I remember the last time we had a Presidential election I was asked about voting for values. I do not think, four years ago, that I entirely grasped what this was all about.
The issue of voting for values seemed to boil down that people ought to vote for the person who inspired the best values. The two major values that were 'key' were abortion and gay marriage. My slowness at this was based on the premise that I thought that there were other values as well.
I guess that these two issues are not what motivate me a great deal. For one, many of the people who are adamantly anti-abortion and pretend that they are pro-life. Pretend. Strong word. If they are pro-capital punishment I don't want to hear about their 'pro-life' stand. It's insulting to anyone who is serious about ethics. What I also found ironic was that many of these people were also 'pro-torture.' I will respect that they are anti-abortion and that's fine. To say that they are pro-life, however. Please.
Secondly, the more I deliberate on the issue of gay marriage the more I keep coming to the realization that this is more and more a civil rights issue. I read arguments concerning inter-racial marriage written years ago and the arguments were chillingly similar. Race and sexual orientation are not life styles and not choices. I think that churches have actually been on the wrong side of this debate.
There are values that I do hold dear.
First, is the issue of poverty. The poverty rate in this country is growing exponentially. Instead of waging a war on poverty, we seem to be waging a war on the impoverished. This needs to be reversed.
Secondly, is health care. I read of a young boy who died from an abscessed tooth. He had a tooth-ache and no insurance and no money, so no dental care took place. An infection set in and since they had no insurance they avoided doctor. The boy ultimately die. In the United States of America. When such things happen and we don't fundamentally make changes, I have no idea where are values are.
Thirdly, there is the issue of justice. One of the greatest things the United States has given the world is our way of doing justice. A jury of one's peers. A right to face one's accuser. A need to be clearly charged. A right to counsel. As much as we often make folly of the legal profession, many of these hard-working professionals are helping to maintain a sense of justice for all that so many people have died for. The fact that we are holding people, off our shores so that we do not have to follow our own rules, is appalling.
Funny thing about values. The priorities often end up being what ever we choose them to be as opposed to what we are told that they are.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Little More to the Last Post
I was thinking some more about this.
There are two things that I find particularly revolting.
Rush Limbaugh found Michael J. Fox's illness to be hilarious. He's finding it greatly entertaining that Elizabeth Edwards has a terminal illness. Actually, both of these people do. Both Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards confront their illness each and every day.
There is nothing funny about a terminal illness. These are people who blow out birthday cake candles and wonder if this is their last birthday. At Thanksgiving they wonder if this is the last turkey they share with their families. At Christmas they wonder if this is their last Christmas. They live lives with a very direct confrontation of their own morality. Each day may be a turning point for the worst. What is more, they know it is going to happen, sooner rather than later.
Over the I have dealt with a lot of people dealing with terminal illness. They are some of the most remarkable people I have ever met. THEY occasionally find humor in their lives and can have really good laughs. They are remarkable because they appreciate each day, so much, that they live lives with greater enthusiasm then most. They make decisions, and life choices based on their circumstances; circumstances never far from their immediate thoughts.
When this sorry excuse for a human being mocks them, he mocks the sacred, he mocks anything and everything that is good about humanity. He finds folly in the midst of their suffering, their pain, their very lives. How incredibly pathetic is this?
Here's the second thing I find revolting. He still has people who listen to him every day and admire him. I cannot imagine how.
There are two things that I find particularly revolting.
Rush Limbaugh found Michael J. Fox's illness to be hilarious. He's finding it greatly entertaining that Elizabeth Edwards has a terminal illness. Actually, both of these people do. Both Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards confront their illness each and every day.
There is nothing funny about a terminal illness. These are people who blow out birthday cake candles and wonder if this is their last birthday. At Thanksgiving they wonder if this is the last turkey they share with their families. At Christmas they wonder if this is their last Christmas. They live lives with a very direct confrontation of their own morality. Each day may be a turning point for the worst. What is more, they know it is going to happen, sooner rather than later.
Over the I have dealt with a lot of people dealing with terminal illness. They are some of the most remarkable people I have ever met. THEY occasionally find humor in their lives and can have really good laughs. They are remarkable because they appreciate each day, so much, that they live lives with greater enthusiasm then most. They make decisions, and life choices based on their circumstances; circumstances never far from their immediate thoughts.
When this sorry excuse for a human being mocks them, he mocks the sacred, he mocks anything and everything that is good about humanity. He finds folly in the midst of their suffering, their pain, their very lives. How incredibly pathetic is this?
Here's the second thing I find revolting. He still has people who listen to him every day and admire him. I cannot imagine how.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Talk Radio’s Offshore Driller
I live in constant amazement of Rush Limbaugh. I have often seen Limbaugh as the quintessential bottom-dweller, the person who delights in uniting people by their lowest common denominators. Instead of being just a bottom dweller he has now taken on to being an offshore driller. When sinking to the bottom is not low enough, one must drill to go down deeper. Rush wins. No one has sunk deeper.
It all begins with John Edwards.
I was a fan of John Edwards. I thought that he would have been a far better Presidential Candidate than John Kerry who I never really liked. Edwards was my early choice for the Democratic nomination. I thought that he offered compelling insights into the American economy. My wife, however, believed he was as genuine as a three-dollar bill----and she proved to be very correct.
The story of his affair is a sleazy story. His interview was quite bad. His wife had cancer but he said that when he had the affair she was in remission. Oh, goody. That makes it all better. I have strong doubts that it ended when he said that it ended and I have strong doubts that he is not the father of the child in question. Telling a little truth sometimes is used to deceive people into believing you are totally honest. Edwards was and is not being totally honest. There is nothing good to be said. Edwards decided to sink to the bottom.
The problem is, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want anyone to beat him. When John Edwards proved to be a bottom dweller, Limbaugh had to figure a way to go even lower than Edwards. Alas, the problem with John Edwards was, and a mighty drum roll ought to take place, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the problem, says Rush, because she keeps talking and doesn’t know when to keep quiet.
Elizabeth Edwards, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, is said to be smarter than John Edwards and it was she who pushed him into staying in the race, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Edwards, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, just didn’t know when to shut up. And poor John Edwards had to go out and find a woman who would use her mouth for something other than speaking. Yes. He said this on the radio. Oh, he laughed, thus making it funny and not offensive. Right.
Most people have given Elizabeth Edwards a great deal of sympathy. She has terminal cancer and confronts her mortality each day. To add to this her husband had an affair that has been splashed all over the media and she has endured great humiliation as a result of this. All of this and her fool husband seems to lean toward justifying this by saying, ‘she was in remission.’ Ugh. It is, frankly, difficult to not give some sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards.
But, not Rush. He went right in there and decided to insult her. He went right in there and essentially blamed John Edwards’ affair on Elizabeth’s intelligence and her talking. It’s her fault.
Rush Limbaugh, marriage expert.
It is funny how Rush Limbaugh assaulted the Clintons, especially Hillary, following Bill’s affair(s). The Clintons have remained married for a long time. They have never been married to anyone else.
The Edwards are under assault. They have been married for a long time and they have never been married to anyone else.
Ever hear of Roxy Maxine McNeely? She was married to Rush Limbaugh from 1977-1980 when they divorced.
Ever hear of Michelle Sixta? She was married to Limbaugh from 1983-1990.
In 1994 Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at the wedding of Rush and Marta Fitzgerald who parted company in 2004.
Alas, Rush Limbaugh loves to do commentary on the marriages of others as if he were an expert. His track record indicates otherwise.
We are a culture in need of dialogue. Right and left need to work together to solve problems. This is true in politics and religion. There is an ideological divide in this country that is dreadful and damaging for everyone in the long term. I find myself always struggling with the likes of Rush Limbaugh because he, like so many others, both right and left, fan the flames of hostility and work diligently to prevent civil discourse and exchange.
But this is not political. There is something called human decency. Sadly, this off shore driller has none.
It all begins with John Edwards.
I was a fan of John Edwards. I thought that he would have been a far better Presidential Candidate than John Kerry who I never really liked. Edwards was my early choice for the Democratic nomination. I thought that he offered compelling insights into the American economy. My wife, however, believed he was as genuine as a three-dollar bill----and she proved to be very correct.
The story of his affair is a sleazy story. His interview was quite bad. His wife had cancer but he said that when he had the affair she was in remission. Oh, goody. That makes it all better. I have strong doubts that it ended when he said that it ended and I have strong doubts that he is not the father of the child in question. Telling a little truth sometimes is used to deceive people into believing you are totally honest. Edwards was and is not being totally honest. There is nothing good to be said. Edwards decided to sink to the bottom.
The problem is, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want anyone to beat him. When John Edwards proved to be a bottom dweller, Limbaugh had to figure a way to go even lower than Edwards. Alas, the problem with John Edwards was, and a mighty drum roll ought to take place, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the problem, says Rush, because she keeps talking and doesn’t know when to keep quiet.
Elizabeth Edwards, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, is said to be smarter than John Edwards and it was she who pushed him into staying in the race, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Edwards, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, just didn’t know when to shut up. And poor John Edwards had to go out and find a woman who would use her mouth for something other than speaking. Yes. He said this on the radio. Oh, he laughed, thus making it funny and not offensive. Right.
Most people have given Elizabeth Edwards a great deal of sympathy. She has terminal cancer and confronts her mortality each day. To add to this her husband had an affair that has been splashed all over the media and she has endured great humiliation as a result of this. All of this and her fool husband seems to lean toward justifying this by saying, ‘she was in remission.’ Ugh. It is, frankly, difficult to not give some sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards.
But, not Rush. He went right in there and decided to insult her. He went right in there and essentially blamed John Edwards’ affair on Elizabeth’s intelligence and her talking. It’s her fault.
Rush Limbaugh, marriage expert.
It is funny how Rush Limbaugh assaulted the Clintons, especially Hillary, following Bill’s affair(s). The Clintons have remained married for a long time. They have never been married to anyone else.
The Edwards are under assault. They have been married for a long time and they have never been married to anyone else.
Ever hear of Roxy Maxine McNeely? She was married to Rush Limbaugh from 1977-1980 when they divorced.
Ever hear of Michelle Sixta? She was married to Limbaugh from 1983-1990.
In 1994 Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at the wedding of Rush and Marta Fitzgerald who parted company in 2004.
Alas, Rush Limbaugh loves to do commentary on the marriages of others as if he were an expert. His track record indicates otherwise.
We are a culture in need of dialogue. Right and left need to work together to solve problems. This is true in politics and religion. There is an ideological divide in this country that is dreadful and damaging for everyone in the long term. I find myself always struggling with the likes of Rush Limbaugh because he, like so many others, both right and left, fan the flames of hostility and work diligently to prevent civil discourse and exchange.
But this is not political. There is something called human decency. Sadly, this off shore driller has none.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Let's Sit These Olympics Out...
I do not believe that the United States ought to participate in the Olympics this year. I suspect that most of the world will disagree with me about this, but I really believe we ought not, in good conscience, be a part of this venture.
For one, I don’t believe that the Olympics have much value any longer. Sure. There are wonderful athletes from around the world who are competing against one another. Sure, there are some heart warming stories of the accomplishments of some young (or somewhat old) amateurs who are competing. But let us be honest. At this juncture, the Olympics is a contest of professional athletes from around the world. What made 1980 so special when the United States Hockey Team defeated the Soviet Union is that the US team were truly amateurs going against pros. These days have long since passed. It’s now all pros, some trying to pretend to be amateurs.
The Olympics are not what they were intended to be. Frankly, we should all boycott them on TV.
My second reason is China and my reasoning is two-fold.
We are reading and observing China clamping down on dissidents. They want to give the world a vision of China as one, big, happy country where everything is great. It is not. China is one of the world’s leaders in human rights violations. They practice misogyny openly and have little problem destroying baby girls so that they can have baby boys and fulfill the ‘one child to a family’ rule. We were, rightly, horrified by the cruelties of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The sad reality is that China is really no better. By even venturing into this country we are giving tacit approval to a horrendous, murderous, regime.
Additionally, whether we want to accept this our not, China is become our leading economic enemy. I use the word enemy very deliberately. They have a goal to destroy us economically and they are being successfuly.
A large reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of economics and an inability to compete with the United States in spending. In the early 1980's, we heightened the Cold War and began, essentially, creating a wartime economy. Large amounts of money went into purchasing weapons and technology for weapons. A war time economy when there is no war, for a capitalist nation, means that there are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in the pipeline. The downside is that often the government does this with hot checks. Ronald Reagan’s plans had lots of people working and lots of manufacturing of arms, but he put it all on MasterCard. That brings about its own set of problems, obviously.
The problem the Soviets had was that this drained them financially beyond a point of no return. They were in a wartime economy that they couldn’t afford----but they were also fighting a war. A wartime economy when a nation is at war, drains the country. As a result, the money runs out as the debt accumulates. The Soviet Union collapsed.
History is repeating itself. China is building itself up militarily and financially, and is not in a war. They are using more and more oil----thus raising the prices of oil, and generating capital----much of which the United States is borrowing.
We are in a wartime economy but we are fighting two wars. Incomes are not growing. There is no place to invest money for it to grow. Interest rates are going higher and prices are going higher. We are borrowing more and more money and facing economic collapse ourselves.
Our big opponent in all of this is China as well as ourselves. By participating in the Olympics, a large amount of American money will flow into China and put us further and further in economic trouble.
We have no business going there.
For one, I don’t believe that the Olympics have much value any longer. Sure. There are wonderful athletes from around the world who are competing against one another. Sure, there are some heart warming stories of the accomplishments of some young (or somewhat old) amateurs who are competing. But let us be honest. At this juncture, the Olympics is a contest of professional athletes from around the world. What made 1980 so special when the United States Hockey Team defeated the Soviet Union is that the US team were truly amateurs going against pros. These days have long since passed. It’s now all pros, some trying to pretend to be amateurs.
The Olympics are not what they were intended to be. Frankly, we should all boycott them on TV.
My second reason is China and my reasoning is two-fold.
We are reading and observing China clamping down on dissidents. They want to give the world a vision of China as one, big, happy country where everything is great. It is not. China is one of the world’s leaders in human rights violations. They practice misogyny openly and have little problem destroying baby girls so that they can have baby boys and fulfill the ‘one child to a family’ rule. We were, rightly, horrified by the cruelties of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The sad reality is that China is really no better. By even venturing into this country we are giving tacit approval to a horrendous, murderous, regime.
Additionally, whether we want to accept this our not, China is become our leading economic enemy. I use the word enemy very deliberately. They have a goal to destroy us economically and they are being successfuly.
