by such sacred cows when we refuse to acknowledge something is askew. It is also ironic that those with higher incomes are “entitled” (to use the term loosely) to higher Social Security benefits because of their level of income while they were working. Elderly widows who spent a lifetime taking care of home and hearth get the least – and these are the ones who desperately need it most especially if Social Security is their sole means of support.
The system is going to require radical changes, and elected officials are going to have to step up to the plate and stand up for what is right. But before members of Congress will get serious about Social Security, they will have to hear from us. No one is “entitled” to anything from the US government. Any program that exists had noble intentions and social purpose: to help those who cannot help themselves. We cry and rail about welfare benefits given to those who can do for themselves; why are we so noticeably silent about Social Security?
When President Bush approached Social Security shortly after his reelection, the nation was told that the System would be flat broke in 40 years. In trying to head off this impending crisis, Mr. Bush made some pretty radical proposals including privatizing a certain portion of Social Security. The devil is in those details, of course, but it is not a point of matter in what I think this government and, indeed, this nation is going to have to do to take Social Security more seriously.
Of course every politician up for reelection will thump his or her chest and tell the nation’s elderly that they need not worry about “their” Social Security, “not while there is still breath in my lungs!”, they say. The promises are sure and true that “no matter what, YOUR Social Security will be safe.” What they don’t say is that in order to fund the sort of shortfalls predicted, there will have to be a massive increase in payroll tax withholding. There was a lot of wind blown, but not much else got done until the midterm elections started to roll around and then the discussion just sort of faded away.
Regardless of how one feels about the proposals President Bush put forth, the fact remains that the funding shortfall issue of Social Security is still hanging over our heads. Now our economy is headed toward recession (depending, of course, upon whom one is speaking to), and everyone with a financial problem is virtually standing on the steps of the Congress with his hand out demanding a government bail-out. And with elections just around the corner, it is a near certain bet that there will be some sort of consumer and/or corporate bail-out beyond the coming rebates in an effort to at least give the illusion that government is “doing something”. And there is still no discussion about how to shore up Social Security.
Where is it written that one is entitled to quit one’s job at the age of 65 and expect the government to subsidize the retirement? Please understand that I am not addressing those who are forced to retire due to ill health; I believe that this alone was the intent of the original Social Security proposal – to keep the elderly who were no longer able to work from starving to death. Today the Social Security Administration sends out periodic statements detailing how long we’ve been working and paying into the system, how much we’ve paid in, and how much we can expect to draw upon reaching that magical moment called “retirement”. In this, the government itself has helped to contribute to the misguided notion that Social Security is some sort of personal “savings account” containing “our” money to which we are entitled. It is, I think, this sense of entitlement that is probably the single greatest factor that will contribute to the soon-to-be colossal tax increases that will be required to maintain the current levels of entitlement.
It is time to address Social Security straight on. No more magical formulas, no more deduct this, claim that, stand on your head and cough. Pure and simple, there are a couple of basic steps to be taken that I believe will put the system back on the right track, the first measure being to eliminate the earnings cap and make all earned income subject to Social Security withholding. The second measure – surely to cause some to temporarily lose their sight – is to establish a means test to qualify for Social Security. To be more plain, wealthy people should not be drawing Social Security. For them it amounts to nothing more than play money for the casinos or gas money for the travel home.
The second measure, of course, is nothing but a pipe dream because of the immense power of the AARP lobby. Elected officials are scared silly of the elderly, and there is a reason why Social Security is known as the “third rail of politics” – you touch it, you die. You’re career as a public official is over, but the public is no less served by such sacred cows when we refuse to acknowledge something is askew. It is also ironic that those with higher incomes are “entitled” (to use the term loosely) to higher Social Security benefits because of their level of income while they were working. Elderly widows who spent a lifetime taking care of home and hearth get the least – and these are the ones who desperately need it most especially if Social Security is their sole means of support.
The system is going to require radical changes, and elected officials are going to have to step up to the plate and stand up for what is right. But before members of Congress will get serious about Social Security, they will have to hear from us. No one is “entitled” to anything from the US government. Any program that exists had noble intentions and social purpose: to help those who cannot help themselves. We cry and rail about welfare benefits given to those who can do for themselves; why are we so noticeably silent about Social Security?
