Through the Woods

"...a Fool and a Herytick"

2012-01-24T10:39:00.003-05:00

Trabue House Gate, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I am descended from a family that includes a man named Daniel Trabue (1760-1840), whose family were early settlers in Virginia and then Kentucky (in the mid- to late-1700s). Daniel's grandfather was Antoine Trabue, born in Montalban, France and his mother was a Dupuy, also from Montalban. The Trabues in the US are, I've been told, all descended from this one line of Trabues - Atoine's descendents.

We Trabues are fortunate in that Daniel Trabue, at the end of his life, wrote a journal recalling (sometimes imperfectly) his life and times as an early Kentucky settler. He also recorded from memory a bit of what he'd heard about how his grandfather and grandmother escaped France (two separate incidents). I thought I'd share a bit of those two events today because it is fascinating reading.

A bit of historic background:

In 1685, Louis XIV signed the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This resulted in much persecution and an inquisition of French Protestants (Huguenots) and from 200,000 to 400,000 Huguenots left France. At this time, the family of Trabue had their seat at Montauban on the Tarne, in old Guyenne, France.

Here is a translated copy of the certificate that Antoine Trabue brought with him from France (written by a preacher friend of his):

"Lausanne, France, 15 Sept. A.D., 1687. We, the undersigned, certify that Antoine Trabue is a native of Montauban, age about 19 years, of good size, fine carriage, dark complexion, having a scar under his left eye; has always professed the Reformed Religion in which his parents raised him. He has never committed any offense that has come to our knowledge, otherwise than that the violence of the late horrible persecutions justified, which persecutions God has had the kindness to stop and for which He has given us reparations. We commend him tothe care of a kind Providence and to a cordial reception from our brethren."

And now, here is how Daniel Trabue begins his journal (all the original misspellings and grammatical mistakes are left intact)...

The Narrative of Daniel Trabue
Memorandom made by me D[aniel] Trabue in the year of 1827 of a Jurnal of events from memory and Tradition

I was born March 31, 1760, as per Register, in chesterfield county, Virginia, 15 miles from the city of Richmond. My Progenitors was from France. My Grandfather Anthony Trabue Fled from France in the year of our lord 1687 at a time of a bloody persicution against the Desenters by the Roman Catholicks...

The law against the Desenters was very Rigid at that time. Who Ever was known to be one, or Evin suspected-if they would not swear to suite [visit] the priest-their lives and estates was forfited, and they put to the most shameful. and cruel Tortue and Death. And worse than all, they would not let any One move from the kingdom. Guards and troops was stationed all over the kingdom to stop and ketch any that might run away.

At Every place where they would expect those persons might pass, there were Guards fixed and companys of Inquisetors and patrolers going on every road, and every other place, Hunting for these Hereticks, as they called them.

And where their was one that made their escape, perhaps their was hundreds put to the most shamefull Tortue and Death and their estates confiscated. When the Decree was first passed, a number of the people thougt it would not be put in execution so very hastely; but the priests, Friers and Inquseters was very intent for their estates, and they rushed quick.

I understand that my grandfather, Anthony Trabue, had an estate, but concluded he would leave it if he could possibly make his escape. He was a very young man, and he and a nother young man took a cart and loaded it with wine and went on to sell it to the furthermost Guard. And when night came they left their horses and Cart and made their escape to an Inglish ship, which took them in. And they went over to ingland, leaving their estates, native country, their relations, and everything for the sake of Jesus who Died for them. [probably he went to Switzerland instead]

My Mother was a Daughter of John Jams Dupuy. His father [left France about the same time. The circumstance was he was an officer in the army and he went home. And before he got home he had heard that his wife was turned Herriteck and when he got home she] told him all a bout the matter. She said she believed that [th]e catholicks was rong and that she had experienced the true [re]ligion of Jesus christ and she could not renunce it. She said the priest had been to see her and threattened her very sverly and told her he would be their again the next Day and if she Did not renounce her sentement and swear thus and so they would put her to the cruelest Death that they could think off.

That night she thought she was in a Dreadfull condition. She was looking for her husband at home but was not certain he would come and if he Did come she Did not know how he would act with her as he was a Catholick himself. She fasted that day and prayed to god almighty to Direct her what to Do. She did not ceace to pray all night.

The next day she saw the priest and the inquisitors coming. She had time to fall on her knees a minute or two before they entered her house. She prayed to jesus christ the might God to be with her in this time of great need and strengthen her and Direct her what to Do. She said it came to her not to Deny her saviour.

She Jumpt up and meet them at the Door and told them to come in. They asked her if she would now Do what the wanted her to Do yesterday. She said she had not altered her oppinion. They told her she was a fool, she was Deluded by the Devil, and they would kill her as she was not fit to live any longer, and she would go to the Devil instantly. She said if they despised her and Cast her off and put her to Death her Dependence was in Jesus her saviour, who would receive her soul in heavin.

They told her again she was a fool and a herytick (and many other names they called her), and that the way they was a going to serve her was to pull off all her finger nails with pinchers. And they said, "Look out at the door," that their was a big fat wild horse. "We will tye your hair of your head to that horse's tail and let him go. And then what will become of you?"

She said, "I am a lone woman. You can Do so if you plese. I cannot help myself."

One of them said, "Let her alone to Day. It is thought her husband will come home to Day and he will tell her better." So they went away and left her.

The same Day her Husband came home. She told him all that had passed. He loved her much. She was a hansom young woman-newly marryed and no child. My great Grandfather Dupuy was a strict Catholick but thought this persecution was rong, and that he would take her over to ingland and leave her their untill times would alter, and he himself would come back and enjoy his estate as he was rich. It was said their petitions going Every Day to the king to alter the Decree. My Great Grandfather thought the Decree would be altered. He imediately got a suit [of] men's cloaths that would fit his wife, give her a sword; and she passed as his servant in a man's regimental cloathing a sword by her side.

So they went to ingland.

So, you see, I come by my heresy honestly...

President Obama sings Al Green: Let's stay together in 2012 ;-)

2012-01-20T12:03:00.000-05:00

I've had some problems with some of Obama's actions (and lack of actions) since he's been in office, but you gotta love a president who can sing himself a little Reverend Al Green...

Humility

2012-01-13T10:38:00.002-05:00

Praying Statue, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Someone recently said to me (and I have heard this sentiment many times before, even said it myself)...

the idea is to see cultural issues through the lens of Biblical Truth. We do not look at scripture through the lens of contemporary culture.

And I guess my response to that would be: we need to prayerfully, carefully, rationally strive to see God's Way through the lens of Jesus' teachings and a correct understanding of the Bible and rational consideration of circumstances, but the caution would be that we don't allow our interpretation of the Bible to conflate with God's Way.

It seems to me that when we say, "we need to see culture through the lens of Biblical truth," it is IMPLICIT that what we MEAN is, "...through the lens of Biblical truth AS I UNDERSTAND IT..." and paying attention to that is key to good, rational, humble Bible study.

IF "Biblical Truth" (AS WE UNDERSTAND IT) becomes, to us, simply "What God says...," then we run the risk of conflating OUR UNDERSTANDING of Biblical Truth (which, again, is what we are actually saying when we reference Biblical Truth) with God's Word. We wouldn't put it this way, but it makes us out to be a little god and places us in the wrong position - the position of speaking for God what WE BELIEVE, as if God were speaking it.

So, for me, I'm not trying to discern cultural issues through MY INTERPRETATION of the Bible, rather, I'm striving to discern cultural issues through God's Will, which is my goal. The Goal, then, is not "what the Bible says," but rather, "God's Will."

The Bible (which I have to reason my way through), my reason, real world evidence, God's Spirit, God's Word writ upon my heart... these ALL can contribute to my better understanding God's will, but they ALL depend on my own good reasoning, and that includes MY UNDERSTANDING of the Bible.

And this is a concern precisely because I am a flawed and imperfect human being. I am entirely capable of being mistaken and misunderstanding points. This is true when I'm having a face-to-face conversation with a normal person in my own language and in my own culture, how much MOREso would it have to be true of an infinite God, the Great Mystery, so perfect, so wonderful as to beyond my own understanding - a God who does NOT speak to me (or any of us) audibly and directly?

"Now, we see as through a glass, darkly," Paul tells us. And this is a hugely important point. It makes the difference, IT SEEMS TO ME, between being able to hold opinions with grace, good humor and good judgment and holding opinions with arrogance and poor judgment.

My concern is that people read a passage, find a verse they like and say, "The Bible says it and I believe it, that settles it..." without taking into consideration that it is THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible that they are referencing, not "the Bible" magically telling them what to believe.

After all, I read Genesis 1 and can easily easily say, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" and mean it entirely. The Bible DOES contain a creation story and I DO believe God is the Creator, but that does not mean that I should take what appears to be written in clearly mythic language as a literal history, any more than I should take passages written in clearly poetic language as literal commands.

Now, having said all of that, I would add that I don't find the Bible, for the most part, to be that hard to understand. I think its teachings are generally consistent, reasonable, understandable and pretty danged obvious (if challenging and hard to live up to, short of God's grace). I don't find the Bible to be a puzzle in the least.

But here's the thing: This is true, probably, for most people who disagree with me, too.

I'm just suggesting that it would be a bit arrogant to say that I - and those who agree with me - are the Ones with the ONE TRUE understanding of God's Will.

This would seem to me to be a clear, rational, obvious Biblical (and logical) Truth.

You?

CS Lewis on Service to God

2012-01-08T18:21:00.003-05:00

Howie in the lion's den, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

In CS Lewis' Narnia books, as most of you no doubt remember, Lewis presents several stories of Aslan, the great Lion a noble, good and wild Being that represents God in the stories which always involve the good Narnians and humans resolving some problems brought about by evil, in one way or the other.

In one of the books, The Last Battle, the "bad guys" are represented by a greedy and power-hungry ape named Shift who convinces a slow-witted but well-meaning donkey (named Puzzle) to put on a lion skin and pretend to be Aslan. By thus manipulating Puzzle, Shift sets out to deceive Narnians into submitting to Shift's rules, rather than Aslan's. In the process, Shift has the Narnians doing labor for their enemies, the Calormenes (who, it has been suggested, seem to be allegorical Muslems). The Calormenes have their own evil, cruel god named Tash.

A great battle is eventually mounted to end the deception and the enslavement of the Narnians. In the end, of course, Aslan and the Narnians win out over the greed and deception of Shift and the other "bad guys," including the Calormene army.