A large reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of economics and an inability to compete with the United States in spending. In the early 1980's, we heightened the Cold War and began, essentially, creating a wartime economy. Large amounts of money went into purchasing weapons and technology for weapons. A war time economy when there is no war, for a capitalist nation, means that there are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in the pipeline. The downside is that often the government does this with hot checks. Ronald Reagan’s plans had lots of people working and lots of manufacturing of arms, but he put it all on MasterCard. That brings about its own set of problems, obviously.
The problem the Soviets had was that this drained them financially beyond a point of no return. They were in a wartime economy that they couldn’t afford----but they were also fighting a war. A wartime economy when a nation is at war, drains the country. As a result, the money runs out as the debt accumulates. The Soviet Union collapsed.
History is repeating itself. China is building itself up militarily and financially, and is not in a war. They are using more and more oil----thus raising the prices of oil, and generating capital----much of which the United States is borrowing.
We are in a wartime economy but we are fighting two wars. Incomes are not growing. There is no place to invest money for it to grow. Interest rates are going higher and prices are going higher. We are borrowing more and more money and facing economic collapse ourselves.
Our big opponent in all of this is China as well as ourselves. By participating in the Olympics, a large amount of American money will flow into China and put us further and further in economic trouble.
We have no business going there.
Friday, July 25, 2008
No Matter Who You Are or Where You are on Life's Journey; You are Welcome Here.
This is the famous Steeples' Ad for the United Church of Christ. It is self-explanatory. And wonderful.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Give Me a Break!
Give me a break!
Do you remember Steve Bartman? Bartman is the Cubs' fan who caught a foul ball that was still in play. Moises Alou, the Cubs' left-fielder was going to attempt a play on the ball and didn't give the opportunity.
After that play the Cubs fell apart and lose the game and lost the playoffs.
Bartman is being offered to attend a sports' show and if he autographs one copy of his 'catch' they will give him $25,000.00.
Bartman is still hated in Chicago and blamed the the Cubs losing the 2003 National League Championship Series to the Marlins.
Luis Castillo hit a foul ball that Alou went after. Alou never caught the ball (and this day questions whether he actually WOULD caught the ball---that was NOT a given...)
* Castillo, given new life, drew a walk. Ball four was a wild pitch from Cubs starter Mark Prior, which allowed Pierre to advance to third base.
Bartman did not throw the wild pitch.
* Iván Rodríguez singled to drive in the first run of the inning, making the score 3-1.
Bartman was not the pitcher giving up the hit.
* Miguel Cabrera hit a ground ball to Alex S. Gonzalez, who misfielded the ball. Had Gonzalez fielded the ball properly, the Cubs could possibly have ended the half-inning with a double play. Instead all runners were safe and the bases were loaded.
Bartman was not on the field with Gonzalez.
* Derrek Lee doubled, tying the score and chasing Prior from the game.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* Relief pitcher Kyle Farnsworth issued an intentional walk, then gave up a sacrifice fly to give Florida a 4-3 lead. Another intentional walk again loaded the bases.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* A bases-clearing double from Mike Mordecai broke the game open, making the score 7-3.
Again, Bartman was not pitching and not fielding allow the double to fall in.
* Pierre singled to put Florida ahead 8-3.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* Finally Luis Castillo, whose foul popup initiated the controversy, popped out to second to end the inning. In total, the Marlins had sent twelve batters to the plate and scored eight runs. Florida won the game 8-3.
The Bartman play took place when there was only one out and the play itself was not a hit. It was a foul ball.
Here is the sad reality that Cubs' fans need to grasp. Steve Bartman did not lose the game for them. The Cubs lost the game. Bad pitching and bad fielding lost the game.
I think it's about time people give Steve Bartman a rest. He didn't blow the Cubs' season. The Cubs did.
This year the Cubs look good, very good. They are a distinct possibility to go to the World Series this year. If they succeed it will be because they played well; if they don't, it's because another team beat them.
And Steve Bartman, again, will have nothing to do with it.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Random Musings
It is difficult to put long, complex thoughts together after a great vacation. These are just some random musings.
If you have never been to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina or the Outer Banks, it's an awesome place to go. We had a hotel room right on the ocean. Totally perfect.
The Giants traded Jeremy Shockey. They won all their play off games and pulled off an incredible Super Bowl upset without him. They will miss an excellent, if not drop prone receiver. They won't miss his poor blocking ability and lack of interested in blocking. They will not miss his ego or his mouth. One ought to note that Eli Manning's productivity rose after Shockey got hurt. He didn't have someone in the huddle yelling at him, 'I was open," on every play. Adios!
Is it just me or is Mr. Foreign Policy Experience McCain adopting Mr. No Foreign Policy Experience Obama's positions on things like Afghanistan...
If you have not seen "The Dark Knight" run, run to the theater and see it. Wow. The movie is better than I thought it would be and I expected it to be great. It is long and intense and great. My only regret was that there wasn't a Batman III to watch right afterwards.
Brett Favre was a great, great NFL quarterback who appears to be behaving like an infant at the moment. If he comes back the Packers should probably trade him to an AFC team that has no chance of the playoffs. Someone said that the Dolphins would be a good choice. Of course, the fact that they cannot block might hamper his productivity a tad....
Back to Shockey...the Saints made a bad move getting Shockey. He's talented, but he's an ego-maniacal fool who only wants to be part of a player. This is like getting a cornerback who only wants to make interceptions but no tackles.
If you have never been to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina or the Outer Banks, it's an awesome place to go. We had a hotel room right on the ocean. Totally perfect.
The Giants traded Jeremy Shockey. They won all their play off games and pulled off an incredible Super Bowl upset without him. They will miss an excellent, if not drop prone receiver. They won't miss his poor blocking ability and lack of interested in blocking. They will not miss his ego or his mouth. One ought to note that Eli Manning's productivity rose after Shockey got hurt. He didn't have someone in the huddle yelling at him, 'I was open," on every play. Adios!
Is it just me or is Mr. Foreign Policy Experience McCain adopting Mr. No Foreign Policy Experience Obama's positions on things like Afghanistan...
If you have not seen "The Dark Knight" run, run to the theater and see it. Wow. The movie is better than I thought it would be and I expected it to be great. It is long and intense and great. My only regret was that there wasn't a Batman III to watch right afterwards.
Brett Favre was a great, great NFL quarterback who appears to be behaving like an infant at the moment. If he comes back the Packers should probably trade him to an AFC team that has no chance of the playoffs. Someone said that the Dolphins would be a good choice. Of course, the fact that they cannot block might hamper his productivity a tad....
Back to Shockey...the Saints made a bad move getting Shockey. He's talented, but he's an ego-maniacal fool who only wants to be part of a player. This is like getting a cornerback who only wants to make interceptions but no tackles.
Friday, July 18, 2008
July 6th Sermon
A Bell’s Message
Text: Leviticus 25:1-10
Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo
July 6, 2008
One of the great symbols of the 4th of July is the Liberty Bell.
Years ago if you went to Philadelphia the Liberty Bell was in Independence Hall. They eventually built a building just for the bell and moved it onto a green in front of Independence Hall. Since the events of September 11th, however, that building is now used as a security building and the bell resides in a new building next to Independence Hall.
I’ve seen the bell on numerous occasions and have listened to the speech about the bell’s history. Several years ago, a Park Ranger who gave the speech was stunned into silence. He was explaining how the bell had been silenced in 1846 and had not run since that time.
Suddenly a large GONG emanated forth from the bell. People stood in a little bit of surprise looking to hear if this was a recording. GONG. The Park Ranger was rather ashen, however, because he knew that there was no recording.
GONG.
As the Park Ranger approached the bell a little boy, no more than 7 or 8 came out from underneath the bell and said, “I fooled you, didn’t I?”
The little boy did.
There is widespread disagreement about when the first crack appeared on the Bell. Hair-line cracks on bells were bored out to prevent expansion. However, it is agreed that the final expansion of the crack which rendered the Bell unringable was on Washington's Birthday in 1846.
The Philadelphia Public Ledger took up the story in its February 26, 1846 publication:
"The old Independence Bell rang its last clear note on Monday last in honor of the birthday of Washington and now hangs in the great city steeple irreparably cracked and dumb. It had been cracked before but was set in order of that day by having the edges of the fracture filed so as not to vibrate against each other ... It gave out clear notes and loud, and appeared to be in excellent condition until noon, when it received a sort of compound fracture in a zig-zag direction through one of its sides which put it completely out of tune and left it a mere wreck of what it was."
The Liberty Bell gives to us a bell’s message.
The first is Scriptural. The bell has, on it, a quote from Leviticus 25:10.
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.
We have used the section of Leviticus from whence this comes.
The quote on the Liberty Bell from Leviticus is powerful. This concept of Liberty in the Bible is generally tied, as it is in Leviticus, to the time of Jubilee. Jubilee was celebrated every 50 years as a time to free people from debts and give everyone a fresh start. At least that was it in theory as most scholars are unclear as to whether Jubilees, in the fullest sense of the word, were ever actually practiced. It’s great to be released from debt----but the people others were indebted to saw it from a different perspective.
This concept of liberty, even jubilee, however, was very much on the minds of the leaders of our soon to be nation in the late 18th century. They had a vision of a nation, and perhaps more importantly, they had the courage and the fortitude to make that dream, that vision, become a reality.
The second thing about this bell that is fascinating, however, are the cracks.
Please note. I said cracks.
The ‘big crack’ that everyone sees on the Liberty Bell is NOT the crack that silenced the bell. That big crack is actually not really a crack but evidence of the repair of a crack. When a bell did crack, they drilled out the cracked section of the bell and placed large bolts in it. The big crack we see is just that. It’s the repair of a crack rather than the crack that silence the bell.
However, up higher, along the top of the bell there is a long hairline crack. This crack, the hairline crack is the one that silence the Liberty Bell.
It is the crack that we don’t usually see that silenced the bell.
There is, in my mind, something of an allegory in all of this.
In recent months and in the coming months the discussion of patriotism is going to be front and center. What, exactly, does it mean to be patriotic?
There seems to be two schools of thought. The protagonists and the antagonists. To put it simply, the cheerleaders and the peanut gallery.
For some people, patriotism is a vocal and obvious love and devotion to country. It is an approach that, quite simply, waves the flag and loves country, no matter what. They are the protagonists, the cheerleaders of our nation.
For others, the antagonists, patriotism and love of country are often being critical of the nation. These people serve as the peanut gallery, reminding people of what might be wrong. Often the cheerleaders get angry at the peanut gallery and the peanut gallery gets mad at the cheerleaders.
We have, as a nation, been well served by both.
During World War I people rallied and felt a deep sense of patriotism. I served a church in Alexandria, Pennsylvania, a small, rural town. Over the front door there was a cement plaque that said’ Reformed Church.’ If you looked at it, however, you’d see that a word had been chiseled out. The word was ‘German.’ When World War I broke out, the people of the church, all of whom were of German descent, took up a ladder and chiseled the word German from their name. They were Americans.
December 7th, 1941, Pearl Harbor. July 20th, 1969, the first person on the moon. September 11th, 2001 and we are attacked. People band together and cheer for our nation. We are well served by this.
Conversely, the peanut gallery has served us well. In the latter part of the 18th century, individuals such as Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were very much antagonists to the nation----the nation of England. It was on their antagonism a concept of liberty was born.
The fight to end slavery, even the war, came as a result of the peanut gallery decreeing that slavery is wrong, calling people to something better. In the latter part of the 1960's civil rights came as a result of people who were critical of the nation.
The fact that there are different approaches is the large crack in the Liberty Bell. It is there, it is obvious, but it still rings. The little crack, the one that silences the bell’s message is the subtle undertone that there is only one voice, and anyone who disagrees is evil.
When the cheerleaders condemn and mock the peanut gallery the bell is silenced. When the peanut gallery condemns and mocks the cheerleaders, the bell is silence. The little crack dominates the bell.
Which takes me back to Leviticus. Leviticus was decreeing a time of Jubilee, a time of triumph, a time to proclaim liberty to a waiting world. All too often people work hard to silence that bell. Let’s not. Let’s use this weekend, this time, to let the bell ring out and proclaim its message to a waiting world.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
CJ Article about St. Marks
I'm back from vacation. My first day in the office is today and yesterday St. Marks had a wonderful article about what we are doing. Dale Moss did a great job with this:
Mission accomplished at St. Marks church
Members are tops at hands-on help
Send little things, like books and videos and candy and gum. That's what a member of St. Marks United Church of Christ, who was stationed in Iraq, asked of his congregation.
The New Albany church shipped nine boxes, for starters.
It shipped more than plenty, St. Marks was told. Spread the care, and that it did. It rerouted a second batch to flood victims.
This old church, at 222 E. Spring St., makes the most of a relatively new inspiration. St. Marks pushes its missionary spirit increasingly beyond the norm, and then beyond the beyond. It helps with food, with clothing, with manpower to build and fix homes. It provides both at holidays and routinely, and many thousands of people are in its debt.
"I find myself 10 times more energized -- that what I do matters," member Donna Garrison said.
The majority pitches in, in some way, so the church ambitiously follows God's charge.
"This congregation seems to have a passion for hands on," said David Riekhof, its president. "It's not just sending money."
St. Marks stands out by reaching out. From its Indiana-Kentucky denomination office, the church recently received the Barnabas Award for extraordinary local service. Only when member Alan Mason started in on the application did he realize fully the size of his church's heart.
"We had never put it together," Mason said. "It was just what we did."
St. Marks could corral more of a "market share" in suburbia. Established in 1837, St. Marks stays downtown in part because many of those in need are there.
"It does matter where we are, when it comes to opportunities for mission." Garrison said.
Associate pastor Lori Lewis recalls St. Marks deciding to make local missions more of a priority. "It came to life after that," she said.
Lewis guesses members will do more, realizing the impact that is possible.
"We're definitely not tapped out at this point," Lewis said. "I can see the list longer, with cautions."
St. Marks sponsors a weekly free lunch on Saturdays and twice-a-week clothes giveaways. Members pitch in on community Repair Affair projects and they helped Habitat for Humanity in Floyd County get going. Food baskets are distributed for Thanksgiving and toys at Christmas time.
These are only key examples of a daily, commonplace determination. Plus, St. Marks continues to come up with resources for far-flung mission work.
Being downtown, being a mostly traditional, mainline faith, the church indeed pays with fewer people regularly in the pews (200) and on the rolls (500). There is never too much money and always the potential of still more losses to the mega churches. Then again, Francesca Kemper chose St. Marks so she wouldn't be lost in a crowd. She feels at home, appreciates the church's love of music and admires its melting-pot diversity.