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Arrogance of Incumbency
The Arkansas General Assembly convenes every two years in odd numbered years for the legislative sessions. To be fair to the Legislature, it must certainly be a challenge to set spending priorities based on existing forecasts for the proceeding two years. And because so much work has to be crammed into a relatively short period of time, I am confident that the sessions involve long days and some nights. Because the Arkansas legislature only convenes every two years and for a relatively brief period, however, the people typically do not pay enough attention to what the legislature does. As a result, incumbency in this state enjoys an enormous re-election rate because the people recognize names and probably faces; we know very little about the issues especially come election time because by then the legislative session will have been long over.
How do I reach this conclusion? The staggering number of complaints from call-in TV and radio shows, letters to various editors, and general grumbling would indicate that a substantial segment of the population feels overwhelmed and more than a little overburdened by tax rates in the state. Yet each time the legislature gathers, a new tax or an increase in an existing tax is virtually imminent. These lawmakers are photographed slapping each other on the back, shaking hands, and high-fiving one another after a “successful” session in which these taxes have been increased, they are congratulated by the governor and still re-elected by the seemingly disenchanted people, the same people who complain incessantly about high taxes in a relatively low wage state.
In addition, the one who will serve as Speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives has already been selected in 2008 for the coming 2009 legislative session. The problem with this is that this speaker-elect still must endure a re-election campaign in November. The legislature believes itself to have accomplished something substantial by having the speaker pre-selected with seemingly little thought given to the possibility that this speaker-elect could lose his re-election bid. So if this possibility actually exists, why waste the time?
I think it is because the House is pretty confident of what must surely be a better than 95% incumbency rate. Besides this inherent flaw in our system, what district in its right mind would cast aside such a prominent position for one of its own? Though Arkansas now has term limits for its state constitutional officers, it is nevertheless highly significant when a member of the legislature is elevated to such a position. There is no way anyone would even waste his or her time and resources to try and run against this particular incumbent knowing what everyone knows about Arkansas voters. This incumbent would have to burn down an orphanage to lose his seat in the legislature!
Incumbency indeed has its privileges, and Arkansas is no exception. I’m willing to bet that other states are no different, and it is sad to know that “we the people” have surrendered our right to self-governance to the few who care enough to even bother to run for public office, let alone to those few who can be bothered to vote.
How do I reach this conclusion? The staggering number of complaints from call-in TV and radio shows, letters to various editors, and general grumbling would indicate that a substantial segment of the population feels overwhelmed and more than a little overburdened by tax rates in the state. Yet each time the legislature gathers, a new tax or an increase in an existing tax is virtually imminent. These lawmakers are photographed slapping each other on the back, shaking hands, and high-fiving one another after a “successful” session in which these taxes have been increased, they are congratulated by the governor and still re-elected by the seemingly disenchanted people, the same people who complain incessantly about high taxes in a relatively low wage state.
In addition, the one who will serve as Speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives has already been selected in 2008 for the coming 2009 legislative session. The problem with this is that this speaker-elect still must endure a re-election campaign in November. The legislature believes itself to have accomplished something substantial by having the speaker pre-selected with seemingly little thought given to the possibility that this speaker-elect could lose his re-election bid. So if this possibility actually exists, why waste the time?
I think it is because the House is pretty confident of what must surely be a better than 95% incumbency rate. Besides this inherent flaw in our system, what district in its right mind would cast aside such a prominent position for one of its own? Though Arkansas now has term limits for its state constitutional officers, it is nevertheless highly significant when a member of the legislature is elevated to such a position. There is no way anyone would even waste his or her time and resources to try and run against this particular incumbent knowing what everyone knows about Arkansas voters. This incumbent would have to burn down an orphanage to lose his seat in the legislature!
Incumbency indeed has its privileges, and Arkansas is no exception. I’m willing to bet that other states are no different, and it is sad to know that “we the people” have surrendered our right to self-governance to the few who care enough to even bother to run for public office, let alone to those few who can be bothered to vote.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
"Waiting"
“Waiting”
Waiting in the watchful eye of eternity,
eager to hasten the day when the wait is no more,
there is a spring of hope which passes through the depths of the soul
seeking to convince me that the wait is everlasting
and that the end is no more.