In the process, we meet one of the Calormene soldiers (Emeth), who seems to be a good-souled person who just happens to believe in Tash, because that is the way he was raised. Still, Emeth has a good heart. His desire is to love and see his god, and to do good and honorably serve in the name of that god.

In the end, when the truth comes out and Aslan wins the day, some of the people in the story go to meet the one true God (in a heaven-like state, apparently). Emeth decides to step through the door to meet the True God, knowing now that he has served the wrong god all his life. Here's a part of the dialog from that part of the story...

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc [emperor] of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, "Son, thou art welcome. "

But I said, "Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash."

He answered, "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me."

Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, "Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? "

The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, "It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him."

"Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

"Dost thou understand, child?"

I said, "Lord, thou knowest how much I understand." But I said also (for the truth constrained me), "Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days."

"Beloved," said the Glorious One, "unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

I've always enjoyed the story and respected the logic behind it. There is not "good" done for an evil thing and "good" done for God, as two separate and distinct things. There is not "truth" known about an evil thing and "truth" known about God, as two separate things. There is only Truth, and Goodness, and Love, and Grace and these are ALL OF GOD. In truth, Lewis is stating, anything done of love, goodness, purity, grace, justice, honesty and beauty, all these things are OF God, because they are part of God's nature.

Seems reasonable to me.

Christmas Day Music at Jeff St

2012-01-01T20:01:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T09:46:00.002-05:00

Snowcone, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Although the leafless maple
blustering in a new wind this morning
is the same old tree in my backyard
as yesterday

And even though the sun behind
new clouds this morning
is the same old light in the sky
as always

In a very real sense
each and every day is a New Year

A New Chance to begin again
afresh

Dig in.

It's a Wonderful Life

2011-12-25T09:28:00.002-05:00

Steven and Friends, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I recently learned that, in the 1940s, the FBI considered the old Christmas movie, It's a Wonderful Life a piece of communist propaganda.

Of course they did.

From a 1947 FBI memo...

With regard to the picture “It’s a Wonderful Life”, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a “scrooge-type” so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists...

In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters...

I love this movie and its message. It's one of my favorites. I thought this Christmas morning, I'd offer one of the wonderful quotes from that wonderful old movie that the FBI apparently found questionable...

[George Bailey, speaking to the bankers about the possible closing of his father's tiny savings and loans business:]

...Why, in the 25 years since he and his brother, Uncle Billy, started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry away to college, let alone me.

But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that?

Why... here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what?

Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000?

Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?

Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!

And on an unrelated note, last year at this time, we were celebrating our kids' first self-produced CD of songs. It was made on the cheap and with some sound problems, but it was a delightful Christmas gift to us.

This year, believe it or not, the band our kids is in (Beady) is celebrating the news that they have been signed to a local recording label!

How about that?

Merry Christmas, everyone.

The Gingrich Who Saved the Election

2011-12-22T15:59:00.002-05:00

Turkey Vulture, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Words of wisdom from Newt Gingrich...

(CNN) - Asked how he plans to engage the gay community in his bid for president, Newt Gingrich on Tuesday told a voter he wouldn't be the right choice for those basing their decision on the issue of same-sex marriage.

"If that's the most important (issue) to you, then you should be for Obama," Gingrich told Scott Arnold, a man who identified himself as gay.

======

So, there you have it: IF you are gay, you SHOULD NOT VOTE for Gingrich, according to Gingrich (and, by extension, you shouldn't really vote for the GOP*).

IF you have friends, family and/or colleagues who are gay or lesbian, you shouldn't vote for Gingrich/GOP.

IF you are concerned about equal rights and justice, you should not vote for Gingrich or the GOP.

IF you believe in marriage and faithful, loving, healthy marriage commitments, you should not vote for Gingrich or the GOP.

It's not often I'll agree with a fella like Gingrich, but when he's right, he's right. I appreciate the honesty and would encourage everyone to listen to Gingrich at least on this point, where he is right on target.

=======
* CAVEAT: With the possible exception of Ron Paul who, IF he is consistent with his Libertarian leanings, is probably okay with marriage equity for all people.

There are a whole host of OTHER reasons not to vote for Ron Paul.

Christmas Memories...

2011-12-16T09:24:00.004-05:00

Donna Scary Santa, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

This is one of my favorite photos of my beloved wife. Here's how I imagined this conversation went....

"Santa": Shuddup kids and lissen. This is how it's gonna work:

Yer not going to ask me for no presents, see? Yer just gonna sit there and smile and pretend I'm saying nice things.

My elf out there is gonna take our picture. Yer not gonna cry. If you do, there'll be hell to pay. And don't even THINK about wetting yer widdle pants while yer sitting on MY lap.

Just smile and act like everything's all right, then get off my lap and get outta here and you'll get to see your parents again.

Ya got that, ya snot-nosed brats?

About Eight Years Too Late

2011-12-15T08:24:00.003-05:00

I Love Mountains - Peace, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

The best way to end wars? Don't start them.

The angel went to Mary and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; God's kingdom will never end...”

And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for the Lord has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is God's name.
God's mercy extends to those who fear God,
from generation to generation.
God has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
God has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
God has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
God has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
God has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors...”

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace...

...And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth PEACE, goodwill toward all!'

Merry Christmas. Happy Holy Days.

The Bible and Economics

2011-12-06T19:55:00.002-05:00

Assateague Wild Horse, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.

Today, I'm looking at various passages in the 22nd and 23rd chapters of the book of Deuteronomy, having already explored the first 20 chapters earlier in the year.

You can see others in this series in the "Bible and Economics" link below (on the left).

If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its owner.

If they do not live near you or if you do not know who owns it, take it home with you and keep it until they come looking for it. Then give it back. Do the same if you find their donkey or cloak or anything else they have lost. Do not ignore it.

If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet...

There is just a simple teaching to remind people to be fair and responsible. "Finding" something that does not belong to you does not make it yours. In fact, you have an obligation to try to get it back to its owner.

Next, we see some rather unsavory divorce rules that were a product of their times...

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.

Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.”

Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives...

Divorce is covered a good bit in the Bible and, despite the huge difference in culture between now and then, perhaps we can see why: Women were owned. They did not have much in the way of liberty, as we count liberty today. They were not as free to just go out and get a job.

Because of that, there were protections built in for women in Israel's divorce laws. Otherwise, a man could marry, shame and kick out a woman and move on with no responsibility for the desperate economic circumstances that might leave her in.

Here is another (even more unsavory) rule in the same vein...

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Earlier, we saw that an ENGAGED woman who is raped, the rapist must be killed.. But an unengaged woman who is raped, well, the rapist just has to pay off the father for the economic damage done.

Unsavory as hell, but it touches on economic issues, so I'll post it here...

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them...

Slavery is never overtly condemned in the Bible, but you do have passages like this one that suggest at its immorality...

Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite...

And a ruling forbidding charging a fellow Israelite interest, but charging interest to foreigners is okay.

Do you reckon that Christian bankers today think they ought to live by that same principle? Do you?

The topics of marriage/divorce, slavery and interest are all touched on in the Bible and all have greater economic ramifications. Perhaps as part of this series, I'll group some of those passages together to see what we might learn from them as a whole.

NEWT!

2011-12-05T13:19:00.002-05:00

Northern Fence Lizard, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

How long until he self-destructs?

Each GOP Presidential candidate who has taken the lead has self-destructed. How long until Newt does?

The end of the year?

The end of the week?

The end of the day?

Place yer bets...

Did I Say That?

2011-12-01T13:18:00.002-05:00

Squirrel - You Talkin' to me?, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I have been criticized by some of those who generally agree with me for the engaging I do with those who don't agree with me/us. I don't know if folk are understanding that I'm not engaging so much for their benefit as I am mine.

Thinking Big Ideas through with those with whom I agree doesn't challenge me as much as when someone is disagreeing with me and I have to consider the Other Side. And so, by engaging with those with whom I disagree, it helps me more fully understand my position and think through if it's the position I truly think right.

Beyond that, almost without fail, when discussing these issues through with those who are opposed to my position, I almost always get a better sense of why I think I'm right. And sometimes, these disagree-ers actually provide for me with better arguments/clarifications.

Case in point: This Sabbath and "rule" discussion I've been having in various places of late.

As you can see in my previous post, I note Jesus' comment/clarification that the Sabbath is made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. I think this is a key to helping us understand a right relationship with rules and community.

In noting this elsewhere, I suggested that the problem we all have at times is the sin of the Pharisees - to hold to and try to enforce rules but doing so without grace.

Along those lines, one commenter said...

One problem with Dan's use of Jesus "breaking" the Sabath. If you look at the commandment, it's pretty general. What Jesus was doing was trespassing on the Pharisee's interpretation of the commandment. In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, that was a later "clarification".

What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.

And of course, this is an extremely astute observation and one I agree with and think makes great sense.

The Pharisees were guilty of taking an Old Testament rule and enforcing not only the rule, but telling everyone else exactly what that rule meant for everyone.

Now, in the Pharisees defense, the OT rule about the Sabbath does seem fairly clear, if vague.

DO NOT WORK ON SATURDAY, the rule says. And follows up with the kicker, THOSE WHO DO SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH.

This was a seriously serious rule, right?

And "don't work," well, that's pretty clear. Working in the field to gather food, THAT WAS working for them.

And so, the Pharisees thought they were starting from a right point, by enforcing THEIR UNDERSTANDING of a rule THEY THOUGHT was abundantly clear. THEY THOUGHT "don't glean food" was an obviously reasonable extrapolation of "don't work."

The thing is, they were wrong, according to Jesus. THEIR INTERPRETATION of the rule lacked grace and it lacked in the understanding that the Sabbath was for humanity. (And I will repeat that what was being violated was not the rule, but THEIR EXTRAPOLATED INTERPRETATION, as my commenter rightly pointed out).

The Sabbath rule WAS FOR THEIR SAKE, not some rule to beat folk over the head, but to encourage the rest - the break from work - that we need so desparately.

And so, this commenter was right, I'd say, and they agreed with my point, although I don't think they ever saw it that way.

The OT DOES say (to take a favorite issue for them), "Men shall not lie with men, kill 'em if they do..." That IS what it says. But what was the purpose of the rule? IT WAS FOR THEIR SAKE. The rule was to encourage healthy sexual practices and to discourage unhealthy (in the OT case, temple prostitution and orgies to honor a pagan god) sexual practices.