"I love the fact that everybody is OK, that there may be people in the room who don't feel the same way you do," Kemper said. "I've heard it called 'a thinking person's church.' "
Mason is proud that the membership of St. Marks resembles the real world. "We're not like most churches," he said. "We're not homogeneous and we don't try to fix people."
At St. Marks, women are a vital part of leadership. A worship service will not remind anyone of a Vegas act, yet the music especially leans occasionally toward the contemporary. Members discuss and vote on significant moves and expenditures. If a venture fails -- like having a Saturday evening service did -- another will be tried.
"Change is not a scary thing," Lewis said.
Just do not count on St. Marks changing locations or its commitment to care.
Dale Moss' column appears on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at (812) 949-4026 or dmoss@courier-journal.com. Comment on this column, and read his blog and previous columns, at www.courier-journal.com/moss.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
A Veteran's Bill----and Dishonesty
I found the President’s comments on signing the Veteran’s bill the other day to be unsettling. Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia was instrumental in getting this past. It increased veterans’ benefits for those returning from active service and granted educational opportunities. I do recognize that it is expensive, but when we send soldiers overseas on numerous tours of duty in combat situations they have earned this.
The President signed it because of how it was attached and then praised himself for signing it. The problem with this is that he was in stark opposition to this. It wasn’t until the bill was attached to something he wanted to sign and because of the fact that veteran’s groups were not happy with his lack of interest in this bill didn’t seem to occur to him.
One of the people he thanked for his hard work on this bill was a Senator who was opposed to the bill as ‘too generous.’ That Senator is Senator John McCain who, frankly, should know better. I do respect his service to our nation in the military and think he should be respected for it. I also think that he needs to demonstrate respect to the veterans of these two very difficult wars in which we are engaged.
What disturbs me the most and what truly makes me feel unsettled is that the President praised himself and Senator McCain when, in fact, this was a bill they were opposed to. I disagree with their opposition and certainly don’t understand it. It is, however, their right to have their own opinion and act on it. I really have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the dishonesty of praising a bill which they truly did oppose. I’m tired of the lies and wish that they would finally stop.
The President signed it because of how it was attached and then praised himself for signing it. The problem with this is that he was in stark opposition to this. It wasn’t until the bill was attached to something he wanted to sign and because of the fact that veteran’s groups were not happy with his lack of interest in this bill didn’t seem to occur to him.
One of the people he thanked for his hard work on this bill was a Senator who was opposed to the bill as ‘too generous.’ That Senator is Senator John McCain who, frankly, should know better. I do respect his service to our nation in the military and think he should be respected for it. I also think that he needs to demonstrate respect to the veterans of these two very difficult wars in which we are engaged.
What disturbs me the most and what truly makes me feel unsettled is that the President praised himself and Senator McCain when, in fact, this was a bill they were opposed to. I disagree with their opposition and certainly don’t understand it. It is, however, their right to have their own opinion and act on it. I really have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the dishonesty of praising a bill which they truly did oppose. I’m tired of the lies and wish that they would finally stop.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma and Gil Grissom’s Rule
If you are a fan of CSI, the original one, you know a bit about Gil Grissom’s Rule. The rule is this. Follow the evidence. Simple rule.
It has come into play on numerous occasions when, on the show, one of the suspects is really a despicable character who one of the agents truly wants to be guilty and go to jail. As a result, they try to pull the evidence together so that they can arrest the person and get them convicted.
On more than one occasion things did not go well because the evidence wasn’t matching up with their conclusion. Grissom’s rule comes into play. Follow the evidence. Don’t try to force the evidence where you want it to go; follow the evidence where it actually leads you.
We suffer both politically and theologically from a desire or need to begin where we want to end up instead of beginning at, well, the beginning. We decree something to be the ‘Truth’ and then do a construct to demonstrate how we got there. If the evidence does not lead to where we wanted it to, we ‘adjust’ the evidence to get us where we want to go.
We preachers often do this. We develop an opinion and then go about proving our opinion. We hang Scripture verses on our opinion like Christmas lights with little regard to context or consistency.
The end result of this, however, has been a growing lack of credibility. Theology is often replaced by political beliefs. Political beliefs are not persuaded by theology, but much the opposite.
The problem often lies with the Bible. It’s not the Bible but what we choose to do or not do with it.
The first problem is when we use the Bible for our own ends instead of following where it is leading us. I heard a sermon once where the preacher was speaking about Jesus wanting lower taxes. He had some interesting quotes but if one actually reads the entire Gospel narratives Jesus didn’t really have much interest in discussing taxes other than his famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s remark. We can all have our own opinions about taxes but the reality is that Jesus really doesn’t offer us a lot of insight on this.
This is most often abused with issues of sexuality. One would get the impression that Jesus spent the vast amount of his time, effort, and energy talking about the sex lives of people and mostly what they couldn’t do and who they couldn’t do it with. In reality Jesus said virtually nothing on the subject.
This is a problem when we start at the finish line instead of the starting line. We make conclusions based on what we want them to be as opposed to where the Bible actually might be leading us.
Conversely the Bible does not exist to be ignored. There are issues that are very Biblical that you can nuance any way you want to and they still come out as issues.
People, men actually, have tried to finesse the adultery laws in the Bible creating exceptions to the rule and attempting to make women property. No matter how one tries to finesse it, however, it is still wrong.
People have attempted to rationalize stealing or gouging people and all sorts of things simply ignoring that which they wanted to ignore.
Gil Grissom’s rule is a good one. Start at the starting line and follow the evidence. Don’t presume to start at the conclusion; the lack of evidence makes us look foolish.
It has come into play on numerous occasions when, on the show, one of the suspects is really a despicable character who one of the agents truly wants to be guilty and go to jail. As a result, they try to pull the evidence together so that they can arrest the person and get them convicted.
On more than one occasion things did not go well because the evidence wasn’t matching up with their conclusion. Grissom’s rule comes into play. Follow the evidence. Don’t try to force the evidence where you want it to go; follow the evidence where it actually leads you.
We suffer both politically and theologically from a desire or need to begin where we want to end up instead of beginning at, well, the beginning. We decree something to be the ‘Truth’ and then do a construct to demonstrate how we got there. If the evidence does not lead to where we wanted it to, we ‘adjust’ the evidence to get us where we want to go.
We preachers often do this. We develop an opinion and then go about proving our opinion. We hang Scripture verses on our opinion like Christmas lights with little regard to context or consistency.
The end result of this, however, has been a growing lack of credibility. Theology is often replaced by political beliefs. Political beliefs are not persuaded by theology, but much the opposite.
The problem often lies with the Bible. It’s not the Bible but what we choose to do or not do with it.
The first problem is when we use the Bible for our own ends instead of following where it is leading us. I heard a sermon once where the preacher was speaking about Jesus wanting lower taxes. He had some interesting quotes but if one actually reads the entire Gospel narratives Jesus didn’t really have much interest in discussing taxes other than his famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s remark. We can all have our own opinions about taxes but the reality is that Jesus really doesn’t offer us a lot of insight on this.
This is most often abused with issues of sexuality. One would get the impression that Jesus spent the vast amount of his time, effort, and energy talking about the sex lives of people and mostly what they couldn’t do and who they couldn’t do it with. In reality Jesus said virtually nothing on the subject.
This is a problem when we start at the finish line instead of the starting line. We make conclusions based on what we want them to be as opposed to where the Bible actually might be leading us.
Conversely the Bible does not exist to be ignored. There are issues that are very Biblical that you can nuance any way you want to and they still come out as issues.
People, men actually, have tried to finesse the adultery laws in the Bible creating exceptions to the rule and attempting to make women property. No matter how one tries to finesse it, however, it is still wrong.
People have attempted to rationalize stealing or gouging people and all sorts of things simply ignoring that which they wanted to ignore.
Gil Grissom’s rule is a good one. Start at the starting line and follow the evidence. Don’t presume to start at the conclusion; the lack of evidence makes us look foolish.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma---Learning to Lose Labels
Many people often refer to the Lincoln-Douglas debates as a high point in American politics. Two individuals spent hours discussing and debating their points of view. If people attended the debates or read about what was said, in detail, they had a clear perspective on each candidate. The debates were serious, deep, and done very respectfully.
People often wish that this kind of debate could take place now. The difficulty of such debates, however, is that we live in a society that dwells in the trivial, superficial, and personal. We can blame, in part, political handlers who keep their charges from speaking in an unscripted and unplanned fashion. We can blame the news media for trivializing serious stories and dwelling on the silly. We can blame talk radio for its shallowness. It’s cruelty, and its pettiness.
We can blame others very easily. The problem is that we, as a society, have consumed all of this. We no longer seem to be interested in listening to complex explanations of complex issues. We respond and often delight in cruelty and pettiness and see nothing wrong with it.
A great part of the dilemma plays itself out in the use of labels. We delight in labels. We label someone ‘conservative’ and decree that it expounds conservative values or condemn these ideas. We label someone ‘liberal’ and decree that this person expounds liberal values or, in turn, condemn the ideas. What always strikes me is the use of the world ‘values’ in describing ideology. Ideological opinions are many things, but to label them as values suggest a limited desire to even understand what a value is.
This is a long, roundabout way of making a point. The words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are political words. They are words that, at least in their inception, were used to define a perspective and demonstrate that there are differences of perspective on subjects. The problem with the words now is that they are seen as having meaning in and of themselves. The usage of the words tends to presume that there are never more than two sides to any issue and that the world and its problems can be summarized briefly and quickly.
They are political words----and badly used political words.
The great dilemma within Christianity, however, is that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have crept into the vocabulary of Christians. We now have ‘liberal’ churches ‘conservative’ churches. We now have ‘liberals’ in a denomination and ‘conservatives’ within a denomination. A person’s expression of their Christianity is now couched in an ideological perspective.
There is a problem with this, however.
If the Bible is, indeed, a guide of faith and the source of how we know God, and what the priorities of God are, than the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is problematic. They simply are not Biblical words. These two words actually never show up in the Bible. One translation uses the word ‘liberal’ but in reference to generosity and not ideology. The word, in one definition, refers to generosity and people are invited to be ‘liberal’ in their giving. Most translations render this as generous and generous is the better word.
If we are driven by the Bible, the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ just do not make sense.
Furthermore the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ did not show up in any sort of theological discussions until the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. It makes one realize (or ought to make one realize) that these are not historic theological terms. Christianity is based on faith in God and not on any ideological perspective. Actually, when we use the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ to describe or even define Christianity, we are making the presumption that Christianity is based on an idea or actually is an idea. One would like to think it is significantly more than that.
Jesus’ prayer that all may be one has become a sorry joke within Christianity right now. Christianity has become more sectarian and more polarized than it has been in a long time. People have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and, frankly, have made these ideas the foundation of their faith rather than Christ. We, in the churches, have dug trenches where we sit and wait for....
Meanwhile, 80% of the American population under the age of 18 has never had any church affiliation whatsoever. A group of young people who are looking to make a difference and are searching for places that offer substance and meaning to life have found the Christian Church to be little more than a political machine which demonstrates little distinction from any other political group in society. Much of this is because we have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and use them as much as possible.
What happens when you base your theology on what you want to base it on instead of where the Bible leads you is that you ultimately get lost. What happens when you define your theological outlook from an ideological perspective is that you have made an idea more important than God.
Frankly, Christianity will diminish and just get itself more lost clinging to labels that offer the world very little.
People often wish that this kind of debate could take place now. The difficulty of such debates, however, is that we live in a society that dwells in the trivial, superficial, and personal. We can blame, in part, political handlers who keep their charges from speaking in an unscripted and unplanned fashion. We can blame the news media for trivializing serious stories and dwelling on the silly. We can blame talk radio for its shallowness. It’s cruelty, and its pettiness.
We can blame others very easily. The problem is that we, as a society, have consumed all of this. We no longer seem to be interested in listening to complex explanations of complex issues. We respond and often delight in cruelty and pettiness and see nothing wrong with it.
A great part of the dilemma plays itself out in the use of labels. We delight in labels. We label someone ‘conservative’ and decree that it expounds conservative values or condemn these ideas. We label someone ‘liberal’ and decree that this person expounds liberal values or, in turn, condemn the ideas. What always strikes me is the use of the world ‘values’ in describing ideology. Ideological opinions are many things, but to label them as values suggest a limited desire to even understand what a value is.
This is a long, roundabout way of making a point. The words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are political words. They are words that, at least in their inception, were used to define a perspective and demonstrate that there are differences of perspective on subjects. The problem with the words now is that they are seen as having meaning in and of themselves. The usage of the words tends to presume that there are never more than two sides to any issue and that the world and its problems can be summarized briefly and quickly.
They are political words----and badly used political words.
The great dilemma within Christianity, however, is that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have crept into the vocabulary of Christians. We now have ‘liberal’ churches ‘conservative’ churches. We now have ‘liberals’ in a denomination and ‘conservatives’ within a denomination. A person’s expression of their Christianity is now couched in an ideological perspective.
There is a problem with this, however.
If the Bible is, indeed, a guide of faith and the source of how we know God, and what the priorities of God are, than the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is problematic. They simply are not Biblical words. These two words actually never show up in the Bible. One translation uses the word ‘liberal’ but in reference to generosity and not ideology. The word, in one definition, refers to generosity and people are invited to be ‘liberal’ in their giving. Most translations render this as generous and generous is the better word.
If we are driven by the Bible, the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ just do not make sense.
Furthermore the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ did not show up in any sort of theological discussions until the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. It makes one realize (or ought to make one realize) that these are not historic theological terms. Christianity is based on faith in God and not on any ideological perspective. Actually, when we use the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ to describe or even define Christianity, we are making the presumption that Christianity is based on an idea or actually is an idea. One would like to think it is significantly more than that.
Jesus’ prayer that all may be one has become a sorry joke within Christianity right now. Christianity has become more sectarian and more polarized than it has been in a long time. People have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and, frankly, have made these ideas the foundation of their faith rather than Christ. We, in the churches, have dug trenches where we sit and wait for....
Meanwhile, 80% of the American population under the age of 18 has never had any church affiliation whatsoever. A group of young people who are looking to make a difference and are searching for places that offer substance and meaning to life have found the Christian Church to be little more than a political machine which demonstrates little distinction from any other political group in society. Much of this is because we have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and use them as much as possible.
What happens when you base your theology on what you want to base it on instead of where the Bible leads you is that you ultimately get lost. What happens when you define your theological outlook from an ideological perspective is that you have made an idea more important than God.