Life is a mystery to be revealed in due time.
In its due season shall the secrets be made manifest
to those who spend life waiting, patiently waiting.
But to wait and with no end to be seen
there is the ever present mystery that clings
to the hope that is everlasting.
It is not to be seen with the eye,
for the mere eye of a man is but a window to the soul
that lives within.
There is a limit to the sight of man,
a limit that fails to appreciate the eternal nature
of the soul that resides within.
Yet there is to be revealed
an end that will never come,
an end that will never be
because life is eternal
and is waiting to be
Waiting in the watchful eye of eternity,
eager to hasten the day when the wait is no more,
there is a spring of hope which passes through the depths of the soul
seeking to convince me that the wait is everlasting
and that the end is no more.
Life is a mystery to be revealed in due time.
In its due season shall the secrets be made manifest
to those who spend life waiting, patiently waiting.
But to wait and with no end to be seen
there is the ever present mystery that clings
to the hope that is everlasting.
It is not to be seen with the eye,
for the mere eye of a man is but a window to the soul
that lives within.
There is a limit to the sight of man,
a limit that fails to appreciate the eternal nature
of the soul that resides within.
Yet there is to be revealed
an end that will never come,
an end that will never be
because life is eternal
and is waiting to be
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
For Whose Benefit?
The Congress has once again summoned the chiefs of some of the world’s largest and profitable energy companies, demanding to know why energy prices – especially oil – are so high and show signs of continuing to rise even higher. While I am as frustrated as the next consumer, perhaps even more so because of the expense of a job search, I am equally frustrated at the continuing congressional attempts to demonize the energy industry especially during an election year which, incidentally, I find highly suspect.
There is a lot of political grandstanding going on with office seekers as well as current office holders, opportunists all who fail to make the connection between high taxes, low investments in exploration, research and development, and high prices. I don’t pretend to be an economist and I am even less informed about the world oil market, but it seems to me that since American energy producers may find it financially prohibitive to actually spend money on exploration and R&D that this lack of expense may help to explain the record profits recorded by “big oil”. To be sure, it must certainly be cheaper to import oil to this country than it would be to seek it, develop it, refine it, and market it. We must also be mindful of the fact that a lack of US refining capacity and continually high demand does nothing more than to push prices even higher.
None of this helps to explain sudden spikes in world oil prices, of course. These prices are set and manipulated, it seems, according to OPEC as well as by what may be happening in the world particularly in events involving energy-producing nations such as Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq which are probably three of the most unstable and unreliable producers in the world, two of which have no lost love with the US. Markets seem to panic about the supply line each time, for instance, when Hugo Chavez gets on a soap box and rails against the United States.
US lawmakers need to get off their own soap boxes and come to realize that their place in the US economy is less “knight in shining armor” or “executioner” and more partner than anything else. Punitive measures enacted by the Congress in the past as vain efforts to “punish” energy producers have failed and will continue to fail because the market responds negatively to adverse actions both at home and abroad.
As I wrote in an earlier post regarding Arkansas and its special legislative session to raise the severance tax on natural gas production (and it is happening even as I write this), government must move beyond its seemingly natural, antagonistic relationship it seems to have with US industries. Businesses that provide needed products and services as well as jobs for American workers are not the enemy, but Congress seems to be bent out of shape when a particular industry turns a sound profit. Is the profit “obscene”? I suppose it is all relative, but the Congress must define its objective with its continued harassment of energy executives. Are they seeking lower prices? If so, how low would they demand that the prices go? To my cynical mind, they seek only free press for the folks back home.
Some in Congress have suggested that the president authorize the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of this “emergency” we are currently faced with. The president has rightly refused for three reasons: 1) there is not likely enough in the Reserve that will affect the market one way or the other, 2) high prices do not constitute an “emergency”, and 3) supply is not the problem. Besides, it has been stated more than once by more than one industry executive and independent economist that US refining capacity is still limited; putting more oil in the refineries will not change this structural fact. Besides all this, it didn’t work when President Clinton tried it.