And so, the conservatives of today are RIGHT to note that the OT does have a verse that says, "men shall not lie with men," but these same conservatives err in THEIR EXTRAPOLATION of the rule given to a specific people thousands of years ago. "THIS VERSE OBVIOUSLY MEANS..." they opine (and, I'll note, it's "obvious" TO THEM, just as the "no gleaning" rule was "obvious TO THE PHARISEES) "...is that gay folk can't live in a marriage relationship that includes sex with other gay folk...").

JUST LIKE THE PHARISEES (as my commenter noted), they have taken a rule and EXTRAPOLATED OUT an EXTRA rule, and one that is lacking in grace and that lacks the understanding of the rule being FOR OUR SAKE.

If we're concerned about following God's rules for "our sake" (as Jesus noted in the Sabbath rule), then the concern is for HEALTHY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, not a woodenly literal adherence to a millenia-old rule. And it is self-evident to most folk that a committed faithful marriage relationship IS the way to have healthy sexual relationships.

And so, in the paraphrased words of my detractor...

In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against healthy marriage relationships - gay or straight, that has been a later "clarification".

What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.

So, I thank my conservative commenter for helping to clarify even better for me why my understanding is a biblically and logically and ethically solid understanding.

...More Like Guidelines...

2011-11-29T13:46:00.003-05:00

Truss shadows, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I've been in several conversations in several places of late that have had a common theme that I think may be boiled down to: What is the role of rules as found in the Bible.

It has been suggested to me that the bible is a Book of Rules. I objected to that characterization. In my estimation, it would be more apt to say that the Bible is a book of Grace, or a Book of Truth (with the Truth being ultimately about Love and Grace), or a Book of God's Love for humanity, something along those lines. But "a book of rules..."?

That seems, to me, to be missing the point.

Are there rules found in the Bible? Yes, of course there are. There are rules specifically given to the Israeli people thousands of years ago. There were rules of how to "do" church in the first century AD. There are rules that can be considered universal in nature and there are rules that are obviously to a specific time and place and people.

But to call the Bible a rule book seems to be wildly missing the point.

It seems to this reader that a large part of the Bible's story of God's grace is dealing specifically with this topic. In the Old Testament, we see people hewing to the rules of sacrifice and religion and God stops them, telling them bluntly, "I desire MERCY, not Sacrifice."

They missed the point.

We see Jesus doing this repeatedly with the Pharisees, those wonderfully moral and righteous men who seemed to repeatedly miss the point, holding fastidiously, harshly fast to rules (with demands that others also hold fast to their long list of rules), but being lacking in love and grace.

I have oft-repeated what I learned growing up about understanding the Bible: We ought to interpret the whole Bible through the lens of Jesus' teachings. One of the pivotal snippets of teaching that I find in Jesus' teaching is this simple line...

The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.

I find this to be a pivotal, KEY teaching to understanding our relationship to rules, whether found in the Bible or elsewhere.

Consider the Sabbath rule, as found in Exodus 34...

“These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day [Saturday] shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.”

Or, as directly quoted from Exodus 20 (ie, the Ten Commandments...)

“Remember the Sabbath day [Saturday] by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns..."

The rule is fairly clear and unequivocal. On SIX DAYS, we should do all our work. But on the SEVENTH DAY (Saturday), we should rest. We should NOT work on Saturday, nor should our family or people who work for us.

Clear. Easy enough to understand (although, reasonably one might question "what constitutes 'Work'?" - still, pretty clear). Straightforward.

But Jesus' helped CLARIFY the "command" for us...

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath."

We travel down the path of Pharisees when we hang fastidiously to a rule without considering the context. When we condemn others for a "sin" but we're only considering the rule in a woodenly literal way and we're not considering that rule through the eyes of love, mercy and grace, we run the risk of condemning as sin, what is NOT sin.

Jesus' followers were guilty of transgressing a sin, IF we took that law woodenly literal. But that would have been missing the point. The Sabbath was made FOR US. The rules are there FOR US. for OUR sake. TO HELP.

In one of these conversations I've had lately, someone accused me of treating these COMMANDS, "more like guidelines..." (cleverly invoking the Pirates of the Caribbean running gag... "You're pirates. Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway..."). He intended it as a slight, but yeah, maybe I DO treat them more like guidelines.

Certainly that seems to be the message of Jesus on the Sabbath rule. "You're condemning them for doing something good - eating. That 'thou shalt not work on the sabbath...' that's more like a guideline. The POINT is, that the rule is there FOR YOU, for YOUR GOOD."

THE Rule, as repeatedly summarized in the Bible (and indeed, by our own hearts) is Love God, Love your Neighbor, do Good, embrace Grace. THAT is THE HARD AND FAST RULE that we are to hold to.

The "rules" (lowercase "rule"), they're more like guidelines. They are there for our benefit, to help guide us in the paths of Love and Grace.

Yes, prostitution is not good for the oppressed prostitute or the needy/oppressive john. That is the guideline. BUT, in the Bible, we see the story of Tamar, who USED prostitution to take a stand against Injustice and for Good, for Love, for Grace. Thus, she "broke" the "rule"/guideline in an effort to hold close to THE Rule - Love, Grace.

We see this in David and the disciples "working on the Sabbath." Breaking the "rule" to hold fast to the "RULE."

We see this in Jesus healing on the Sabbath, breaking the "rule" to hold fast to the "RULE."

We see the pharisees MISSING the point in their heaping of rules upon rules on the shoulders of their followers, but missing out on grace.

We see the Israelis missing the point in their adherance to giving sacrifice, but their lacking in mercy.

The "rules" are there FOR OUR SAKE, to help us walk in the RULE of Grace, of Love, of Mercy and Justice.

And, for that reason, it seems to me that we too often have made the Bible into a mere rulebook and missed the point of the Story: Living into Grace.

Theology for the Social Gospel

2011-11-22T16:44:00.002-05:00

Roger, Amos, Cindy, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

When I was a much younger man, I was fairly strongly influenced by a work of fiction called, In His Steps, by Charles Sheldon. It's a book published in 1897 and influenced by the Social Gospel Movement of the day. While many are unfamiliar directly with the book, they are aware of it secondarily through the WWJD phenomena. The now-rather-trite bracelets, etc, of the last few years that supposedly serve as a reminder, "What Would Jesus Do?" gets the catchphrase from Sheldon's book.

The story in the book tells of how a preacher and some in his well-to-do church were influenced by the radical notion of not taking any action without first asking, "What Would Jesus Do in this situation?" and then acting accordingly.

Although I did not know it at the time, Sheldon was influenced by prominent "social gospel" theologian, Walter Rauschenbusch. The book was his way of furthering that message.

And what was the message of the Social Gospel (much maligned in some circles today)? According to Merriam Webster, simply this:

the application of Christian principles to social problems

Other common definitions fall along these lines...

The Social Gospel was an early 20th century Protestant Christian movement which placed its emphasis on the application of Christian principles to society's problems.

Not so radical, one would think. And yet, apparently it is revolutionary, at least some might say.

I say all that by way of introducing some of Rauschenbusch's own words on the topic, from his A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917)...

The social gospel is the old message of salvation, but enlarged and intensified. The individualistic gospel has taught us to see the sinfulness of every human heart and has inspired us with faith in the willingness and power of God to save every soul that comes to him. But it has not given us an adequate understanding of the sinfulness of the social order and its share in the
sins of all individuals within it. It has not evoked faith in the will and power of God to redeem the permanent institutions of human society from their inherited guilt of oppression and extortion.

Both our sense of sin and our faith in salvation have fallen short of the realities under its teaching. The social gospel seeks to bring men under repentance for their collective sins and to create a more sensitive and more modern conscience. It calls on us for the faith of the old prophets who believed in the salvation of nations...

Theology is not superior to the gospel. It exists to aid the preaching of salvation. Its business is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear, so adequate and mighty, that all who preach or teach the gospel, both ministers and laymen, can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message. When the progress of humanity creates new tasks, such as world-wide missions, or new problems, such as the social problem, theology must connect these with the old fundamentals of our faith and make them Christian tasks and problems...

On the other hand the idea of the redemption of the social organism is nothing alien. It is simply a proper part of the Christian faith in redemption from sin and evil. As soon as the desire for salvation becomes strong and intelligent enough to look beyond the personal sins of the individual, and to discern how our personality in its intake and output is connected with social groups to which we belong, the problem of social redemption is before us and we can never again forget it. It lies like a larger concentric circle around a smaller one. It is related to our intimate personal salvation like astronomy to physics. Only spiritual and intellectual immaturity have kept us from seeing it clearly before. The social gospel is not an alien element in theology...

Neither is it novel. The social gospel is, in fact, the oldest gospel of all. It is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Its substance is the Hebrew faith which Jesus himself held. If the prophets ever talked about the “plan of redemption,” they meant the social redemption of the nation.

So long as John the Baptist and Jesus were proclaiming the gospel, the Kingdom of God was its central word, and the ethical teaching of both, which was their practical commentary and definition of the Kingdom idea, looked toward a higher social order in which new ethical standards would become practicable. To the first generation of disciples the hope of the Lord’s return meant the hope of a Christian social order on earth under the personal rule of Jesus Christ, and they would have been amazed if they had learned that this hope was to be motioned out of theology and other ideas substituted...

The doctrine of the Kingdom of God was left undeveloped by individualistic theology and finally mislaid by it almost completely, because it did not support nor fit in with that scheme of doctrine. In the older handbooks of theology it is scarcely mentioned, except in the chapters on eschatology; in none of them does it dominate the table of contents.

What a spectacle, that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology, like a stranger with whom the other doctrines would not associate, and who was finally ejected because he had no wedding garment!

In the same way the distinctive ethics of Jesus, which is part and parcel of his Kingdom doctrine, was long the hidden treasure of the suppressed democratic sects. Now, as soon as the social gospel began once more to be preached in our own time, the doctrine of the Kingdom was immediately loved and proclaimed afresh, and the ethical principles of Jesus are once more taught without reservation as the only alternative for the greedy ethics of capitalism and militarism. These antipathies and affinities are a strong proof that the social gospel is neither alien nor novel, but is a revival of the earliest doctrines of Christianity, of its radical ethical spirit, and of its revolutionary consciousness.

Ol' Axeman Jesse

2011-11-14T15:47:00.001-05:00

Ol' Axeman Jesse, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

On the top of the mountain
there is a clearing

and from that clearing,
you can see as far as you'd like

but only when the leaves are gone
and the summer is ended.