Frankly, Christianity will diminish and just get itself more lost clinging to labels that offer the world very little.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma - Revisionism Christianity
One of the dilemmas of Christianity we have right now is that there is a great deal of revisionism taking place. What is most interesting in the debate between Dobson and Obama is that Obama is the first Democrat with the testicular fortitude to argue back and call what Dobson is representing for what it is. There is, however, a great deal more involved than the Obama/Dobson debate. This is a glimpse of the current revisionism within Christianity.
A significant issue has been the rise of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in Christianity. Its roots go back to the latter part of the 19th century and much of its growth came because of people responding to Darwin and the industrial and scientific revolution. People’s world view began to change and grow more expansive. Fundamentalism became a way to address the complexities of an ever-changing world by giving very simple answers to very complex questions and issues.
Part of the problem with the rise of Fundamentalism is that for it to survive it must survive despite the fact that facts often get in their way. They have, as a result, begun to practice revisionism. They practice a revisionist science, revisionist history, and ultimately revisionist theology.
The first book of the Bible is the Book of Genesis. Genesis is, on its own, an interesting read in the fact that it chronicles the origins of Judaism and points out some of the conflicts of the era. It mostly chronicles the life of one family, beginning with Abraham and ending with Joseph of the amazing technicolor dream coat fame. It is, on many levels a character study and there are some incredible characters in the narrative. All of this begins on Chapter 12.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis, however, are a theological reflection on how the world came into being and how things ended up the way they are. Much of it was written while in captivity by several different authors with actually two divergent views of how human beings came into existence within the first three chapters. It was not written from a scientific vantage point----it was written to make a theological point. God created and God’s creation is good. For most people within Christianity and Judaism the conflict is not about believing God created but more on how that creation actually came to be. Genesis put forth a world view 500 years older than Jesus.
The story of Noah and the ark was a theological response to, at that time, a 200-year-old Sumerian epic poem entitled the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story has a boat, a hero, and destruction. The ancient Jews, in great conflict with the influence of the Babylonians on their children, culture, and even religion, used this as a theological resource in response to this ancient epic.
It wasn’t until about a year ago that I began to truly grasp the extent of the revisionism that is growing within Christianity. In reading this from a Fundamentalist perspective they have revised the history of the era and now claim that Genesis was written before Gilgamesh. The anthropology and history to demonstrate this is, frankly, made up. They are attempting to change facts rather than to follow the evidence as to where the facts actually lead them.
We were all taught in school about the age of dinosaurs and how long before humans they wandered the earth. Revisionist science is now placing them living together. There is now even a museum in suburban Cincinnati calling itself the Creation Museum so that people can know the ‘truth’ about God’s creation. For $21.95 admission one can see this tribute to a world view we haven’t seen since we watched Fred Flintstone and Barney.
My sarcasm comes from deep anger. Christians are now often seen as ignorant fools who turn a blind eye to science, who change history to suit them, and who have no ability to adapt to the modern world. Ultimately they have been reduced to simpleton status because of the fervent desire to respond to complexity with simplistic responses.
Oh, and yes, those Christians who embrace complexity and are willing to grapple with complexity in a serious manner are labeled as ‘liberals’ and ‘elitists.’
This, however, is one piece of revisionism within Christianity. Christianity does not have a history of ignorance. Many of the finest colleges and universities in the United States were founded by Christians who demanded and longed for great educations. They longed for great educations where research led them to ideas and theories rather than allowing opinions to drive their research. Albert Einstein, as an example, did research and taught at Princeton University----an institution founded by Presbyterians. There is a long list of great schools built by people within Christianity; places of serious learning where complexity is allowed to flourish. Lots of places where ambiguity is not only accepted but celebrated.
A significant issue has been the rise of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in Christianity. Its roots go back to the latter part of the 19th century and much of its growth came because of people responding to Darwin and the industrial and scientific revolution. People’s world view began to change and grow more expansive. Fundamentalism became a way to address the complexities of an ever-changing world by giving very simple answers to very complex questions and issues.
Part of the problem with the rise of Fundamentalism is that for it to survive it must survive despite the fact that facts often get in their way. They have, as a result, begun to practice revisionism. They practice a revisionist science, revisionist history, and ultimately revisionist theology.
The first book of the Bible is the Book of Genesis. Genesis is, on its own, an interesting read in the fact that it chronicles the origins of Judaism and points out some of the conflicts of the era. It mostly chronicles the life of one family, beginning with Abraham and ending with Joseph of the amazing technicolor dream coat fame. It is, on many levels a character study and there are some incredible characters in the narrative. All of this begins on Chapter 12.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis, however, are a theological reflection on how the world came into being and how things ended up the way they are. Much of it was written while in captivity by several different authors with actually two divergent views of how human beings came into existence within the first three chapters. It was not written from a scientific vantage point----it was written to make a theological point. God created and God’s creation is good. For most people within Christianity and Judaism the conflict is not about believing God created but more on how that creation actually came to be. Genesis put forth a world view 500 years older than Jesus.
The story of Noah and the ark was a theological response to, at that time, a 200-year-old Sumerian epic poem entitled the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story has a boat, a hero, and destruction. The ancient Jews, in great conflict with the influence of the Babylonians on their children, culture, and even religion, used this as a theological resource in response to this ancient epic.
It wasn’t until about a year ago that I began to truly grasp the extent of the revisionism that is growing within Christianity. In reading this from a Fundamentalist perspective they have revised the history of the era and now claim that Genesis was written before Gilgamesh. The anthropology and history to demonstrate this is, frankly, made up. They are attempting to change facts rather than to follow the evidence as to where the facts actually lead them.
We were all taught in school about the age of dinosaurs and how long before humans they wandered the earth. Revisionist science is now placing them living together. There is now even a museum in suburban Cincinnati calling itself the Creation Museum so that people can know the ‘truth’ about God’s creation. For $21.95 admission one can see this tribute to a world view we haven’t seen since we watched Fred Flintstone and Barney.
My sarcasm comes from deep anger. Christians are now often seen as ignorant fools who turn a blind eye to science, who change history to suit them, and who have no ability to adapt to the modern world. Ultimately they have been reduced to simpleton status because of the fervent desire to respond to complexity with simplistic responses.
Oh, and yes, those Christians who embrace complexity and are willing to grapple with complexity in a serious manner are labeled as ‘liberals’ and ‘elitists.’
This, however, is one piece of revisionism within Christianity. Christianity does not have a history of ignorance. Many of the finest colleges and universities in the United States were founded by Christians who demanded and longed for great educations. They longed for great educations where research led them to ideas and theories rather than allowing opinions to drive their research. Albert Einstein, as an example, did research and taught at Princeton University----an institution founded by Presbyterians. There is a long list of great schools built by people within Christianity; places of serious learning where complexity is allowed to flourish. Lots of places where ambiguity is not only accepted but celebrated.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
In Today's New Albany Tribune
Two men accused of stealing copper from church
Two New Albany men were arrested at about 9:05 a.m. Monday after allegedly trying to sell copper down-spouts they had reportedly stolen from St. Marks United Church of Christ on Spring Street in New Albany.
Church officials first noticed two down-spouts missing June 15. Last Sunday night, they noticed five more missing.
A church trustee said he took a foot-long piece of copper to two local recycling places and told them to be on the lookout. He said that about an hour after he went to Riverside Recycling in New Albany, two men came in with shopping carts filled with crushed pieces of copper matching the description of the down-spouts stolen from St. Marks.
Donald W. Bruce, 45, of New Albany was arrested for receiving stolen property, a class D felony. Thomas M. Eaton, 30, of New Albany was arrested for theft, also a class D felony. They could face six months to three years in prison with up to a $10,000 fine if convicted. They are being held in the Floyd County Jail, and bond is fixed at $10,000. Each must pay $1,000 cash to be released.
The trustee said damage was done to the bricks holding the spouts as well. He said that if the thieves would have used screw drivers, there would have been no damage to the building.
The trustee said replacements will cost $4,500, not including installation costs and the cost to repair the bricks. He was told the thieves would have made about $290 recycling the copper.
The church plans to replace the pipes with a new metal. Copper theft has become a problem nationally with the price of copper soaring in recent years.
Two New Albany men were arrested at about 9:05 a.m. Monday after allegedly trying to sell copper down-spouts they had reportedly stolen from St. Marks United Church of Christ on Spring Street in New Albany.
Church officials first noticed two down-spouts missing June 15. Last Sunday night, they noticed five more missing.
A church trustee said he took a foot-long piece of copper to two local recycling places and told them to be on the lookout. He said that about an hour after he went to Riverside Recycling in New Albany, two men came in with shopping carts filled with crushed pieces of copper matching the description of the down-spouts stolen from St. Marks.
Donald W. Bruce, 45, of New Albany was arrested for receiving stolen property, a class D felony. Thomas M. Eaton, 30, of New Albany was arrested for theft, also a class D felony. They could face six months to three years in prison with up to a $10,000 fine if convicted. They are being held in the Floyd County Jail, and bond is fixed at $10,000. Each must pay $1,000 cash to be released.
The trustee said damage was done to the bricks holding the spouts as well. He said that if the thieves would have used screw drivers, there would have been no damage to the building.
The trustee said replacements will cost $4,500, not including installation costs and the cost to repair the bricks. He was told the thieves would have made about $290 recycling the copper.
The church plans to replace the pipes with a new metal. Copper theft has become a problem nationally with the price of copper soaring in recent years.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Dobson Obama Debate
James Dobson has attacked Barack Obama for Obama’s interpretation of the Bible. Dobson has referred to it as a fruitcake interpretation.
Two examples that Dobson cites are the fact that Obama referenced the codes in Leviticus as things we do not follow, ie, the not eating of shellfish and keeping of slaves. Then Obama referenced the Sermon the Mount stating, it is "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
Here is some of what is said in the Sermon on the Mount, which are chapters 5-7 in the Gospel of Matthew:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Obama is making the observation that our Defense Department would not survive its application. Is Dobson suggesting that the ‘turn the other cheek’ reference of Jesus ought to be the policy of the Defense Department and Obama is wrong about this?
Or the Beatitudes which, at their core, are about the need for God and anything that happens to us, even or especially dreadful, reminds us of our need for God:
When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7"Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
8"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Obama reference the codes in Leviticus because many people in the anti-gay movement within Christianity quote these very passages in their arguments for Biblical marriage. Of course, they leave out the shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. Obama’s point is actually quite accurate. You can’t apply only the codes you want to apply and ignore the others.
Dobson does have a problem with all of this however. And this is the problem.
Dobson and Focus on the Family have two major ethical agendas that they try to promote as Christian. (Using it as an adjective.)
First, they are anti-gay and are looking to promote Biblical view of marriage. I would suggest that anyone who is looking to promote a Biblical view of marriage actually read Genesis from cover to cover and ascertain if that is really what they want to do. Most contemporary ‘Biblical’ views on marriages are less Biblical and more 1950's perception of what life was like. The Bible barely speaks about homosexuality and Jesus mentions it as often as he mentions the Internet. For those who are slow, there was no Internet back then and he never mentioned the Internet. He also never mentioned anything about homosexuality.
We have codes in Leviticus and we have writings by Paul on the subject but in reference to the Greek culture and the very odd understandings they had on human sexuality. There isn’t much to hang your hat on with this and it is very, very clear that homosexuality and homosexual behavior was not a front and center issue in 1st Century Christianity.
Secondly Dobson’s other agenda is abortion. Again, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. It was not a medical procedure of that era and, as a result, it was never an issue. One might connect abortion to ‘life’ issues, but Dobson doesn’t choose to do that. He’s not on record as being consistently pro-life as much as he’s anti-abortion. As an aside, I’m not promoting abortion, I’m merely pointing out that it’s not a Biblical issue and to make it so by linking if with other ‘life’ issues is off the political reservation of James Dobson.
Dobson, frankly, has a political agenda more than an ethical agenda of Christianity. He cherry picks the Bible to find passages that say what he wants to say and ignores the rest. Barack Obama had the audacity to point this out. Whether one likes Obama or not is not really relevant here. He actually knew what he was talking about and simply pointed out that much of what has been labeled as a ‘Christian’ agenda (the usage of adjective again) is not really so.
Much of the agenda of the so-called Religious Right is not a theological agenda but a political agenda with Bible quotations. It’s about time that people began calling them on this.
Two examples that Dobson cites are the fact that Obama referenced the codes in Leviticus as things we do not follow, ie, the not eating of shellfish and keeping of slaves. Then Obama referenced the Sermon the Mount stating, it is "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
Here is some of what is said in the Sermon on the Mount, which are chapters 5-7 in the Gospel of Matthew:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Obama is making the observation that our Defense Department would not survive its application. Is Dobson suggesting that the ‘turn the other cheek’ reference of Jesus ought to be the policy of the Defense Department and Obama is wrong about this?
Or the Beatitudes which, at their core, are about the need for God and anything that happens to us, even or especially dreadful, reminds us of our need for God:
When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7"Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
8"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Obama reference the codes in Leviticus because many people in the anti-gay movement within Christianity quote these very passages in their arguments for Biblical marriage. Of course, they leave out the shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. Obama’s point is actually quite accurate. You can’t apply only the codes you want to apply and ignore the others.
Dobson does have a problem with all of this however. And this is the problem.
Dobson and Focus on the Family have two major ethical agendas that they try to promote as Christian. (Using it as an adjective.)
First, they are anti-gay and are looking to promote Biblical view of marriage. I would suggest that anyone who is looking to promote a Biblical view of marriage actually read Genesis from cover to cover and ascertain if that is really what they want to do. Most contemporary ‘Biblical’ views on marriages are less Biblical and more 1950's perception of what life was like. The Bible barely speaks about homosexuality and Jesus mentions it as often as he mentions the Internet. For those who are slow, there was no Internet back then and he never mentioned the Internet. He also never mentioned anything about homosexuality.
We have codes in Leviticus and we have writings by Paul on the subject but in reference to the Greek culture and the very odd understandings they had on human sexuality. There isn’t much to hang your hat on with this and it is very, very clear that homosexuality and homosexual behavior was not a front and center issue in 1st Century Christianity.
Secondly Dobson’s other agenda is abortion. Again, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. It was not a medical procedure of that era and, as a result, it was never an issue. One might connect abortion to ‘life’ issues, but Dobson doesn’t choose to do that. He’s not on record as being consistently pro-life as much as he’s anti-abortion. As an aside, I’m not promoting abortion, I’m merely pointing out that it’s not a Biblical issue and to make it so by linking if with other ‘life’ issues is off the political reservation of James Dobson.