It is “demand” that is putting the squeeze on the world oil market, and it is antagonistic “white knight” economic and tax policies as well as demand that puts the squeeze on us here at home in the US. Can Congress fix all this? I’m not entirely comfortable with a bunch of lawyers positioning themselves for re-election making that decision for us at this time especially when they seem to have failed to define their objective. Do they seek to make energy more affordable? If so, for whom? Clearly any member of Congress can afford to pay a higher price than most of America because they have bigger pay checks. For other rich people, the price of a gallon of gasoline probably doesn’t even sting although to protect their own profit margins they will certainly cut back somewhere else, and that cut will likely cost some American worker his or her job. Is this “greed”, or does it just make good business sense?
Congress does not get it, but they do know how to get elected. To the American cynic, these congressional hearings amount to nothing more than taxpayer-financed re-election expenses. They will solve nothing as long as they believe themselves to be our “hero’s”.
There is a lot of political grandstanding going on with office seekers as well as current office holders, opportunists all who fail to make the connection between high taxes, low investments in exploration, research and development, and high prices. I don’t pretend to be an economist and I am even less informed about the world oil market, but it seems to me that since American energy producers may find it financially prohibitive to actually spend money on exploration and R&D that this lack of expense may help to explain the record profits recorded by “big oil”. To be sure, it must certainly be cheaper to import oil to this country than it would be to seek it, develop it, refine it, and market it. We must also be mindful of the fact that a lack of US refining capacity and continually high demand does nothing more than to push prices even higher.
None of this helps to explain sudden spikes in world oil prices, of course. These prices are set and manipulated, it seems, according to OPEC as well as by what may be happening in the world particularly in events involving energy-producing nations such as Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq which are probably three of the most unstable and unreliable producers in the world, two of which have no lost love with the US. Markets seem to panic about the supply line each time, for instance, when Hugo Chavez gets on a soap box and rails against the United States.
US lawmakers need to get off their own soap boxes and come to realize that their place in the US economy is less “knight in shining armor” or “executioner” and more partner than anything else. Punitive measures enacted by the Congress in the past as vain efforts to “punish” energy producers have failed and will continue to fail because the market responds negatively to adverse actions both at home and abroad.
As I wrote in an earlier post regarding Arkansas and its special legislative session to raise the severance tax on natural gas production (and it is happening even as I write this), government must move beyond its seemingly natural, antagonistic relationship it seems to have with US industries. Businesses that provide needed products and services as well as jobs for American workers are not the enemy, but Congress seems to be bent out of shape when a particular industry turns a sound profit. Is the profit “obscene”? I suppose it is all relative, but the Congress must define its objective with its continued harassment of energy executives. Are they seeking lower prices? If so, how low would they demand that the prices go? To my cynical mind, they seek only free press for the folks back home.
Some in Congress have suggested that the president authorize the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of this “emergency” we are currently faced with. The president has rightly refused for three reasons: 1) there is not likely enough in the Reserve that will affect the market one way or the other, 2) high prices do not constitute an “emergency”, and 3) supply is not the problem. Besides, it has been stated more than once by more than one industry executive and independent economist that US refining capacity is still limited; putting more oil in the refineries will not change this structural fact. Besides all this, it didn’t work when President Clinton tried it.
It is “demand” that is putting the squeeze on the world oil market, and it is antagonistic “white knight” economic and tax policies as well as demand that puts the squeeze on us here at home in the US. Can Congress fix all this? I’m not entirely comfortable with a bunch of lawyers positioning themselves for re-election making that decision for us at this time especially when they seem to have failed to define their objective. Do they seek to make energy more affordable? If so, for whom? Clearly any member of Congress can afford to pay a higher price than most of America because they have bigger pay checks. For other rich people, the price of a gallon of gasoline probably doesn’t even sting although to protect their own profit margins they will certainly cut back somewhere else, and that cut will likely cost some American worker his or her job. Is this “greed”, or does it just make good business sense?
Congress does not get it, but they do know how to get elected. To the American cynic, these congressional hearings amount to nothing more than taxpayer-financed re-election expenses. They will solve nothing as long as they believe themselves to be our “hero’s”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)