Laughlin Boy

2011-11-07T00:39:00.001-05:00

A song based on the life and death of Seth Laughlin, a Quaker Civil War resister...

Laughlin Boy

by William Jolliff

That laughlin boy was a boy of honor and he loved virginia well
but he would not fire a rifle so he sat in a cold jail cell
so he sat in a cold jail cell

he was pierced and he was beaten forty stripes he gladly bore
but he would not serve the devil in that awful civil war
in that awful civil war

listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie

twelve grey soldiers stood before him and they aimed their rifles true
he prayed lord, oh please forgive them for they know not what they do
for they know not what they do

those young soldiers would not fire they defied the general's plan
so the army changed his sentence who could murder such a man?
who could murder such a man?

listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie

they hauled him far away to richmond far away from his kids and wife
there, pneumonia wracked his body that good man soon lost his life
that good man soon lost his life

now his wife is sadly weeping seven children wonder why
lord it seems that truth and honor sure can come at an awful price
sure can come at an awful price

listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie

oh, have you heard many a story told by old and young with joy
about the faithful deed of daring that was done by the laughlin boy
that was done by the laughlin boy

Jesse and Sarah

2011-11-02T19:08:00.000-04:00

Protesting Wall Street?

2011-10-29T11:13:00.002-04:00

Mississippi Tombstone, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Because they rob the weak, and the needy groan, I will now arise," says the LORD; "I will grant safety to whoever longs for it...

They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge...

LORD, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy mountain?

Whoever walks without blame, doing what is right, speaking truth from the heart; Who does not slander a neighbor, does no harm to another, never defames a friend; Who keeps an oath despite the cost, lends no money at interest, accepts no bribe against the innocent...

Arrogant scoundrels pursue the poor; they trap them by their cunning schemes.

The wicked even boast of their greed; these robbers curse and scorn the LORD...

They wait in ambush near towns; their eyes watch for the helpless. to murder the innocent in secret.

They lurk in ambush like lions in a thicket, hide there to trap the poor, snare them and close the net.

The helpless are crushed, laid low; they fall into the power of the wicked...

Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm! Do not forget the poor!

You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers.

For the rich men of the city are full of violence,
Her residents speak lies,
And their tongue is deceitful in their mouth…
Hear this, you who trample the needy, to do away with the humble of the land, saying,

“When will the new moon be over,
So that we may sell grain,
And the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market,
To make the bushel smaller and the shekel bigger,
And to cheat with dishonest scales,
So as to buy the helpless for money
And the needy for a pair of sandals,
And that we may sell the refuse of the wheat?”...

You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again.

Listen, my beloved brothers. Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? But you dishonored the poor person. Are not the rich oppressing you? And do they themselves not haul you off to court? Is it not they who blaspheme the noble name that was invoked over you?...

Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.

Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter. You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance...

God has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.

GOD HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed...

Woe to you who are rich...

"Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.

"For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."

The Bible and Economics

2011-10-24T00:59:00.002-04:00

Fungus Flower, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.

Today, I'm looking at Exodus 16, which is the passage that tells about the children of Israel being provided heavenly manna to eat to keep them alive while roaming through the wilderness. The Israelites had just escaped slavery in Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea, but they found themselves without enough food to survive. They soon started complaining...

The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the LORD’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.”

God saves them by providing manna and quail from heaven...

Then the LORD said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day.

In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days...”

The LORD said to Moses, “I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.’”

That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor.

When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.

NOTE: "Manna" sounds like the Hebrew term for "What is it?"

Moses said to them, “It is the bread the LORD has given you to eat. This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need...

The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Everyone had gathered just as much as they needed.

Then Moses said to them, “No one is to keep any of it until morning.”

However, some of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but it was full of maggots and began to smell...

The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna until they reached the border of Canaan.

This story is especially significant because it establishes some principles that are echoed throughout the Bible:

Just take what you need;

Don't try to take more than you need - it will only rot;

In this economy of Enough, those who collect much have enough and no more, and those who collect little have enough and no more;

Observe the Sabbath - a day of rest from storing up your "enough."

Cleaning Shippingport Island

2011-10-13T14:18:00.002-04:00

Cleaning at Shippingport, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

This weekend, some of the teens from church went to Shippingport Island to clean off the garbage that daily washes ashore and I was privileged to go along with them. I've been to the island before, but the trip reminded me of what a cool place it is.

Shippingport Island was originally just Shippingport - the little village immediately west of the city of Louisville. It became an island in 1830, when a canal was built, cutting off Shippingport into its own little island. Louisville was settled at its location because there were a series of waterfalls/rapids on the Ohio River which made river navigation very difficult (many of the old maps of the Falls show little shipwrecked boats to indicate how treacherous it was). The dam and canal were built in order to tame that portion of the Ohio River and make it navigable.

Eventually, the village at Shippingport was abandoned, but it had quite a history while it lasted. One little bit of that history involves, indirectly, my own church. The church from which we sprang - the Union Gospel Mission - was founded by a former riverboat gambler, murderer and all around scoundrel named Steve Holcombe. Holcombe was raised on Shippingport Island and his father was buried there.

Holcombe and his mission to the "least of these" of his day achieved a bit of notoriety back when it began in the 1880s and 1890s. Eventually, Holcombe's biography/story was written and published.

As I walked and worked on Shippingport last Saturday, I reflected on Holcombe walking those same shores and thought it would be worthwhile to post an excerpt from his biography. It really is a fascinating story, maybe I'll post other excerpts at a later date.

Here then, from the book, "Steve P. Holcombe, the Converted Gambler: His Life and Work..."

Shippingport Island and Steve Holcombe

2011-10-13T14:14:00.002-04:00

Shippingport Island, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

STEVE P. HOLCOMBE, known in former years as a gambler and doer of all evil, no less known in these latter days as a preacher of the Gospel and doer of all good, was born at Shippingsport, Kentucky, in 1835.

The place, as well as the man, has an interesting history. An odd, straggling, tired, little old town, it looks as if it had been left behind and had long ago given up all hope of ever catching up. It is in this and other respects in striking contrast with its surroundings. The triangular island, upon which it is situated, lies lazily between the Ohio river, which flows like a torrent around two sides of it, and the Louisville canal, which stretches straight as an arrow along the third. On its northeast side it commands a view of the most picturesque part of La Belle Riviere.

This part embraces the rapids, or “Falls,” opposite the city of Louisville, which gets its surname of “Falls City” from this circumstance. In the midst of the rapids a lone, little island of bare rocks rises sheer out of the dashing waters to the height of several feet, and across the wide expanse, on the other side of the river, loom up - the wooded banks of the Indiana side, indented with many a romantic cove, and sweeping around with a graceful curve, while the chimneys and towers and spires of Jeffersonville and New Albany rise in the distance, with the blue Indiana “Knobs” in the deep background beyond.

From this same point on the island, and forming part of the same extensive view, one may see the two majestic bridges, each a mile in length, one of which spans the river directly over the Falls and connects the city of Louisville with Jeffersonville, Indiana, while the other joins the western portion of Louisville with the thriving city of New Albany. Across the canal from the island, on the south, lies the city of Louisville with its near 200,000 population, its broad avenues, its palatial buildings.

In the very midst of all this profusion of beauty and all this hum and buzz and rush of commercial and social life, lies the dingy, sleepy old town of Shippingsport with its three hundred or four hundred people, all unheeded and unheeding, uncared for and uncaring.

There are five or six fairly good houses, and all the rest are poor. There is a good brick schoolhouse, built and kept up by the city of Louisville, of which, since 1842, Shippingsport is an incorporated part. There is one dilapidated, sad looking, little old brick church, which seldom suffers any sort of disturbance. On the north-east shore of the island directly over the rushing waters stands the picturesque old mill built by Tarascon in the early part of the century.

It utilizes the fine water-power of the “Falls” in making the famous Louisville cement. Part of the inhabitants are employed as laborers in this mill, and part of them derive their support from fishing in the river, for which there are exceptional opportunities all the year around in the shallows, where the rushing waters dash, with eddying whirl, against the rocky shores of their island.

There are, at this time, some excellent people in Shippingsport, who faithfully maintain spiritual life and good moral character amid surrounding apathy and immorality. “For except the Lord had left unto them a very small remnant, they should have been as Sodom, and they should have been like unto Gomorrah.”

And yet, Shippingsport was not always what it is now. Time was when it boasted the aristocracy of the Falls. “The house is still standing,” says a recent writer in Harper’s Monthly Magazine, “where in the early part of the century the Frenchman, Tarascon, offered border hospitality to many distinguished guests, among whom were Aaron Burr and Blennerhasset, and General Wilkinson, then in command of the armies of the United States.”

He might have added that Shippingsport was once honored with a visit from LaFayette, and later also from President Jackson. But in other respects also Shippingsport was, in former years, far different from what it is today. In business importance it rivaled the city of Louisville itself. In that early day, before the building of the canal, steamboats could not, on account of the Falls, pass up the river except during high water, so that for about nine months in the year Shippingsport was the head of navigation. Naturally, it became a place of considerable commercial importance, as the shrewd Frenchman who first settled there saw it was bound to be.

Very soon it attracted a population of some hundreds, and grew into a very busy little mart. “Every day,” says one of the old citizens still living, “steamboats were landing with products and passengers from the South, or leaving with products and passengers from Kentucky and the upper country.”

The freight which was landed at Shippingsport was carried by wagons and drays to Louisville, Lexington and other places in Kentucky and Indiana. This same old citizen, Mr. Alex Folwell, declares that he has seen as many as five hundred wagons in one day in and around the place. There were three large warehouses and several stores, and what seems hard to believe, land sold in some instances for $100 per foot.

The canal was begun in 1824, the first spadeful of dirt being taken out by DeWitt Clinton, of New York. During the next six years from five hundred to a thousand men were employed on it. They were, as a general thing, a rough set. Sometimes, while steamboats were lying at the place, the unemployed hands would annoy the workmen on the canal so that gradually there grew up a feeling of enmity between the two classes which broke out occasionally in regular battles.

In 1830, when the canal was finished, the days of Shippingsport’s prosperity were numbered. Thenceforth steamboats, independent of obstructions in the river, passed on up through the canal, and Shippingsport found her occupation was gone. The better classes lost no time in removing to other places, and only the poorer and rougher classes remained.