Dobson, frankly, has a political agenda more than an ethical agenda of Christianity. He cherry picks the Bible to find passages that say what he wants to say and ignores the rest. Barack Obama had the audacity to point this out. Whether one likes Obama or not is not really relevant here. He actually knew what he was talking about and simply pointed out that much of what has been labeled as a ‘Christian’ agenda (the usage of adjective again) is not really so.
Much of the agenda of the so-called Religious Right is not a theological agenda but a political agenda with Bible quotations. It’s about time that people began calling them on this.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Vandalism Follow Up
To follow up about the vandalism/theft at St. Marks...
One of our Trustees had given some metal samples to local recycling, scrap yards to alert them that our copper pipes had been stolen. Well, the rocket scientist who did this showed up at a local establishment this morning to sell the scrap copper he took from our building. While they were processing his 'order' they called the police and a person from St. Marks to verify that it was our's. It was. The fool who did the vandalism and robbery was arrested. We ended up with the money for the scrap copper, which, of course, is less than it will be to repair the damages.
I do delight, however, that they arrested the fool.
One of our Trustees had given some metal samples to local recycling, scrap yards to alert them that our copper pipes had been stolen. Well, the rocket scientist who did this showed up at a local establishment this morning to sell the scrap copper he took from our building. While they were processing his 'order' they called the police and a person from St. Marks to verify that it was our's. It was. The fool who did the vandalism and robbery was arrested. We ended up with the money for the scrap copper, which, of course, is less than it will be to repair the damages.
I do delight, however, that they arrested the fool.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Downtown Vandalism...
I'm really annoyed and angry. St. Marks has been a victim, twice, of downtown vandalism.
Our Sanctuary building was built in the late 1950's and we had copper rain spouts. Notice the use of the word 'had.' We HAD copper downspouts. Early last week they were all stolen from the alley side of the building. Last night they finished the job on the Bank Street side. Copper, I know, is valuable and obviously what will be going back up will not be copper.
Some things to bother me.
If people are hungry we feed them. If people need clothing, we have given it to them. We have given away a ton of blankets this year. I like to think that St. Marks is good to and good for downtown New Albany. We are genuinely trying to do as much as we can for people.
I'm really angry that the church was vandalized. How can people live, work, or worship downtown if they need to endure vandalism, theft, and destruction?
I don't have a solution, I'm just ranting at the moment. If anyone sees some long copper downspouts please call NAPD and let them know.
Our Sanctuary building was built in the late 1950's and we had copper rain spouts. Notice the use of the word 'had.' We HAD copper downspouts. Early last week they were all stolen from the alley side of the building. Last night they finished the job on the Bank Street side. Copper, I know, is valuable and obviously what will be going back up will not be copper.
Some things to bother me.
If people are hungry we feed them. If people need clothing, we have given it to them. We have given away a ton of blankets this year. I like to think that St. Marks is good to and good for downtown New Albany. We are genuinely trying to do as much as we can for people.
I'm really angry that the church was vandalized. How can people live, work, or worship downtown if they need to endure vandalism, theft, and destruction?
I don't have a solution, I'm just ranting at the moment. If anyone sees some long copper downspouts please call NAPD and let them know.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Dilemma of Christianity in America, continued. How the Word 'Christian' is Used
To me, part of the dilemma of modern day Christianity is trying to see what it actually is as opposed to what it isn’t. It actually comes from how we use the word ‘Christian.’
First, the word ‘Christian’ has come to be defined as many things most of which it is not. A Christianity, plainly, is one who professes faith in Jesus Christ. It’s actually quite simple.
It is important to note that the word Christian is a noun. It has become an adjective. We now have Christian books, Christian music, Christian colleges, Christian camps, Christian clothing, Christian diets, Christian breath mints, etc. Maybe it is tolerable to refer to a specific kind of Worship as Christian, or a specific type of religious institution (like a church) Christian, straining it as an adjective.
There are books about Jesus and about Christianity. There is music praising Jesus and God. There are colleges founded by churches that follow basic tenets of Christianity. These places are not Christians. They might all be great and good and accomplishing much good. They are not Christian, per say. They are written by Christians often for Christians or potential Christians, but to use Christian as an adjective seems, to me, to diminish the word. Jesus died for people and the people who follow Jesus are Christians. Jesus didn’t die on the cross for books, colleges, music, or breath mints. He died for people.
Christian is also a foundational belief that is beyond the realm of theological opinion. Quite often the word ‘Christian’ is used to define a series of set beliefs and set behaviors by some group within Christianity. I was raised Roman Catholic in New Jersey. When I was growing up, we were taught that we were the ‘one true church.’ A good friend and colleague of mine was raised Southern Baptist in Texas where he was taught that he was a member of the ‘one true church.’ We were both taught that we were part of the ‘one true church’ in different churches and vastly different traditions. It was based on an idea that the set beliefs of our groups made us the only real ‘Christians.’ That’s putting theology ahead of faith. (Side note: My friend and I might not be very bright as we both left the one true church and are now United Church of Christ clergy...)
My point on this is actually quite simple. The word ‘Christian’ isn’t about a theology and it isn’t about one group stating who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out.’ It is a great deal wider and more pervasive than we often like to admit.
Lastly, the word ‘Christian’ is often defined by one very specific behavior. Very often people refer to things as ‘Christian’ or un-Christian based on one very simple little thing. Being ‘Christian’ is seen as being nice. Not being nice is often seen as being un-Christian.
Over the years at wedding receptions I have had the opportunity to sit at tables with someone’s great-uncle Waldo from Nebraska who has enjoyed the benefits of the free alcohol at the reception. More often than I’d like to admit, great-uncle Waldo finally gets up the nerve to come over to me, put his arm around me, look me in the eyes and say, “You know, I’ve never been a churchgoer but I do know what it’s all about. God wants us to be nice to each other.”
One of these days I’m going to leap to my feet and thank him for this great insight that reading the Bible, numerous theology books, and going to the seminary for a lot of years never gave me. No one ever told me that it’s all about being ‘nice’ and that the word ‘Christian’ is a euphemism for the word ‘nice.’ That is usually the time when I determine it is time to leave before I have a violent impulse toward Great Uncle Waldo.
Honestly, the word ‘nice’ is not in the Bible. Being ‘nice’ is not a Biblical concept and not a particular element of Christianity. Truthfully, Jesus was incredibly loving and incredibly honest (maybe too honest) and honesty and niceness don’t always walk hand in hand. Jesus wasn’t always very nice. He wasn’t always particularly pleasant to be around. If people actually read the entire Gospel accounts, they’d discover that Jesus was often incredibly difficult. To use the word ‘Christian’ to mean ‘nice’ doesn’t even come close.
Being a Christian means something. It is one who follows Jesus Christ, nothing more and nothing less. Part of our modern day dilemma is that we use a very foundational word and label to mean things far differently from what it actually is.
First, the word ‘Christian’ has come to be defined as many things most of which it is not. A Christianity, plainly, is one who professes faith in Jesus Christ. It’s actually quite simple.
It is important to note that the word Christian is a noun. It has become an adjective. We now have Christian books, Christian music, Christian colleges, Christian camps, Christian clothing, Christian diets, Christian breath mints, etc. Maybe it is tolerable to refer to a specific kind of Worship as Christian, or a specific type of religious institution (like a church) Christian, straining it as an adjective.
There are books about Jesus and about Christianity. There is music praising Jesus and God. There are colleges founded by churches that follow basic tenets of Christianity. These places are not Christians. They might all be great and good and accomplishing much good. They are not Christian, per say. They are written by Christians often for Christians or potential Christians, but to use Christian as an adjective seems, to me, to diminish the word. Jesus died for people and the people who follow Jesus are Christians. Jesus didn’t die on the cross for books, colleges, music, or breath mints. He died for people.
Christian is also a foundational belief that is beyond the realm of theological opinion. Quite often the word ‘Christian’ is used to define a series of set beliefs and set behaviors by some group within Christianity. I was raised Roman Catholic in New Jersey. When I was growing up, we were taught that we were the ‘one true church.’ A good friend and colleague of mine was raised Southern Baptist in Texas where he was taught that he was a member of the ‘one true church.’ We were both taught that we were part of the ‘one true church’ in different churches and vastly different traditions. It was based on an idea that the set beliefs of our groups made us the only real ‘Christians.’ That’s putting theology ahead of faith. (Side note: My friend and I might not be very bright as we both left the one true church and are now United Church of Christ clergy...)
My point on this is actually quite simple. The word ‘Christian’ isn’t about a theology and it isn’t about one group stating who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out.’ It is a great deal wider and more pervasive than we often like to admit.
Lastly, the word ‘Christian’ is often defined by one very specific behavior. Very often people refer to things as ‘Christian’ or un-Christian based on one very simple little thing. Being ‘Christian’ is seen as being nice. Not being nice is often seen as being un-Christian.
Over the years at wedding receptions I have had the opportunity to sit at tables with someone’s great-uncle Waldo from Nebraska who has enjoyed the benefits of the free alcohol at the reception. More often than I’d like to admit, great-uncle Waldo finally gets up the nerve to come over to me, put his arm around me, look me in the eyes and say, “You know, I’ve never been a churchgoer but I do know what it’s all about. God wants us to be nice to each other.”
One of these days I’m going to leap to my feet and thank him for this great insight that reading the Bible, numerous theology books, and going to the seminary for a lot of years never gave me. No one ever told me that it’s all about being ‘nice’ and that the word ‘Christian’ is a euphemism for the word ‘nice.’ That is usually the time when I determine it is time to leave before I have a violent impulse toward Great Uncle Waldo.
Honestly, the word ‘nice’ is not in the Bible. Being ‘nice’ is not a Biblical concept and not a particular element of Christianity. Truthfully, Jesus was incredibly loving and incredibly honest (maybe too honest) and honesty and niceness don’t always walk hand in hand. Jesus wasn’t always very nice. He wasn’t always particularly pleasant to be around. If people actually read the entire Gospel accounts, they’d discover that Jesus was often incredibly difficult. To use the word ‘Christian’ to mean ‘nice’ doesn’t even come close.
Being a Christian means something. It is one who follows Jesus Christ, nothing more and nothing less. Part of our modern day dilemma is that we use a very foundational word and label to mean things far differently from what it actually is.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Some Observations about Tim Russert's passing
I have some observations about the passing of Tim Russert. I have never seen such press coverage on the death of a news media person such as Tim Russert. His death was sudden and shocking and it has obviously shaken the entire media. I think that part of the reason for this is that Tim Russert was an anomaly. He was smart, competent, and fair. Sadly, in the world of media, he was the exception to the rule----which is rather sad.
Here are some observations.
First, Russert was a friend to everyone and a friend to no one. He was gregarious and friendly and treated everyone with dignity and respect. On the other hand, he was beholden to no one. It didn't matter what party you were from or what biases you had. Russert wanted to find out about the person and not spin what the person was saying. His questions were hard and fair. The interesting thing is that he was, in his own way, a great professor who gave great exams. Great exams are not about trickery, but about helping a person to process knowledge. Russert enabled knowledge to come forward.
Russert was also smart and capable. If you were going to get interviewed by him he will have read everything about you that he could find and would be quite aware of comments you had made on a variety of subjects. His interviews were actually easy to prepare for; you just had to know your stuff. He was insulted if you didn't.
Russert was also the kind of person whose faith was prominent and real and not there to 'spin' a perspective. I lived what he believed and didn't force it down everyone's throats. He was simply a very decent man who did his job well, practiced his faith, and delighted in his family.
One thing I have learned from all of this and one thing I do sincerely attempt to practice is to seek the truth where it actually is as opposed to where I want it to be. Anyone educated in a Jesuit school or in an institution that followed some solid Jesuit principles, learned some foundational things. Having had the opportunity to be in that kind of setting, I try to follow that.
The biggest thing of all is to search for the right answer, to search for the truth, and to appreciate the process. The key thing is that you have to search for the truth where it actually is as opposed to where you want it to be.
The most common method of 'truth seeking' now is not done in this manner. People, both in religion and politics, tend to follow the same path.
First, they determine what the truth actually is, cement it in place, decree it to be their principles of life, and then go about trying to prove that they are correct. The only time you read or listen to the ideas of another person is to find good ways to refute them. Increasingly looking at other perspectives has become something people do less and less.
Finding the truth does not work like that. Finding the truth starts at a starting point that is no where. It is not beginning with the conclusion, it's beginning with the search for facts to ultimately find the real answer as opposed to what we want it to be.
It was a process that Russert learned and used. It's a process I like to believe that I try to follow.
It is also a reminder to us, and a lesson to us, that it's not always the conclusion that is important, but the journey.
Here are some observations.
First, Russert was a friend to everyone and a friend to no one. He was gregarious and friendly and treated everyone with dignity and respect. On the other hand, he was beholden to no one. It didn't matter what party you were from or what biases you had. Russert wanted to find out about the person and not spin what the person was saying. His questions were hard and fair. The interesting thing is that he was, in his own way, a great professor who gave great exams. Great exams are not about trickery, but about helping a person to process knowledge. Russert enabled knowledge to come forward.
Russert was also smart and capable. If you were going to get interviewed by him he will have read everything about you that he could find and would be quite aware of comments you had made on a variety of subjects. His interviews were actually easy to prepare for; you just had to know your stuff. He was insulted if you didn't.
Russert was also the kind of person whose faith was prominent and real and not there to 'spin' a perspective. I lived what he believed and didn't force it down everyone's throats. He was simply a very decent man who did his job well, practiced his faith, and delighted in his family.
One thing I have learned from all of this and one thing I do sincerely attempt to practice is to seek the truth where it actually is as opposed to where I want it to be. Anyone educated in a Jesuit school or in an institution that followed some solid Jesuit principles, learned some foundational things. Having had the opportunity to be in that kind of setting, I try to follow that.
The biggest thing of all is to search for the right answer, to search for the truth, and to appreciate the process. The key thing is that you have to search for the truth where it actually is as opposed to where you want it to be.
The most common method of 'truth seeking' now is not done in this manner. People, both in religion and politics, tend to follow the same path.
First, they determine what the truth actually is, cement it in place, decree it to be their principles of life, and then go about trying to prove that they are correct. The only time you read or listen to the ideas of another person is to find good ways to refute them. Increasingly looking at other perspectives has become something people do less and less.
Finding the truth does not work like that. Finding the truth starts at a starting point that is no where. It is not beginning with the conclusion, it's beginning with the search for facts to ultimately find the real answer as opposed to what we want it to be.
It was a process that Russert learned and used. It's a process I like to believe that I try to follow.