Many of the workmen who had been engaged in building the canal settled down there to live; unemployed and broken-down steamboatmen gravitated to the place where they always had such good times; shiftless and thriftless poor people from other places came flocking in as to a poor man’s paradise.

Within easy reach of Louisville, the place became a resort for the immoral young men, the gamblers and all the rough characters of that growing city.

Such was the place to which Steve Holcombe’s parents removed from Central Kentucky in 1835, the year of his birth; and, though coming into the midst of surroundings so full of moral perils, they did not bring that strength of moral character, that fixedness of moral habit and that steadfastness of moral purpose which were necessary to guard against the temptations of every sort which were awaiting them.

The father, though an honest and well disposed sort of man and very kind to his family, was already a drunkard. His son says of him: “My poor father had gotten to be a confirmed drunkard before I was born, and after he had settled at Shippingsport, my mother would not let him stay about the house, so that most of his time was spent in lying around bar-rooms or out on the commons, where he usually slept all times of the year.”

It is not surprising that as a consequence of such dissipation and such exposure he died at the early age of thirty-three, when his son Steve was eleven years old.

Dead, he sleeps in an unmarked grave on the commons where formerly he slept when drunk and shut out by his wife from his home...

From Steve P. Holcombe, the Converted Gambler: His Life and Work, published in 1888 by the Press of the Courier Journal Job Printing Company. Reprints available here

Irony of the Year Award Nominee

2011-10-03T08:20:00.002-04:00

Irony, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

As part of the mountain top removal tour I mentioned in my last post, we stopped at a miners' memorial park in Eastern Kentucky. The park was built with funds raised by contributions, including from coal companies.

As part of the park, there was a lovely fountain, running with clean, clear water (pictured here) and the Amazing Irony Sign: ANYONE CAUGHT THROWING OBJECTS INTO FISH POND WILL BE PROSECUTED...

So, let's think about that: Blowing up MOUNTAIN TOPS, dumping the waste from that (including toxins and heavy metals) into the valley and streams below, they WANT that to be legal, but tossing a penny into a water fountain will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law???

Irony is alive and doing just fine, thank ye.

Mountain Top Removal Tour

2011-10-02T21:18:00.002-04:00

Mountain Top Removal, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I went on a short trip this weekend to do a quick tour of Black Mountain - the highest point in Kentucky - and of the neighboring mountain that has been devastated by the mountain top removal method of coal mining, which is what you see in the photo.

We also met with some folk (former miners, as it turns out) whose own homes have been damaged/threatened by nearby mining operations. Some of the quotes (roughly) from these folk living with MTR...

"It's state-sponsored destruction..."

"When they were getting to start mining above my house, I was warned that it might cause damage. 'I'm not worried,' I told them, 'There are laws in place to protect me...' And there WERE/ARE laws in place, but they didn't protect me. Laws are only good as their enforcement..."

The rest of his story, I can't quote, but went something like this:

I had built a fishing pond on my land. When I got hurt mining and ended up on disability, I couldn't go out and fish - or take my grandkids fishing - like I used to. So I spent thousands of dollars building and stocking this pond.

Then they started mining up above me and soon, my 11-15 foot deep pond was filled with run-off silt and I had dead fish floating in my pond.

I tried calling the appropriate authorities and, at first, the mine company denied it. Then they looked into it and said the pond wasn't even on my own property (it was). Eventually, they owned up to the problem and said that, in about 10 or 12 years, they could make things right.

In 10-12 years, I may well be dead and my grandkids will be grown! That was no solution.

The mining company DID get fined (a few thousand dollars) by the authorities, but none of that money came to me. It didn't stop their irresponsible practices and it didn't restore my losses.

I learned that the laws aren't any good unless they're enforced.

The problem is, here in Appalachia, we're just hillbillies. We can be ignored and no one will care. Our land and people can be damaged and no one will care. The mining companies will be - at best - fined a pittance and just keep with the same damaging practices.

If this were the Smoky Mountains, or the Rocky Mountains, no one would stand for this sort of devastation to the local land or people, but that's why we need you all in Louisville, in Lexington or other places that "matter" to speak out on our behalf.

We have to work together to make this right...

"We Deserve to Die. Horribly." Really??

2011-09-28T11:22:00.003-04:00

1997 Jordan Sarah, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Okay, here you can answer the question. And I know we've covered much of this ground fairly recently, I'm just taking another shot at it.

Recently, I've read a more conservative fellow make the suggestion...

"When asked about the Galileans killed by Pilate, He assured His listeners, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). The message? Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

The context of that quote was the writer was speaking of God's command to Israel to attack and destroy Amalekite, a nation that had been quite evil in its dealings with Israel. The key passage in question was from 1 Samuel 15...

""Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child AND INFANT, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'"" [emphases mine]

Here we have that idea that a literal reading of this passage has one advocating a God who, AT LEAST AT TIMES, might command a people to kill infants. This is rather a shocking notion for a God of perfect love and perfect justice. Thus, this blogger had made the attempt to explain it by saying, "EVERYONE deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy... That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

Again, his words.

My question (open to all, but especially our more conservative friends) in response to this rather astounding proposition:

1. Do you agree? Do we ALL deserve to die horribly and without mercy?

2. Do you think that one day old infants deserve to die horribly and without mercy?

3. IF SO, why?

What has a one day old infant done (or NOT done) that would suggest that they deserve to die horribly?

4. How is justice served by a one day old infant being killed horribly and without mercy?

Or, let's take it another way. Let's say that you can AGREE with me that a one day infant does not "deserve to die horribly," that this is YOUR opinion as a fellow human and Christian.

Nonetheless, some might argue that while THEY PERSONALLY don't think an infant should die without mercy, that God MIGHT think so.

If so,

5. Do you think that GOD thinks that we all deserve to die horribly, without mercy?

6. Do you think thta GOD thinks that a one day old infant deserves to die horribly, without mercy?

Note: I'm NOT asking if you think a one day old infant is a sinner. I'm not asking if you think God will ask YOU to kill an infant. I'm asking just the questions I've asked.

While I'm at it, this other fella insisted (or at least appeared to insist) that because the Bible says a infant can lie, that this means that a one day infant lies. The Bible says that is the case, therefore it must BE the case.

The passage in question is Psalm 58, where the Psalmist is writing a song about "the wicked" and unjust rulers...

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.

Now, to me, this is obviously not a literal fact, but a poetic bit of hyperbole. Nonetheless, this other fella appeared to disagree, holding to the "if it says it, I'll believe it's literal until I have some reason to think it's NOT literal..." and my "it's obviously poetic hyperbole" is not reason enough to think it isn't literal.

So, a final question:

7. In what way is an infant "from the womb" spreading lies?

Any answers to these questions would be appreciated.

If you are going to say something other than an answer to these questions, please begin with "THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS..." and a brief summation of what you ARE addressing (ie, it might be reasonable to say, "This is not an answer to these questions, but rather, I'd like to point out WHY the questions are not reasonable questions..." if you could make such a case. Otherwise, you'll be off topic and likely ignored.)

No, no, no

2011-09-28T10:58:00.002-04:00

No, no, no, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I have a question about HOW to conduct conversation and I'd like to post an example of how a real conversation proceeded, to serve as a reference point. My question in THIS post is not about the topic being discussed, but about how to get a straight answer to a reasonable question. My next post, I'll entertain answers on the topic.

So, recently one of our conservative friends had a post all about Israel's attack of the Amalekites found in the OT. This is one of those stories where it appears God is commanding Israel to wipe out everyone in the city - including the children and infants. In striving to justify a literal interpretation of this passage, this writer stated a point which I tried to ask about.

Below, I have copied and pasted the pertinent parts of our conversation. I'm just wondering what I could have done to successfully communicated with this person, to successfully get an answer to a reasonable question. This is how our conversation went (with him in italics and me in bold)...

He said on his blog entry:

Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice.

I emailed, asking:

So WHERE, in the Amalekite story, do you see the justice of killing infants? What did they do to "deserve to die..." "Horribly"?

I'd be interested in your answer.

Note: I have made no accusation. I have not called him wrong or mistaken. I have not called him names or doubted his Christian faith. He simply stated that everyone deserves to die. Horribly. HIS words.

To which I responded with the I-think reasonable question to such a position: Where in the story cited was the justice in killing infants? I was wanting his answer to THAT question. The conversation continued via email...

In answer, then, to your question, I obviously believe that all human beings are sinners, justly condemned, because they do not seek first the kingdom of God, do not seek first the glory of God, do not operate first from faith. That's my answer. I don't think it's vague or evasive.

???

My question was...

So WHERE, in the Amalekite story, do you see the justice of killing infants? What did they do to "deserve to die..." "Horribly"?

And you are saying that because a ONE DAY OLD INFANT has not chosen to seek first God's kingdom, they deserve to die a horrible death? Is that your actual position?

Note: I THINK I see his answer to my question, but since it seems rather hard to believe, I repeat what I think his answer is and ask him if, indeed that is his answer...

Since you and I DISAGREE that "sin" is defined as a willful rebellion, a knowing act against a known right/wrong, then, of course, we don't agree from the start. You see "choose" as one key component of "sin" and I do not. Frankly, neither does the Bible, but that's neither here nor there. In order for me to agree with you, I would have to redefine sin to coincide with your definition. Do you not see that, as I have repeatedly stated, we do not agree AT THE BASE? Our disagreement starts long before the Amalekite question.

Okay, what if we look at this apparent disagreement for a minute, if you'd like...

From the Bible answer website, "Got Questions?" we get this information about sin...

"Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18)."

Do you agree that these are good, solid biblical understandings of "sin"? That sin is transgressing God's law?

That sin is rebellion against God?

If so, how do you think a newborn babe rebels against God? How do you think a babe transgresses God's law?

Let's see ... you complain that I don't answer your questions directly. Going to your questions directly ...

"Do you agree that these are good, solid biblical understandings of 'sin'?" No.

"That sin is transgressing God's law?" No.

"That sin is rebellion against God?" No.

I think that "Got Questions" got it wrong. 1 John 3:4 does not say that sin is the transgression of the law of God. It says, "Sin is lawlessness".

...John wrote "Sin is lawlessness." (See ESV, NASB, NIV, Green's Literal Translation, Young's Literal Translation, oh, just about any translation at all including the New King James, with the apparent sole exception of the King James.) Sin is the absence of God's Law. Therefore, I disagree with you and with "Got Questions" and I agree with Paul, the psalmist, Isaiah, John, and others...

I am agreeing that newborns or even infants have not murdered or committed adultery or the like, but it is inconceivable that you would argue that they actively and fully operate to the glory of God, work from faith, or love God with their entire being. The biblical definition of sin is lawlessness. That is the absence of God's Law. I don't see how an infant can be defined as operating on anything but that absence. Or, to put it in the terms you've been suggesting, sin is not the choice to violate God's Law and, as long as that Law is not violated, has not occurred. Sin is the the absence of perfect submission to God's Law. Righteousness is active, not merely the absence of sin.

I apologize for my lack of understanding here, So if I may clarify... When I ask:

In what way do you think these infants are lawless and thus, deserving of a horrible death?

Your answer is that because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not "actively and fully operate to the glory of God," that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death?

I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position.

Yeah, I get that you don't get it ... because your idea is that they are innocent and my idea is that God in all His glory deserves to be glorified and honored and loved from the birth of one of His creations. You are unable to understand this idea because you cannot define "sin" as anything but "violating God's law". As long as "sin" is "something I choose to do to violate God's law" as your premise, then none of this will make any sense to you. Oddly enough, despite my constant attempts to explain that disparity between how I see the biblical definition of sin and how you are defining it, you can't seem to see it. Either that or (as I highly suspect not because of simply Dan Trabue, but because of human nature) your view of God is fairly tame ... kind of like I indicated in the post.

NOTE: At this point, I have not offered any opinions about infants or their innocence in this conversation. I have not offered my opinions about sin. I've just asked a question in various ways trying to get a clear answer. I THOUGHT when I quoted him, I'd be able to get a "Yes, that IS my position," but no.

I continued...

I'm just trying to get a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

When I ask:
in what way do you think these infants are lawless and thus, deserving of a horrible death?

Your answer is...

because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not actively and fully operate to the glory of God, that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death...

IS THAT YOUR POSITION? If not, could you please re-state your answer to THAT ^ question for me?

Because infants are lawless.

Again, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not asking the question right. I'm wondering IN WHAT WAY do you think infants are lawless?

What does a "lawless" infant look like?

What are they doing that indicates they are lawless and, thus deserving of a horrible death?

Thanks...

Apparently I lack the words in the English language to express a thought that you can comprehend. I've explained it as a lack of law. I've explained it as the absence of God's law. I've explained that righteousness is active, not merely passive. I've explained that sin is not active violation, but the absence of God's Law.

And so, I summed up your position thusly...

because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not actively and fully operate to the glory of God, that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death...

Is my summation incorrect? It refers to what is absent (ie, "they DO NOT actively and fully operate to the glory of God"), not what they do.

So, is my summation (which, after all, comes from your direct words) correct? Because infants do not actively operate to the glory of God, they are deserving of a horrible death?

They do not love God. They do not glorify God. They ... according to the Bible ... tell lies. But, of course, you're still operating on the do concept. What do they do that is sin. I am speaking of the absence of the Law in them. They do not love God or glorify Him as a result of this absence. You're talking about what they do and I'm talking about what they lack. That's why your summation falls short. There is no positive righteousness in an infant.

And my question remains: How do you TELL there is an "absence of law in them..."? What does that look like? Or are you just saying, "I KNOW there's an absence of law in them, take my word for it..."?

As to "there is no positive righteousness in an infant," would it then be fair to sum up your position as:

Because there is NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS in a newborn infant (ie, they haven't done anything 'good,'), they deserve to die a horrible death?

I guess I might also ask, what do you mean by positive righteousness? Merely that they haven't done anything righteous at one day old?

...Also, "according to the bible," a one day old infant TELLS LIES? Do you really think this is true? (ie, both that the Bible teaches that and that a one day old infant is capable of telling lies?)

I get it. It won't be getting through. There is a language barrier or something, a fundamental disconnect. That the Bible says they lie from the womb and that there is not a single one righteous and that all have sinned all favor my view. That sin is defined as the absence of law favors my view. That the Church has historically declared this to be so favors my view... These facts, however, are irrelevant. I cannot get this across to you. You cannot think in terms of anything except "what they do". Even in the attempt to use "positive righteousness" you ask "that they haven't done anything...?"

You don't like that I threw in "that they haven't done anything..."? Then say so and throw it out and answer the question I asked with that revision.

Here, let me ask again without that line, using mostly your own words...

Because "there is NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS in a [newborn] infant", they "deserve to die" "horribly" - IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

You can see that those are mostly your own words, I'm just restating it to see if I'm understanding you correctly.

I've answered your question repeatedly. You just don't accept the answer. My answer is that all human beings are sinners, that this includes infants, that the Bible says this is the case. My answer is that infants are also sinners, that there is only one, singular-for-all-of-history exception to that fact, and that would be Jesus. My answer is that infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts. My answer is that infants and toddlers and children and teens and adults are sinners at their very core. And my answer is that God is so perfect, so high, so holy, so inviolable that any transgression or failure or omission or inaction on the part of His creation merits the penalty of eternal death.

Does my position (my position that is the historic position of the Church, the Bible, the Anabaptists, etc.) sound horrible? Undoubtedly. It probably sounds like foolishness on one hand and an offense on the other ... you know, like the Bible says it would. So I'm not equivocating and I'm not avoiding answering direct questions (a favorite mindless accusation of yours for which I would recommend you look to yourself) because of that. You're just not seeing the answers as clearly as they're given. And the Bible has an explanation for that, too.

"I've answered your question repeatedly. You just don't accept the answer."

But you haven't, not directly. Allow me to demonstrate and, if you can see that you are answering questions that I haven't asked, maybe you'll try to answer the question I DID ask.

Here is what YOU say your answers are...

"My answer is that all human beings are sinners, that this includes infants, that the Bible says this is the case."

And that WOULD be an answer to the question, "Are all human beings sinners?" But THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION...

"My answer is that infants are also sinners, that there is only one, singular-for-all-of-history exception to that fact, and that would be Jesus."

And that WOULD be an answer to the question, "Are infants sinners?" But THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION...

"My answer is that infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts."

This might be closer. My actual question was:

BECAUSE "THERE NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN A [NEWBORN] INFANT", THEY "DESERVE TO DIE" "HORRIBLY" - IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

and so, are you saying your answer (YOUR WORDS) to THIS question is

No, it is NOT my position that because there is no positive righteousness in newborn infants, they deserve to die a horrible death. Rather my position is "[BECAUSE] infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts..." they deserve to die horribly."

Is THAT the answer to the question asked?

the reason I do not take the bold-faced question you ask and repeat it back to you with a "yes" or a "no" is because you have made it into a simplistic, false statement (read "lie"). You did it (repeatedly) with the whole "So, you believe that God approves of killing your enemies' children?" A lie. It is a naked, out of context, unexplained and therefore misunderstood statement. You were so very quick to misquote me before ("I only took your words and put them out there"). It will not go well here, either.

Do I think that everyone ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Do I think that babies ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Certainly not what I meant. The context was the justice of God that is forgotten...

I believe that all human beings from age 0 up are sinners, guilty of not keeping God's law either consciously or not either positively or not. I believe that God, as just and holy, has the right (that is, it would be right) to put all human beings to death for this guilt. But, of course, that won't satisfy you. Therefore, since I won't play your game and you won't accept an answer, we're done.

IF it's a false statement, then why don't you answer, "No, that is not my position..."? and clarify with your actual position? It would seem like it would have to be pretty close to your actual position because THEY'RE YOUR ACTUAL WORDS.

" You did it (repeatedly) with the whole "So, you believe that God approves of killing your enemies' children?" A lie. It is a naked, out of context, unexplained and therefore misunderstood statement."

It is A QUESTION. IS THIS YOUR POSITION? Notice the question mark at the end. It is a question, seeking to clarify your position (and, hopefully, seeking to help you see how wrong-headed that position is).

"Do I think that everyone ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Do I think that babies ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Certainly not what I meant."

Here is what YOU said in the context of the paragraph...

"When asked about the Galileans killed by Pilate, He assured His listeners, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). The message? Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

You said, "EVERYONE deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy."

So, let's drop the baby part for a second and deal with your comment.

DID you say "everyone deserves to die. Horribly..."? Well, of course that is a silly question. It IS what you said, I just quoted you.

So, moving on, Did you MEAN to say that everyone deserves to die horribly?

Did you MEAN to say that infants deserve to die horribly?

If not, why did you say it?

"The context was the justice of God that is forgotten. I don't have the option of carrying out God's justice, so this isn't what I recommend. It is what I believe we cannot see. As a matter of fact, you can't, can you?"

And my question to you was and remains, do you think it is the "justice of God" that babies should die horribly?

Given YOUR WORDS, it is a fair and reasonable question.

If it's NOT your position, just say, No, I don't think so.

"To you, "sin" in EVERY APPLICATION is only when I choose to knowingly violate God's commands. Apparently, the only method of lying is when we speak as well. There are no other forms of lies. So we have radically different definitions of both sin and lies. (Like I said, a recent SECULAR study indicated that they detected lies in 6-month-old babies. You must figure they're pretty stupid, too, since children that age don't speak.)"

So, you think a one day old infant is LYING? Then my question is HOW? What does that look like? In WHAT WAY does a one day old infant lie?

Again, this is a reasonable question to the position, "babies are lying from the womb..." - a statement that sounds on the face of it like poetic hyperbole, why should we take it literally?

And that was the end of that ongoing conversation. No more answers.

My question is: What could I have done to have gotten a DIRECT answer to my actual question(s)? For a large part of that conversation, I was simply quoting him and asking, "Is this (ie, what you just said) your actual position?"

My second question is: Do those on the further Right side of things see how this seems to be avoiding a simple question and as if they are avoiding confirming their own actual words because those words sound so horrible? As if they WANT to say it, but they don't want to confirm that it's their actual position?

Dog. House.

2011-09-25T17:34:00.002-04:00

Dog. House., a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

So, I dabble a bit in art here and there, just for my own amusement. This is my first big attempt to try to do some watercolor painting. I'm not even sure if that's the right term. I sketched an outline with a pencil and used some kid's watercolor paint to do this.

If anyone knows anything about art and would like to make suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.

I saw a photo that my dear friend, Sue, had of her front porch and her dog and I thought that looked like a subject I could tackle, so that was what I was starting with. Unfortunately for her poor pup, I didn't do such a complimentary job on him - he looks way too big and chubby and misshapen here.

Sorry little fella!