It is also a reminder to us, and a lesson to us, that it's not always the conclusion that is important, but the journey.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
The Dilemma---continued
I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and my college education was received in a Roman Catholic Seminary/College and my Seminary training was in a Roman Catholic Seminary. I was preparing to become a Roman Catholic priest and decided not to do so. The reasons are many and varied and not really the point of this passage. I do want to say something about how part of the crisis we face today came by way of Rome.
When John XXIII was elected the Pope he began a series of reforms which continued under Paul VI. The 1960's was a decade in which the Roman Catholic Church was seeking to rediscover its identity. Up to that point it very much was a medieval denomination in a modern day world where things were changing. The spirit of reform was in the air.
One of the major issues facing them was on the issue of contraception, or best stated, artificial means of contraception. Many people believe that the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. It isn't. It is opposed to using artificial means of birth control, better known as contraception.
In the late 1960's the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on this were being challenged for two reasons.
The first was that there was a world wide population explosion and limiting the number of children being born seemed to be an excellent and socially responsible and moral thing to do.
The second was that the classic teachings were based on a medieval understanding of human sexuality and conception. The 'rules' had been made under some biological premises which were not accurate.
Paul VI established a commission to study this and ultimate write an encyclical on the subject. He had some of the finest minds in the world come to Rome for a variety of sessions to debate and discuss this. One person on the commission who never quite made it to the meetings was a man from Poland name Karol Wotija.
The commission, according to many who were part of it, agreed to a change in the policy. However, Wotija traveled to Rome and convinced Paul VI that this was a bad idea and Wotija wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae, the encyclical that affirmed traditional Roman Catholic Church teachings on contraception. Paul, upon reading it, ended his address with the words, "Let the lively debate begin." He had no idea.
Frankly, Humanae Vitae was a disaster. Much of it was brilliant and well written and even well argued. It had one huge problem. It came to the wrong conclusions and came to those conclusions in the face of a world wide population explosion that was dangerous and it continued to be based on a medieval biological perspective. Wotija, who later on became Pope John Paul II had begun, in many ways, reversing the reforms of Vatican II.
The release of Humanae Vitae launched a major exodus of priests and nuns and plunged the Roman Catholic Church into chaos. Pope Paul VI, a highly underrated Pope and a very good man, ended up being shattered and almost frozen in place. He no longer pushed for reforms, to the anger of many, and no longer pushed for traditions, again, to the anger of many. When he died and John Paul I was elected there was a sense that he was going to begin the reformation process again----but his reign ended quickly and John Paul II had no desire for further reform.
I was in the Seminary from 1977-1980. He was elected in 1978 and by the early 80's most of th faculties of Catholic seminaries were purged of anyone with progressive thoughts and replaced by hard lined traditionalists.
This movement within Catholicism has been met with a wide range of responses.
Some are delighted and believe that the 'old' church is back.
Many have left.
Some are still there, hoping for reform.
Many are still there, hanging out, pretty much ignoring what they want to and choose to ignore. The reality of Humanae Vitae is that most Roman Catholic ignore it and have gone on to live their lives guided by their own consciences.
The reluctance/failure of this reformation in Roman Catholicism still is present.
The recent abuse scandals have come from, in part, the celibacy teachings and, in part, of a failure to address the psycho-sexual development of priests. This abuse had been targeted only at those who had sexual relations with minors. Clergy abuse is really not only about that, but sexual abusing church members who are adults, seeking comfort from clergy, and ending up in a sexual affair. Within most denominations this is an issue that has been and is constantly addressed and dealt with. The Roman Catholic Church has not ventured there in large part because they have a dreadful shortage of priests.
Most of the priests are extraordinary people doing amazing work and are deeply talented. They are, however, being overwhelmed with demands because there are simply not enough of them.
Much of this is still residual impact from Humanae Vitae. When a modern day church remains medieval it impacts everyone.
When John XXIII was elected the Pope he began a series of reforms which continued under Paul VI. The 1960's was a decade in which the Roman Catholic Church was seeking to rediscover its identity. Up to that point it very much was a medieval denomination in a modern day world where things were changing. The spirit of reform was in the air.
One of the major issues facing them was on the issue of contraception, or best stated, artificial means of contraception. Many people believe that the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. It isn't. It is opposed to using artificial means of birth control, better known as contraception.
In the late 1960's the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on this were being challenged for two reasons.
The first was that there was a world wide population explosion and limiting the number of children being born seemed to be an excellent and socially responsible and moral thing to do.
The second was that the classic teachings were based on a medieval understanding of human sexuality and conception. The 'rules' had been made under some biological premises which were not accurate.
Paul VI established a commission to study this and ultimate write an encyclical on the subject. He had some of the finest minds in the world come to Rome for a variety of sessions to debate and discuss this. One person on the commission who never quite made it to the meetings was a man from Poland name Karol Wotija.
The commission, according to many who were part of it, agreed to a change in the policy. However, Wotija traveled to Rome and convinced Paul VI that this was a bad idea and Wotija wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae, the encyclical that affirmed traditional Roman Catholic Church teachings on contraception. Paul, upon reading it, ended his address with the words, "Let the lively debate begin." He had no idea.
Frankly, Humanae Vitae was a disaster. Much of it was brilliant and well written and even well argued. It had one huge problem. It came to the wrong conclusions and came to those conclusions in the face of a world wide population explosion that was dangerous and it continued to be based on a medieval biological perspective. Wotija, who later on became Pope John Paul II had begun, in many ways, reversing the reforms of Vatican II.
The release of Humanae Vitae launched a major exodus of priests and nuns and plunged the Roman Catholic Church into chaos. Pope Paul VI, a highly underrated Pope and a very good man, ended up being shattered and almost frozen in place. He no longer pushed for reforms, to the anger of many, and no longer pushed for traditions, again, to the anger of many. When he died and John Paul I was elected there was a sense that he was going to begin the reformation process again----but his reign ended quickly and John Paul II had no desire for further reform.
I was in the Seminary from 1977-1980. He was elected in 1978 and by the early 80's most of th faculties of Catholic seminaries were purged of anyone with progressive thoughts and replaced by hard lined traditionalists.
This movement within Catholicism has been met with a wide range of responses.
Some are delighted and believe that the 'old' church is back.
Many have left.
Some are still there, hoping for reform.
Many are still there, hanging out, pretty much ignoring what they want to and choose to ignore. The reality of Humanae Vitae is that most Roman Catholic ignore it and have gone on to live their lives guided by their own consciences.
The reluctance/failure of this reformation in Roman Catholicism still is present.
The recent abuse scandals have come from, in part, the celibacy teachings and, in part, of a failure to address the psycho-sexual development of priests. This abuse had been targeted only at those who had sexual relations with minors. Clergy abuse is really not only about that, but sexual abusing church members who are adults, seeking comfort from clergy, and ending up in a sexual affair. Within most denominations this is an issue that has been and is constantly addressed and dealt with. The Roman Catholic Church has not ventured there in large part because they have a dreadful shortage of priests.
Most of the priests are extraordinary people doing amazing work and are deeply talented. They are, however, being overwhelmed with demands because there are simply not enough of them.
Much of this is still residual impact from Humanae Vitae. When a modern day church remains medieval it impacts everyone.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Dilemma of Christianity in America, continued.
It has been an awesome time to be a Minister. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have had their 'clergy problems' and have distanced themselves from clergy. Delightful. Sadly, both Obama and McCain were right to do so....
This 'trend' does point out the continued dilemma of Christianity of America. Christianity has been more interested in perpetuating Christendom than it has in growing Christianity. There is a huge difference.
Christianity, at its core, is not an institution but a movement. If you read the Gospels, Jesus did not articulate a 'plan' for the growth of a church. Matthew's Gospel refers to his movement as 'church' but that's about it. Instead, if you read the Gospels, Jesus was preaching a reform of his own faith, Judaism, in attempting to have people move in different directions. He actually wasn't the only one doing this. That era had several rabbis, such as Gamaliel who were preaching very similar themes.
The early Christians were not about building churches, but growing a 'church,' a movement. They articulated who they were and what they believed and went out and shared the Good News. It took them almost a century to even begin the process of writing the New Testament. (Many people seem to miss the fact that the Bible is a product of the early church, not visa versa. the church existed before the Bible and it was the church that chose what was in the Bible.)
In the 4th Century, after a long period of persecution and theological chaos, the Christian movement encountered Constantine, Caesar, who united the movement within the empire. This was a mixed blessing. It provided the movement with a freedom to teach and preach without fear of reprisal. It also began an era of Christendom.
Christendom is not a movement or even a faith. It is an attempt to make society live according to the principles of Christianity. It's not that the principles are bad----it's that the principles are choices people make about faith----they are not about imposing laws on a society.
Christendom perpetuated itself. For many years, much of Europe was ruled from the Pope in Rome. Some of the Popes were great but some were corrupt and awful.
England established a state church to benefit Henry VIII's proclivities----and spent years after his death battling back and forth between London and Rome. A Separatist movement came to the American colonies to gain freedom from that----and established its own form of Christendom.
We see that now when we see clergy and politicians standing together and clergy making public proclamations on how the government ought to be run and what laws ought to be made.
Many are saying that they are beginning to see the demise of Christendom. The influence of the Christian Church on modern society is being challenge and, interestingly enough, Christianity is in a major numerical decline. A large swath of baby boomers have long since left churches and following generations have often not been church goers. Christendom is in decline to the dismay of many.
However, something interesting is beginning to take shape. Christianity, recognizing that its political influence may be waning is beginning to see itself less as an institution and more as a movement. Many churches are often smaller than they used to be, are less influential in the public forum, and are more valuable to the neighborhoods in which they live in because they are serving the community instead of trying to change laws. Churches are actively feeding people, building things for people, and interestingly enough, rediscovering themselves not as an institution, but as a movement.
Clergy can and ought to vote. Clergy can and should speak of issues that they see as important. Clergy also should not be seen on stages with politicians or be preaching a particular political position in their congregations.
Christendom may indeed be in decline....but the decline of Christendom may be seeing a rebirth of Christianity as a movement, and ultimately be more faithful to the mission of Jesus.
This 'trend' does point out the continued dilemma of Christianity of America. Christianity has been more interested in perpetuating Christendom than it has in growing Christianity. There is a huge difference.
Christianity, at its core, is not an institution but a movement. If you read the Gospels, Jesus did not articulate a 'plan' for the growth of a church. Matthew's Gospel refers to his movement as 'church' but that's about it. Instead, if you read the Gospels, Jesus was preaching a reform of his own faith, Judaism, in attempting to have people move in different directions. He actually wasn't the only one doing this. That era had several rabbis, such as Gamaliel who were preaching very similar themes.
The early Christians were not about building churches, but growing a 'church,' a movement. They articulated who they were and what they believed and went out and shared the Good News. It took them almost a century to even begin the process of writing the New Testament. (Many people seem to miss the fact that the Bible is a product of the early church, not visa versa. the church existed before the Bible and it was the church that chose what was in the Bible.)
In the 4th Century, after a long period of persecution and theological chaos, the Christian movement encountered Constantine, Caesar, who united the movement within the empire. This was a mixed blessing. It provided the movement with a freedom to teach and preach without fear of reprisal. It also began an era of Christendom.
Christendom is not a movement or even a faith. It is an attempt to make society live according to the principles of Christianity. It's not that the principles are bad----it's that the principles are choices people make about faith----they are not about imposing laws on a society.
Christendom perpetuated itself. For many years, much of Europe was ruled from the Pope in Rome. Some of the Popes were great but some were corrupt and awful.
England established a state church to benefit Henry VIII's proclivities----and spent years after his death battling back and forth between London and Rome. A Separatist movement came to the American colonies to gain freedom from that----and established its own form of Christendom.
We see that now when we see clergy and politicians standing together and clergy making public proclamations on how the government ought to be run and what laws ought to be made.
Many are saying that they are beginning to see the demise of Christendom. The influence of the Christian Church on modern society is being challenge and, interestingly enough, Christianity is in a major numerical decline. A large swath of baby boomers have long since left churches and following generations have often not been church goers. Christendom is in decline to the dismay of many.
However, something interesting is beginning to take shape. Christianity, recognizing that its political influence may be waning is beginning to see itself less as an institution and more as a movement. Many churches are often smaller than they used to be, are less influential in the public forum, and are more valuable to the neighborhoods in which they live in because they are serving the community instead of trying to change laws. Churches are actively feeding people, building things for people, and interestingly enough, rediscovering themselves not as an institution, but as a movement.
Clergy can and ought to vote. Clergy can and should speak of issues that they see as important. Clergy also should not be seen on stages with politicians or be preaching a particular political position in their congregations.
Christendom may indeed be in decline....but the decline of Christendom may be seeing a rebirth of Christianity as a movement, and ultimately be more faithful to the mission of Jesus.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Jesus Called....
I found this bumper sticker the other day and I just had to get it.
Jesus Called. He wants his religion back.
This has been, from a clergy person's perspective, a pretty awful year for clergy involved with political candidates.
John McCain has had to distance himself from John Hagee who referred to the Roman Catholic Church as the great whore in the Book of Revelation and who made bizarre statements about Hitler, God's will, and Judaism.
Barack Obama has distanced himself from his former pastor and, I presume, now former friend Jeremiah Wright. Wright was defended by many of his colleagues and then he went to the press club and found a wall to completely go off of.
John McCain has had to distance himself from Rod Parsley, a mega church pastor in Ohio who knows it all and seems to enjoy hating others.
Barack Obama has distanced himself from Michael Pfleger, a Roman Catholic priest who preached at Trinity Church a couple of weeks ago and, frankly, sounded like an lunatic.
I am a strong, a very strong believer in the separation of church and state. I vehemently want the church to be able to have the ability to speak the truth to power and to not bed itself with that power and become indebted to the power. Besides, I firmly believe in the freedom of religion for people who choose to be a people of faith; and a freedom from religion for those people who do not make that choice.
These members of the clergy, in my mind, ventured into a territory that no preacher ought to venture. McCain and Obama were right to disavow these guys; their comments were dreadful and unbecoming of who they ought to be.
Often Christianity bears little resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. I was reading some of Rod Parsley's comments on poverty and the war on poverty. He made the observation that poverty has won that war. True enough. He spends the rest of his time decreeing that the Gospel tells us that government shouldn't be feeding the poor and providing social programs for the poor, but churches and individuals ought to be doing that.
Actually, the Gospel doesn't say that. It speaks about feeding and aiding the poor. Period. It doesn't say how. How is a political issue. Feeding the poor is a Gospel issue. How we do it is a political choice----and the Gospel doesn't tell us how we ought to do it, just that we ought to do it.
Jesus called. He wants his religion back.
I hope he gets it.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Dilemma of Christianity in America, continued.
The last time I blogged I mentioned that a significant portion of the crisis we have in American Christianity is how we approach the Bible. There is a lot more to this subject.
Much is made about being Biblical. Being Biblical is a phase in need of a definition.
Being Biblical is most often defined by something, frankly, it is not.
It has become fashionable to carve out positions on politics, ethics, different aspects of faith, and find Scripture texts to back up one’s opinions.
Do you remember the uproar over the Harry Potter books and movies? Much of that uproar came from people who chose to cite Leviticus 19. Leviticus 19 contains a listing of ‘do nots’ for people. Many of them are in regards to the 10 Commandments and have little controversy behind them. But it also states this in verse 31:
Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.
In the second half of verse 26 it states:
You shall not practice augury or witchcraft.
Pretty clear and this teaching is imposed by some on many. Now, there is much wonderful in Leviticus 19 that makes a great deal of sense. However, here is my question. Are the people who are yelping loudly about Harry Potter keeping all the commands of Leviticus? I wonder.
Back to verse 26. The first half of the verse states:
You shall not eat anything with its blood.
It strikes me that if you are taking the whole passage into account one ought to eat all of one’s beef cooked to be well done. Rare, medium rare, medium, and medium well all have a chance of some blood. In some of the finer steak restaurants they often make the claim that they will not guarantee the quality of well done beef. Ironically, these ‘sinners’ who are encouraging people to break the law of the first half of verse 26 are never targeted for pickets and never have editorials against them proclaiming them to be godless heathens.
Verse 19 contains :
you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed;
The agricultural community has been cross breeding all kind of fruits and vegetables for years and have had great success. We buy many of these products in the grocery stores and I have yet to see a protester decreeing the grocery chains and the farmers to be godless heathens.
And then, of course, a continuation of verse 19 reads:
nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.
Yep. If you’re sitting here in clothing made from a cotton polyester blend, you are hereby decreed to be a heathen.
As a person who generally orders beef rare or medium rare, as a person who has enjoyed crossbred produce, and as a person sitting in a chair typing this while wearing clothing that are made from blending polyester and cotton, I am here as a heathen.
Or maybe not. Being Biblical has to be more than finding Biblical quotes to validate positions. Somehow I suspect that if Jesus walked into a room and found people preaching about Harry Potter and how terrible those books and movies were, he’d walk back out wondering why the preacher was wasting his/her time on such nonsense.
I’m realizing that there is much to say on this topic about the crisis of Christianity in America. Bear with me as I try to explore this.
Much is made about being Biblical. Being Biblical is a phase in need of a definition.
Being Biblical is most often defined by something, frankly, it is not.
It has become fashionable to carve out positions on politics, ethics, different aspects of faith, and find Scripture texts to back up one’s opinions.
Do you remember the uproar over the Harry Potter books and movies? Much of that uproar came from people who chose to cite Leviticus 19. Leviticus 19 contains a listing of ‘do nots’ for people. Many of them are in regards to the 10 Commandments and have little controversy behind them. But it also states this in verse 31:
Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.
In the second half of verse 26 it states:
You shall not practice augury or witchcraft.
Pretty clear and this teaching is imposed by some on many. Now, there is much wonderful in Leviticus 19 that makes a great deal of sense. However, here is my question. Are the people who are yelping loudly about Harry Potter keeping all the commands of Leviticus? I wonder.
Back to verse 26. The first half of the verse states:
You shall not eat anything with its blood.
It strikes me that if you are taking the whole passage into account one ought to eat all of one’s beef cooked to be well done. Rare, medium rare, medium, and medium well all have a chance of some blood. In some of the finer steak restaurants they often make the claim that they will not guarantee the quality of well done beef. Ironically, these ‘sinners’ who are encouraging people to break the law of the first half of verse 26 are never targeted for pickets and never have editorials against them proclaiming them to be godless heathens.
Verse 19 contains :
you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed;
The agricultural community has been cross breeding all kind of fruits and vegetables for years and have had great success. We buy many of these products in the grocery stores and I have yet to see a protester decreeing the grocery chains and the farmers to be godless heathens.
And then, of course, a continuation of verse 19 reads:
nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.
Yep. If you’re sitting here in clothing made from a cotton polyester blend, you are hereby decreed to be a heathen.
As a person who generally orders beef rare or medium rare, as a person who has enjoyed crossbred produce, and as a person sitting in a chair typing this while wearing clothing that are made from blending polyester and cotton, I am here as a heathen.
Or maybe not. Being Biblical has to be more than finding Biblical quotes to validate positions. Somehow I suspect that if Jesus walked into a room and found people preaching about Harry Potter and how terrible those books and movies were, he’d walk back out wondering why the preacher was wasting his/her time on such nonsense.
I’m realizing that there is much to say on this topic about the crisis of Christianity in America. Bear with me as I try to explore this.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Dilemma of Christianity in America
I think that there is a major dilemma in Christianity in America right now. It has actually been brewing for quite a long time. Many of the people in the baby boomer generation have either dropped out of church, and as a result, the following generation has never been part of church tradition. Additionally, many of the people who are finding themselves in churches are in churches that have Worship that bears little resemblance to historic Christian Worship and often have a theological vantage point that is actually rather new in a 2000 year old institution.
Part of the problem has been the Christian Church itself. Christianity seems hell-bent on fighting within itself with massive theological and ideological debates that generally succeed in tearing apart the fabric of the movement. Most of the debate is often projected as a liberal/conservative debate. Some interesting points about that.
If you read the Bible, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are nowhere to be found. Presuming that there is divine intervention in the Bible, and presuming that God uses the Bible to share what God sees as important, the idea of being 'liberal' or 'conservative' don't rank high on God's hit parade.
Second point in this. If you read church history and theology and go back a bit (recognizing that people of different eras had some profound insights), you'll note that the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not part of theological works until the latter part of the 19th century, beginning part of the 20th century. The words are political words, not theological words, and Christianity, it seems, swallowed these words whole.
There are some root issues.
The first root issue is how we approach the Bible. A classic perspective on the Bible that came to root mostly in the Middle Ages and has been a part of the theological scene is this. The Bible is inspired by God and totally correct on all matters of salvation history. Salvation history is simply stating that the Bible is totally accurate in teaching us the nature of God, the nature of human beings, the nature of the relationship of people with God, and on the subject of salvation.
This generally views the Bible in sweeping terms. The Book of Genesis'
creation story is not viewed as a literal, scientific perspective on how God created the universe in 7 days. This narrative would make the earth and universe 6000 years old and have dinosaurs and people living together. It's something of the Flintstone model.
Science, obviously, has taught us that the earth and universe are far older than this and that people and dinosaurs lived at nowhere near the same time.
Classic theology has no major issue with evolution. There's a theological viewpoint of God as a creator, and as a creator God created a universe in motion, in process, and in evolutionary terms. The French Philosopher/Theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote that to think of God other than a Creator who created an evolving creation to to diminish the Creator into little more than a cartoon character.
The problem right now is this. People are teaching that Genesis is a scientific fact. Other people are teaching that Genesis is a fairy tale with no meaning.
Sadly, right now, the major push is that the only way to approach Genesis is from either polemic, with no attempt to begin at the middle. There in lies the genesis of the dilemma of Christianity in America.
Part of the problem has been the Christian Church itself. Christianity seems hell-bent on fighting within itself with massive theological and ideological debates that generally succeed in tearing apart the fabric of the movement. Most of the debate is often projected as a liberal/conservative debate. Some interesting points about that.
If you read the Bible, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are nowhere to be found. Presuming that there is divine intervention in the Bible, and presuming that God uses the Bible to share what God sees as important, the idea of being 'liberal' or 'conservative' don't rank high on God's hit parade.
Second point in this. If you read church history and theology and go back a bit (recognizing that people of different eras had some profound insights), you'll note that the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not part of theological works until the latter part of the 19th century, beginning part of the 20th century. The words are political words, not theological words, and Christianity, it seems, swallowed these words whole.
There are some root issues.
The first root issue is how we approach the Bible. A classic perspective on the Bible that came to root mostly in the Middle Ages and has been a part of the theological scene is this. The Bible is inspired by God and totally correct on all matters of salvation history. Salvation history is simply stating that the Bible is totally accurate in teaching us the nature of God, the nature of human beings, the nature of the relationship of people with God, and on the subject of salvation.
This generally views the Bible in sweeping terms. The Book of Genesis'
creation story is not viewed as a literal, scientific perspective on how God created the universe in 7 days. This narrative would make the earth and universe 6000 years old and have dinosaurs and people living together. It's something of the Flintstone model.
Science, obviously, has taught us that the earth and universe are far older than this and that people and dinosaurs lived at nowhere near the same time.
Classic theology has no major issue with evolution. There's a theological viewpoint of God as a creator, and as a creator God created a universe in motion, in process, and in evolutionary terms. The French Philosopher/Theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote that to think of God other than a Creator who created an evolving creation to to diminish the Creator into little more than a cartoon character.
The problem right now is this. People are teaching that Genesis is a scientific fact. Other people are teaching that Genesis is a fairy tale with no meaning.
Sadly, right now, the major push is that the only way to approach Genesis is from either polemic, with no attempt to begin at the middle. There in lies the genesis of the dilemma of Christianity in America.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
A Clueless Wingnut
Years ago when I was teaching High School in New Jersey I had the kids do oral reports in a theology class. I was teaching in a Roman Catholic High School. One of the kids gave his report on Allah and he said, at one point, "Allah is inscrutable." I asked the young man what the word inscrutable meant as he was using the word in his report. I was met with a blank stare. I had the young man sit down and told me that he could do his presentation tomorrow when he knew the definition of inscrutable.
The next day he did his talk. He came upon the phrase, "Allah is inscrutable," I asked and he answered. He came upon another word in the report and I asked him what that word meant. He smiled and gave me a perfect definition with a, "I knew you were going to ask me that!"
I felt good that day. Some education actually did happen. I hope that this person, who would now be in his 40's, never uses words that he doesn't know.
And then there is Kevin James. Kevin James does a radio talk show on KRLA in Los Angeles. His background is as a prosecutor and and entertainment attorney. From what I gather, he does a conservative talk show and usually refers to legal issues.
But Kevin James appeared on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews is a person some people really like and some people really don't. There are two things about Chris Matthews that are pretty obvious. First, he's a smart guy. He knows what's going on and who is doing it. Secondly, Matthews does not suffer fools gladly. A clueless wingnut on his show is going to be called out.
Kevin James demonstrated, on national television, that he is a clueless wingnut. He decided to defend President Bush's inane use of the word "appeaser' and James really wanted it applied to Obama. Fair enough. He then likened Obama to Neville Chamberlain. At this juncture, Matthews, who had a hunch that he was dealing with a loud blow hard in an empty suit asked Kevin James a very simple history question. What was it that Neville Chamberlain did that was wrong.
Matthews repeated the question between 24-28 times to James who blustered away and finally answered:
The things that Neville Chamberlain supported energized, legitimized, and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced."
It was, obviously, the wrong answer. Matthews was looking to see if James knew the difference between negotiating, (talking) and appeasement, (giving something away) like Chamberlain had given away a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. James did not. He was using a word that he did not know the definition of. I suspect that his high school teachers, his college and law school professors looked on in horror to realize that a student who they had taught was little more than an ignorant blow hard on national television.
Something one learns in preaching class is that you do not use examples or stories about things you don't know about. The thing is, at some point, a person might actually ask you a question about something that you spoke about and if you don't know the answer you will be seen, properly, as a moron.
I respect that people have different opinions. I have little regard for clueless wingnuts who loves to speak and know little about that which they speak. I do have a character flaw. Like Chris Matthews I do not suffer fools gladly.
It would be nice if Kevin James' radio show vanishes because people realize that he has nothing to offer them. Sadly, I suspect, he'll be a national star, seen as a victim to 'liberalism' and filling the airways with nonsense.
If ignorance truly is bliss, I am always amazed how many happy people there are.
The next day he did his talk. He came upon the phrase, "Allah is inscrutable," I asked and he answered. He came upon another word in the report and I asked him what that word meant. He smiled and gave me a perfect definition with a, "I knew you were going to ask me that!"
I felt good that day. Some education actually did happen. I hope that this person, who would now be in his 40's, never uses words that he doesn't know.
And then there is Kevin James. Kevin James does a radio talk show on KRLA in Los Angeles. His background is as a prosecutor and and entertainment attorney. From what I gather, he does a conservative talk show and usually refers to legal issues.
But Kevin James appeared on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews is a person some people really like and some people really don't. There are two things about Chris Matthews that are pretty obvious. First, he's a smart guy. He knows what's going on and who is doing it. Secondly, Matthews does not suffer fools gladly. A clueless wingnut on his show is going to be called out.
Kevin James demonstrated, on national television, that he is a clueless wingnut. He decided to defend President Bush's inane use of the word "appeaser' and James really wanted it applied to Obama. Fair enough. He then likened Obama to Neville Chamberlain. At this juncture, Matthews, who had a hunch that he was dealing with a loud blow hard in an empty suit asked Kevin James a very simple history question. What was it that Neville Chamberlain did that was wrong.
Matthews repeated the question between 24-28 times to James who blustered away and finally answered:
The things that Neville Chamberlain supported energized, legitimized, and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced."
It was, obviously, the wrong answer. Matthews was looking to see if James knew the difference between negotiating, (talking) and appeasement, (giving something away) like Chamberlain had given away a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. James did not. He was using a word that he did not know the definition of. I suspect that his high school teachers, his college and law school professors looked on in horror to realize that a student who they had taught was little more than an ignorant blow hard on national television.
Something one learns in preaching class is that you do not use examples or stories about things you don't know about. The thing is, at some point, a person might actually ask you a question about something that you spoke about and if you don't know the answer you will be seen, properly, as a moron.
I respect that people have different opinions. I have little regard for clueless wingnuts who loves to speak and know little about that which they speak. I do have a character flaw. Like Chris Matthews I do not suffer fools gladly.
It would be nice if Kevin James' radio show vanishes because people realize that he has nothing to offer them. Sadly, I suspect, he'll be a national star, seen as a victim to 'liberalism' and filling the airways with nonsense.
If ignorance truly is bliss, I am always amazed how many happy people there are.
Friday, May 16, 2008
I Am Angry.
I am angry.
First off, for an American President to stand before a foreign governing body in a foreign land, as President Bush did with the Israeli Knesset, and bash any American political opponent is beyond belief. That, in and of itself was disgraceful and he owes the American people an apology for doing such a thing. Our political debates are here, not in other lands. It was putrid behavior on his part. Putrid. I use the word very deliberately.