Responsible Investment

2011-09-13T09:54:00.001-04:00

Bike Shirt, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

We have some local news happening in my hometown of Louisville that figures in to the larger political discussion and Obama's recent call to invest in infrastructure. Downtown Louisville has three interstates leading into it: I-64, I-71 and I-65.

I-64 and I-65 both cross the river at Louisville's Ohio waterfront. This week, the I-64 bridge was shut down completely due to cracks in the bridge. As it turns out, we have not invested enough in our infrastructure to keep it safe, and so, now we're closing it down, perhaps for months (it remains to be seen).

There are tens of thousands of vehicles that cross that bridge daily. The resulting traffic consequences are that all those drivers are trying now to get across our one existing bridge that was already over-crowded. We have seen and can expect traffic delays of over an hour to cross the river, at least at rush hours. This will, of course, have a huge economic impact on our city.

All of this led to my writing the following letter to the editor. It's time to change our ways and invest responsibly in our future:

So, the Sherman Minton Bridge is in bad enough shape that we have to close it, causing massive traffic and societal problems at a massive cost. Who could have seen THAT coming?!

We could have.

I have two points to make in regards to our bridge/traffic problems:

1. Since the Reagan years, so-called economic conservatives have derided most government spending and, where possible, made cuts and not invested in our infrastructure. When you don’t invest in infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, bridges, etc, begin to fall apart.

Choosing to "save money" by not investing in infrastructure is like choosing to save money by not paying your bills. Sooner or later, you WILL have to pay them, and it will likely be more than if you had paid them on time.

2. We are at a point now where we can rethink how we want to do transportation in our community. We can choose to maintain the status quo, using last century's answer (the personal auto) to this century's questions, OR we can start right now to invest in encouraging walking, biking and mass transit instead of the personal auto.

Why is there only ONE option to walk or bike from Southern Indiana to Louisville? This should begin to change immediately. Now’s the time to move past the false “conservatism” of pushing off payments to future generations and to begin responsible investment in our community.

You Think WHAT??

2011-08-31T13:31:00.002-04:00

Paul, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Okay, seriously, I'd like some very honest, hard-hitting answers to some direct and reasonable questions on this point. I've been having an email conversation with the fella mentioned in the previous post who said I'd misunderstood and misrepresented his position. Fair enough, it happens. I'm not perfect. I certainly have not done so intentionally, but he says I've got his position wrong.

No problem, I said to him. Just tell me what I've got wrong and I can correct it.

First off, as you'll recall or can go back and read, I said that the fella stated (his exact words),

"Most people have no idea that the concept of having a say in marriage is remarkably new ... and not necessarily a good thing.

Arranged marriages were the norm for most of the history of marriage and still are the norm in some cultures today. They were even occurring in American culture as late as the 19th century. I'm sorry, but calling that "rape" is a function of ignorance, not value judgment."

Those are his words, no error there.

Where I erred, he says, was in saying that this quote above was in reference to the passages that I referenced in the previous post: Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21. He clarified that was NOT speaking of women captured during war time and taken home to be made into wives. He was speaking specifically of the idea of "arranged marriages" that were common back in the day and still are common in some more fundamentalist (my word, not his) circles, like with some Muslims and some extreme Mormons, as well as with some Asian cultures. These are not typically FORCED marriages - the bride can say No. It's just an arranged marriage in which the bride and groom are consenting.

Okay, no problem, I get now that he was speaking of arranged marriages when he made that quote. BUT, that was not the question I had for him, nor the point of the last post: What of the biblical passages that were being raised? Deut 21 and Num 31, for instance?

Those aren't arranged marriages. They are what I think we can all agree might be called forced marriages. In my opinion (and, seriously, I can't imagine I'm in the minority here), a forced marriage (one in which the "bride" is not willing but, as in this case, a kidnapped or captured woman from another nation) is much closer to rape than to marriage.

FIRST QUESTION: Am I right? Can we ALL agree that when you have a situation in which a woman is FORCED to marry, against her will; is forced to have sex in that forced marriage, that this can legitimately be called rape? Unwanted, forcible sex IS the definition of rape, am I right?

Well, I just couldn't get him to answer these questions. He dodged and ignored the questions asked of him, rather than answering straightforwardly. And so, while I can acknowledge that he was speaking specifically of a certain type of consensual arranged marriage, I can't say what his position is on the topic of my post because he won't answer what his position is.

The reason I was asking him was so I COULD accurately correct my supposed misrepresentation and reflect his actual position. From what he has said, he SOUNDS LIKE he doesn't think that capturing a woman and forcing her into marriage is equivalent to rape in any way, but he just wouldn't answer directly.

And so, I am asking anyone here who'd like to address the question (especially the conservatives) to look at the actual words of this "command from God," (Deut 21 is a passage that is part of God giving directives to Israel) and address this serious problem with a literal hermeneutic.

What serious problem?

If anyone looks at this text and hears that someone saying this is a historically accurate text, then you are making a CRAZY-sounding representation of the God of perfect Love and perfect Justice: You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family, "capturing" the women that they "are attracted to," take her home and SHAVING her head, cutting her fingernails (traditionally used to subdue rape victims to take away their spirit and their fingernails which can be used to defend themselves), giving her a month to mourn the family you've just killed, and then "taking her" as your wife.

SECOND QUESTION: Do you see how astoundingly crazy that sounds to regular people out here? I don't mean that as an insult, just a statement of fact: For many, many people, suggesting that there is a God of perfect love and perfect justice and that God is ALSO okay with this arrangement sounds insane.

Now, here's Deuteronomy 21, again:

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Bring her into your home and have her shave her head,
trim her nails and
put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.

After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Okay, first off, I recognize this is not a "command" from God, but God saying, "This behavior is okay." Nonetheless, for the folk who say this passage represents a literal retelling of factual history and God DOES allow people sometimes to behave like this: You are making a rather astounding claim about God. How do you defend it?

THIRD QUESTION: Can we agree that this is describing a forced marriage or, if not, what do you think is happening here? Do you think that these women, after having their families slaughtered, are going to say, "well, you know, he's sorta cute. I think I WILL consent to marrying my parents' assassin..."?

FOURTH QUESTION: If you think that God is okay with people - at least in the past - killing off whole families and sparing the "beautiful daughters" to take home and make them their wives, how do you rectify this with the self-evident Truism that it's wrong to force people into marriage against their will and after having killed their parents? Do you reject that as a moral truth?

FIFTH QUESTION: Are you of the tribe that thinks it doesn't matter how heinous the behavior, if God commands it (or allows it), it's okay? If so, do you recognize that this is not an instance of God commanding people to forcibly marry the orphaned girl/woman of the family they've just killed, but rather, God saying "it's okay if you want to do this..."? How do you explain this rather hard-to-believe position?

SIXTH QUESTION: Are you of the tribe that says, "God USED to allow this, but it was ONLY for Israel at that time, and now it's not okay anymore for anybody?" If so, are you saying that God changes God's position based upon the people and time and culture?

I can't get across how HARD this is to reconcile this sort of passage - taken as literal history - with the Christian understanding of God from the teachings of the Bible and our own God-given reasoning. If you're holding to the position that this behavior described here as acceptable truly IS acceptable, you really need to be able to provide something like rational and biblical support for that position. I'd love to see direct answers to these direct questions.

Exactly Why the OT Ought Not be Taken Literally

2011-08-28T09:04:00.002-04:00

Silly Hat Katherine, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Crazy-sounding conservative quote of the day...

Most people have no idea that the concept of having a say in marriage is remarkably new ... and not necessarily a good thing.

???????????
Arranged marriages were the norm for most of the history of marriage and still are the norm in some cultures today. They were even occurring in American culture as late as the 19th century. I'm sorry, but calling that "rape" is a function of ignorance, not value judgment.

Specifically, this person (whose identity shall remain private, unless he chooses to reveal it himself), was responding to the biblical text that has God commanding Israel to go in to a village, kill all the men, women and children, but spare the virgin girls so they could be taken home and “saved” to be Israeli wives, after shaving their heads, paring the fingernails and allowing them 30 days to mourn.

From Deuteronomy 21...

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

And from Numbers 31...

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

I appreciate, at least, the brutal honesty of this conservative, because it helps point out one of the big problems of trying to treat these OT passages like this one as literal history, reflecting a perfect understanding of God's nature.

Indeed, if you try to read these passages as literal history, you have to admit to a god that sometimes may command that god's followers to kill innocent children and to kidnap virgin girls and take them as your wives (after allowing a whole month for mourning of the parents and baby brothers you have just slaughtered!).

It's how you end up with folk who try to hew to a patriarchal worldview, one which says it's probably not best for women (or men, presumably?) to have a choice in who they marry. I'd love to know what he actually advocates, since he seems to think allowing personal choice in choosing life partners is a bad thing – what does he propose, instead??

Taking these passages as a literal reflection of God's views can lead one to try to take these passages as a rulebook of dos and don'ts, rather than a reflection of the views of a particular people at a particular time. It leads to calling what most people would say is self-evidently wrong a possible good. It leads people to saying things like, “Well, I know it SOUNDS horrible for God to command killing baby boys and kidnapping and bedding down virgin girls, but if you think about it, it's not really as bad as it sounds...” and then trying to explain why it's not as bad as it sounds (that is, killing the mother, father and baby brothers of a virgin girl, then bedding her down 30 days later isn't really all that bad!!...)

For such people, such passages become what they like to call “hard passages,” and then find some way to force such self-evidently immoral behavior into some sort of reasonable explanation of morality.

The problem is, it can't be done. At least, not that I can see.

You can say, at best, that such laws are LESS immoral than how people used to treat their enemies, that it is at least a way of offering SOME protections to slaves and captive women. True enough. But saying a behavior is LESS immoral is not the same as saying it's moral and a perfect reflection of God's will.

You could also call such commands a reflection of God's “progressive revelation,” whereby God USED to allow certain behaviors (like the ones mentioned above, polygamy, concubines, etc) as a concession to a more primitive culture and make a reasonable case for that, seems to me.

But what you can't reasonably do is suggest that this reflects God's perfect will and that engaging in these behaviors (not allowing personal liberty, advocating a world where women don't get to make their own decisions, kidnapping and bedding down the orphaned virgin girls of your vanquished enemies, killing the infant children of your enemy) is or can be “moral.” Not when we can see that such behavior is self-evidently NOT moral.

We don't need a literal OT to tell us that much.