This is not to mention how inane his remarks were:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,"
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The speech does explain a great deal about the situation we are currently in. President Bush does not seem to know, or grasp the difference between negotiation and appeasement. He further cites an isolationist Republican Senator from Idaho, William Borah who lamented in a rather bizarre fashion that he had wished he could have spoken to Hitler before the Nazis invaded Poland. The ultimate act of appeasement before World War II was by Neville Chamberlain of England who appeased Hitler and the Nazis in a fruitless effort to win ‘peace in our time.’ The appeasement came when Chamberlain negotiated away the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, forcing the Czechs into giving away part of their country to Nazi Germany.
American Presidents, before President Bush, have all negotiated with other countries with varying degrees of success. We maintained diplomatic relations with Japan right up to December 7, 1941. No one called those relations with Japan appeasement and upon the attack on Pearl Harbor, we went to war.
It had become obvious that there was a threat with the Soviet Union that loomed greatly at the end of World War II. American Presidents, one and all, Democrat and Republican maintained and kept diplomatic negotiations with the Soviets. No one called it appeasement. In fact, many fans of Ronald Reagan credit Reagan for his willingness to go one on one with the Soviets. To his credit, his willingness to remain at the table, and even be tough at the table, proved to be beneficial. No one called this appeasement. No one ever called Richard Nixon an appeaser after he opened diplomatic relations with China.
President George H. W. Bush was often referred to as a ‘wimp’ from people in his own party for his deft ability to interact effectively with world leaders of every ilk. (It is interesting that the very people who inferred that George H. W. Bush was wimpy never served in the military and were very much chicken-hawks, whereas Bush was a decorated war hero.)
George W. Bush, not to be confused with his father, was inferring, quite obviously, that electing Barack Obama would be to elect an appeaser because Obama wants to open or maintain diplomatic relations with even our enemies. Again, the President, does not have a clue that there is a difference between negotiation and appeasement. Obama wants to ‘talk’ and he has given no indication that he has any desire to appease. He is actually simply looking to do what many of his predecessors have done.
Some might criticize him that he’s willing to talk without pre-conditions. Maybe he shouldn’t----or maybe he should.
The philosopher Dallas Willard has a great line. “The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting.”
Our current method of foreign policy has gotten us where?
Our military is still fighting in Afghanistan. The soldiers in Afghanistan are too few in number and are under-equipped to be able to do their job properly because of the war in Iraq. We invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass-destruction that United Nations inspectors said did not exist (and who were eviscerated by the Bush administration) and we found that the United Nations inspectors were, in fact, correct.
We invaded Iraq to ‘fight the war on terror.’ Of course, the nations that were harboring terrorists at that time were Iran and Syria. So, we invaded Iraq. This kind of logic makes me think that if George W. Bush had been the Prime Minister in England in 1939, observing Germany and Italy, he’d have invaded Italy and proclaimed that getting ‘Mussolini’ was going to solve the world’s problems. Meanwhile, the real threat would have remained.
As a result, our military has been placed in the precarious position of fighting two insurgent wars at the same time. Historical precedence for fighting insurgencies with great success is rather limited, I’m afraid.
Meanwhile our relationships with other countries goes like this.
Most of Europe holds us in contempt. Tony Blair’s career was destroyed by siding with the United States. France and Germany, in hindsight, look brilliant.
Saudi Arabia, George W. Bush’s one true friend, laughed in his face when he asked them to please increase oil production. This is his second visit this year asking his friends to please help.
Under George W. Bush, our current foreign policy reminds me of a game we boys used to play in the 6th grade. We’d line up in the boys’ room and see who could urinate the furthest. We all learned that one kid was the champion so the game soon ended. We also got a bit more mature and realized the stupidity of this game. But this, now, is how the Bush administration conducts its foreign policy.
The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting.
Barack Obama was simply stating that what we are doing now is not working so perhaps a change of tactics might be in order.
George W. Bush, who doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and negotiation decides to protest this to leaders of another country.
His speech was mindless, historically inaccurate, and putrid.
And I’m still angry.
First off, for an American President to stand before a foreign governing body in a foreign land, as President Bush did with the Israeli Knesset, and bash any American political opponent is beyond belief. That, in and of itself was disgraceful and he owes the American people an apology for doing such a thing. Our political debates are here, not in other lands. It was putrid behavior on his part. Putrid. I use the word very deliberately.
This is not to mention how inane his remarks were:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,"
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The speech does explain a great deal about the situation we are currently in. President Bush does not seem to know, or grasp the difference between negotiation and appeasement. He further cites an isolationist Republican Senator from Idaho, William Borah who lamented in a rather bizarre fashion that he had wished he could have spoken to Hitler before the Nazis invaded Poland. The ultimate act of appeasement before World War II was by Neville Chamberlain of England who appeased Hitler and the Nazis in a fruitless effort to win ‘peace in our time.’ The appeasement came when Chamberlain negotiated away the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, forcing the Czechs into giving away part of their country to Nazi Germany.
American Presidents, before President Bush, have all negotiated with other countries with varying degrees of success. We maintained diplomatic relations with Japan right up to December 7, 1941. No one called those relations with Japan appeasement and upon the attack on Pearl Harbor, we went to war.
It had become obvious that there was a threat with the Soviet Union that loomed greatly at the end of World War II. American Presidents, one and all, Democrat and Republican maintained and kept diplomatic negotiations with the Soviets. No one called it appeasement. In fact, many fans of Ronald Reagan credit Reagan for his willingness to go one on one with the Soviets. To his credit, his willingness to remain at the table, and even be tough at the table, proved to be beneficial. No one called this appeasement. No one ever called Richard Nixon an appeaser after he opened diplomatic relations with China.
President George H. W. Bush was often referred to as a ‘wimp’ from people in his own party for his deft ability to interact effectively with world leaders of every ilk. (It is interesting that the very people who inferred that George H. W. Bush was wimpy never served in the military and were very much chicken-hawks, whereas Bush was a decorated war hero.)
George W. Bush, not to be confused with his father, was inferring, quite obviously, that electing Barack Obama would be to elect an appeaser because Obama wants to open or maintain diplomatic relations with even our enemies. Again, the President, does not have a clue that there is a difference between negotiation and appeasement. Obama wants to ‘talk’ and he has given no indication that he has any desire to appease. He is actually simply looking to do what many of his predecessors have done.
Some might criticize him that he’s willing to talk without pre-conditions. Maybe he shouldn’t----or maybe he should.
The philosopher Dallas Willard has a great line. “The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting.”
Our current method of foreign policy has gotten us where?
Our military is still fighting in Afghanistan. The soldiers in Afghanistan are too few in number and are under-equipped to be able to do their job properly because of the war in Iraq. We invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass-destruction that United Nations inspectors said did not exist (and who were eviscerated by the Bush administration) and we found that the United Nations inspectors were, in fact, correct.
We invaded Iraq to ‘fight the war on terror.’ Of course, the nations that were harboring terrorists at that time were Iran and Syria. So, we invaded Iraq. This kind of logic makes me think that if George W. Bush had been the Prime Minister in England in 1939, observing Germany and Italy, he’d have invaded Italy and proclaimed that getting ‘Mussolini’ was going to solve the world’s problems. Meanwhile, the real threat would have remained.
As a result, our military has been placed in the precarious position of fighting two insurgent wars at the same time. Historical precedence for fighting insurgencies with great success is rather limited, I’m afraid.
Meanwhile our relationships with other countries goes like this.
Most of Europe holds us in contempt. Tony Blair’s career was destroyed by siding with the United States. France and Germany, in hindsight, look brilliant.
Saudi Arabia, George W. Bush’s one true friend, laughed in his face when he asked them to please increase oil production. This is his second visit this year asking his friends to please help.
Under George W. Bush, our current foreign policy reminds me of a game we boys used to play in the 6th grade. We’d line up in the boys’ room and see who could urinate the furthest. We all learned that one kid was the champion so the game soon ended. We also got a bit more mature and realized the stupidity of this game. But this, now, is how the Bush administration conducts its foreign policy.
The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting.
Barack Obama was simply stating that what we are doing now is not working so perhaps a change of tactics might be in order.
George W. Bush, who doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and negotiation decides to protest this to leaders of another country.
His speech was mindless, historically inaccurate, and putrid.
And I’m still angry.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Recognizing what is really important...
Sometimes recognizing what is really important is difficult. In the midst of a debate on the gas tax, on Barack and Hillary, the John McCain story, a cyclone hit Myanmar. The estimates are that over 100,000 people have been killed and that over 1,000,000 people have been left homeless. The United States, the United Nations, and much of the world has responded with great generosity and compassion and a large amount of aid has been directed towards Myanmar.
The aid is being blocked and what precious little has gotten into the country has been seized by the government of Myanmar.
Things, of course, are going to get worse. Hunger and disease are on the horizon and aid is being blocked.
Deliver us from evil....
The aid is being blocked and what precious little has gotten into the country has been seized by the government of Myanmar.
Things, of course, are going to get worse. Hunger and disease are on the horizon and aid is being blocked.
Deliver us from evil....
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Some Almost Post Primary Observations
I write this as someone who really admires Hillary Clinton and believes that she would have made a very fine President. It is looking like she is not going to be the nominee for the Democrats----but one never knows what will happen between now and November. As a result, I'm writing this from the perspective that it's hitting the two minute warning, she does not have the ball, does not have any time outs, and is behind by two scores. Lest someone say I'm premature, that's my starting point.
I think that she ran into some things that she might have not been expecting.
First, in an ironic twist of fate, George W. Bush helped pull her down. Bush has an incredibly low approval rating and the nation's perspective is that we are heading in the wrong direction----rapidly. It is always impossible to say at the time, but I deeply suspect that this administration will rank very low on effective Presidencies.
What happened to her was that there is a strong sense of anti-incumbency and anti-Bush. She might not be the incumbent President, but she was, as First Lady, there before, and people just want to clean the house out, lock, stock, and barrel. Oddly enough, the dislike of the current President has worn off on her.
Secondly there is the war. Tapes of speeches that Hillary Clinton made previous to the invasion of Iraq demonstrated that she had plenty to drink at the Bush Kool-Aid stand. Many of the words she used were his exact words. The fact that she pronounced them correctly and used them in proper grammatical order made her a bit different from Bush, but not much. He long, convoluted explanations on this did not help her. A simply "I believed him, I voted for the war, and I believed his lies," would have been enough. They weren't.
Thirdly, the gas tax proposal at the last minute looked like a cheap political stunt and it looked so cheaply political that people didn't seem to buy into it very much.
Fourthly, Hillary gets 'cute' with her answers some times. When asked, some time back, if Obama was Muslim, her answer was, "From what I have heard, I don't believe that he might be." It was something along that line when 'no' would have been a more direct answer. You can't milk political advantage out of EVERY question.
Lastly, Obama ran a better campaign. She did not foresee the importance of the caucuses, she did not have an effective fund-raising mechanism, she ignored smaller states, and she had no Post-Super-Tuesday strategy. Hillary's negativity tended towards personal, and Obama's negativity tended towards policy. John Yarmuth beat Ann Northup the same way.
This was an amazing and historic primary process. We'll see how that translates in November.
I think that she ran into some things that she might have not been expecting.
First, in an ironic twist of fate, George W. Bush helped pull her down. Bush has an incredibly low approval rating and the nation's perspective is that we are heading in the wrong direction----rapidly. It is always impossible to say at the time, but I deeply suspect that this administration will rank very low on effective Presidencies.
What happened to her was that there is a strong sense of anti-incumbency and anti-Bush. She might not be the incumbent President, but she was, as First Lady, there before, and people just want to clean the house out, lock, stock, and barrel. Oddly enough, the dislike of the current President has worn off on her.
Secondly there is the war. Tapes of speeches that Hillary Clinton made previous to the invasion of Iraq demonstrated that she had plenty to drink at the Bush Kool-Aid stand. Many of the words she used were his exact words. The fact that she pronounced them correctly and used them in proper grammatical order made her a bit different from Bush, but not much. He long, convoluted explanations on this did not help her. A simply "I believed him, I voted for the war, and I believed his lies," would have been enough. They weren't.
Thirdly, the gas tax proposal at the last minute looked like a cheap political stunt and it looked so cheaply political that people didn't seem to buy into it very much.
Fourthly, Hillary gets 'cute' with her answers some times. When asked, some time back, if Obama was Muslim, her answer was, "From what I have heard, I don't believe that he might be." It was something along that line when 'no' would have been a more direct answer. You can't milk political advantage out of EVERY question.
Lastly, Obama ran a better campaign. She did not foresee the importance of the caucuses, she did not have an effective fund-raising mechanism, she ignored smaller states, and she had no Post-Super-Tuesday strategy. Hillary's negativity tended towards personal, and Obama's negativity tended towards policy. John Yarmuth beat Ann Northup the same way.
This was an amazing and historic primary process. We'll see how that translates in November.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Hillary Clinton in New Albany
I have not seen anything posted by anyone, but Senator Hillary Clinton is speaking in New Albany tonight at the firehouse on E. Spring Street, right next to the St. Marks parking lot on 3rd Street. There doesn't seem to be much publicity, but I thought I'd share this for anyone interested.
Join Hillary Clinton for a “Standing Up For Jobs” Rally in New Albany
When
Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Where
New Albany Fire Department
316 East Spring Street
New Albany, IN 47150
General Area:
Description
Join Hillary as she shares with Hoosier voters her plans to jumpstart the economy, create new, high wage jobs and strengthen the middle class.
Host
Indiana For Hillary
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Cheap Gestures or Substance
I feel something like a grinch writing this and I certainly love receiving checks in the mail and paying lower prices, but I've been wondering.
We are soon going to be getting our checks from the government to help boost the economy. Two of the Presidential Candidates are proposing eliminating the federal sales tax off of gasoline for the summer to lower prices on gas for people to travel.
Again, it's not that I don't love getting money and paying lower prices, but I'm troubled that these just might be cheap gestures and have no real substance to them.
And why do people seem to delight in what I perceive to be cheap gestures?
We are soon going to be getting our checks from the government to help boost the economy. Two of the Presidential Candidates are proposing eliminating the federal sales tax off of gasoline for the summer to lower prices on gas for people to travel.
Again, it's not that I don't love getting money and paying lower prices, but I'm troubled that these just might be cheap gestures and have no real substance to them.
And why do people seem to delight in what I perceive to be cheap gestures?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)