Jefferson on Religious Liberty and Thought

2011-08-25T09:30:00.002-04:00

Statue of Liberty, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

The more I read of Jefferson on the topic of religious liberty, the more impressed I am with his writings. I say that knowing full well his AWFUL limitations as it relates to civil/personal liberty as it related to the slavery question. He was wrong, wrong, wrong, with no doubt. Awfully so, especially given his apparent well-thought out opinions about human liberty.

His mistaken position on slavery, notwithstanding, consider his wise words on the topic of religious liberty and thought (all emphases are mine)...

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible to restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time:

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; ... that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ...

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy [sic], which at once destroys all religious liberty ...;

and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities...

(Thomas Jefferson, "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia," 1779)

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782)

... shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country.

Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces.

Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that it's [sic] falshood [sic] would be more improbable than a change of the laws of nature in the case he relates.... Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of it's [sic] consequences.

If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in it's [sic] exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement. If that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love.

In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject any thing because any other person, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision....

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to his young nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787)

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799)

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.

(Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801)

It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803)

Why Simplicity? A Complex Answer, Part VI

2011-08-22T17:51:00.002-04:00

Glistening Lily, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

"These temple-destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar. Dam Hetch Hetchy?! As well dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man."

~John Muir

You do not consider, money never stays with me: it would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find a way into my heart.

~John Wesley

Prosperity knits a man to the world. He feels that he is 'finding his place in it' while really it is finding his place in him.

~C.S. Lewis

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount never blessed a material thing! The richer we get in the church, the poorer we get in the spirit.

~Leonard Ravenhill

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth...

Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.

~Jesus

Way back towards the end of last year, I began offering up some thoughts about why living simply makes sense to me. Those posts can be found here. I'd like to offer some more thoughts and invite some more responses on the topic.

Why simplicity? One answer I may have alluded to before is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Or, put another, more broader way: Live in such a way that you'd be pleased for all others to live.

How is this an answer to the question of living simply? I've recently been in a discussion that touched on this topic and the other fella asked, "In what way does your (efforts at) living simply help the child starving in Uganda?"

One short answer is this: If I live more simply (ie, I make $20,000 a year, but live on $15,000/year), that frees up more of my money that I could then send to those in need. The charity approach. That one is obvious.

But the more profound reason, at least one that makes sense to me (but may be harder to recognize), is the Golden Rule rationale: Live in such a way that I'd be pleased for all others to live.

The thing is, this is a finite planet with finite resources. Sometimes, given the great vastness of the earth and the numbers of people involved (billions and billions), this can be less obvious. But consider it this way: If there were 9 families and EACH of those families consumed 1/10 of the world's resources, that would only leave 1/10 of the world's resources for the whole rest of the population to live upon.

As a matter of justice, it would not be reasonable to think that it's morally acceptable for those nine families to consume 9/10 of the world's resources. Even if the laws were written in such a way that they could acquire those resources legally, it would make for an immoral and unjust situation. Or, if that's not obvious enough, then presume that there were TEN families each consuming 1/10 of the world's resources: Obviously, that is not a moral nor workable situation.

If everyone on the planet consumed at a rate as the average US citizen, we'd need multiple planets to sustain all that consumption. In short, we CAN'T possibly all consume at the rate that I currently consume. And I probably consume less than an average US citizen. Some stats/quotes on this point:

* The average American consumes about fifty-three times more goods and services than someone from China.
* The United States contains 5 percent of the world's population but accounts for 22 percent of fossil fuel consumption, 24 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and 33 percent of paper and plastic use.
* A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil. He or she will drain as many resources as thirty-five natives of India.
* In fact, comparing statistics on actual resource use as opposed to population numbers has led some to suggest that the most overpopulated country on earth -in terms of impact- is the United States.

Sierra Club

when delegates from around the world gathered in Cairo for the International Conference on Population and Development, representatives from developing countries protested that a baby born in the United States will consume during its lifetime twenty times as much of the world's resources as an African or an Indian baby. The problem for the world's environment, they argued, is overconsumption in the North, not overpopulation in the South.

The Atlantic

Now, it is true that not everyone wants to live to the same level of comfort/consumption. One of our problems, though, is that, through our expertise in commercialism, we are doing a very good job of making everyone want to live up to the same level as we live. This is a problem simply as a matter of mathematics: We can't all consume as much as the wealthy west does. It requires too many resources - more than is possible to attain on this finite planet with an ever-increasing population.

And so, one reason for living simply, it seems to me, is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you; Live in such a way that you'd be pleased for all others to live.

Marriage Equity: My Journey I

2011-08-03T17:33:00.002-04:00

Stranger, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

One of the things that I frequently do when discussing disagreements - especially biblical disagreements - with others, is to sort of systematically go down a list and, with each item, ask, "Can we agree on this?" or, "Is this rational?" It's something that has been complained about more than once, as if my constant asking if we can agree on a point is some trick.

I can assure you, it's no trick. It's just one way that I do these sorts of studies with myself. I look at a series of arguments that might be made in support of a larger point and, as I go down the list of arguments, I ask myself, "Is that reasonable? Is that a justified conclusion? Can I agree to that?"

I guess it's sort of the socratic method way of thinking through things by asking questions (although I never have thought of it in those terms, before stopping to put these thoughts down).

I bring that up because that is what I'm preparing to do here now, to re-address the question, "How did I go from a traditionalist, conservative biblical literalist opposed to any and all gay behavior to where I am now?" I'm doing this not so much for the ones who've heard me say this before, but for the benefit of someone relatively new to my opinions who is asking how this happened.

I KNOW I've done this before in a fairly systematic way and I thought I had done so here at my blog, but for the life of me, I can't find it. I am guessing I must have done it elsewhere and have now forgotten where.

So, without further ado...

1. I was starting from the position that the Bible clearly said any and all gay behavior is wrong. I loved gay folk, in my own way, but I thought that any gay behavior was wrong and harmful for them, spiritually.

[In hindsight, I fully recognize how hateful I was in my words about gay folk. Even though it was not my deliberate intent, I said some awful, hurtful things. I am sorry. It was where I was.]

2. I'm often asked (accusatorially) "well, what changed? Did you decide you were gay? Did you find out a loved one was gay? Did you have a crisis of faith and were questioning God, in general?? SOMETHING must have happened for you to change from 'accepting God's Word' [they'd say] to rejecting it!"

3. The ONE and only thing that was different was I had met some Christians who I KNEW to be Christians, based upon their obvious Christian lives and testimony, and these fellow Christians thought I was wrong in my position. Well, I was blown away by this. I'd never met a Christian who'd suggest such a thing.

I wanted to question their Christianity, but there it was, in their testimony and lives, there was no debating that they were Christians. And so, I did the only thing I could do: I accepted them as Christians who were just horribly, terribly wrong on this one point. I'm comfortable with disagreement and while, ideally, it would be cool if all Christians agreed on every point and were thus unified, I recognize that in this fallen world, we won't all agree. Even on important matters.

4. But, it got me to wondering, "HOW IN THE WORLD could they possibly in a million years think some gay behavior is okay?" And so, I looked at the Bible and what it did and didn't have to say about homosexuality, and did so with fresh eyes. I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT do so with the expectation that I would change my mind, nor the desire to, I was just wondering how in the world they could even BEGIN to justify disagreeing with me and the traditional interpretations I held. To be honest, I would say I went into it with at least a little intention to be better informed to better REFUTE their crazy hunch!

5. I can't emphasize enough that merely finding some Christians who disagreed with me would not be enough to make me change my mind. By that point, I had already begun identifying with anabaptism and their pacifism. I was very use to being in a minority position as it relates to others within Christendom and I am fine with disagreeing with other Christians, even on important topics. That I had happened upon some "real" Christians who disagreed with me was in NO WAY something that I would make me want to change my mind. It just did not happen like that in the real world.

6. And so, I looked at what the Bible had to say, again. But what could there defense possibly be? I wondered. The Bible is abundantly clear on the topic with plenty of evidence in support of the position that any and all gay behavior is wrong! Why, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, I thought. How could it be more clear?! Two whole towns were DESTROYED because of their acceptance of homosexuality!

Right?

And I looked at the passages about S/G. And you know what I found? NOT ONE WORD saying or suggesting that S/G were destroyed because of homosexuality. Still, clearly, all the men of Sodom wanted to bring out the male visitors to rape them... gay behavior, right?

7. In trying to answer that question honestly, I had to admit, "Well, they were trying to RAPE other men. And we don't condemn ALL heterosexuality just because some males rape women, do we? In fairness to those who disagree with me and the Bible, we can't really condemn all gay folk merely because some men in S/G wanted to rape men, can we?"

And, much to my dismay, I had to answer, "No."

8. In fact, I found out that the Ezekiel passage about S/G says specifically WHY S/G were destroyed:

this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.

The very closest that I could get to some gay behavior is "did detestable things," but that's sort of a leap. Rape, after all, is the detestable thing that we find in the story. To suggest that S/G were destroyed for supporting homosexuality is just not justified in the Bible.

Oh, sure, there is the Jude passage about Sodom going after "strange flesh," but that's not exactly a compelling argument in its vagueness, either.

9. Still, at this point, all that had shown me was that S/G were not destroyed for homosexuality, nothing more. I still was quite convinced the bible clearly condemned all forms of homosexuality.

10. Nonetheless, this DID put a big dent in my package of Bible verses against homosexuality. IF we eliminate passages about behaviors that are wrong/bad for gay OR straight people (and that includes prostitution, rape, licentiousness, forced child prostitution, etc), then that eliminates the bulk of Bible passages potentially dealing with all gay behavior.

11. In fact, that left me with less than five-six passages in the whole Bible that appeared to likely be on the topic.

12. Nonetheless, something being condemned "only" five times is PLENTY of condemnation, so I looked at those five passages to find support for my position against homosexuality.

13. At this point, I had these five passages: Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Corinthians 6: The entire biblical argument against homosexuality, it would seem.

14. In only TWO passages was the word, "homosexual" used in the whole Bible (although, that depended upon your translation - in most translations, it does not appear at all). Those two places are 1 Tim 1 and 1 Cor 6. So, I jumped to those, since they had the advantage of being New Testament teachings.

15. In both of those passages, you have Paul offering a list of behaviors that are not part of God's kingdom. These behaviors included fornication, idol worship, greed, stealing, etc, along with homosexuality. Clear enough! This behavior (I assumed all homosexual behavior) is NOT part of God's kingdom, any more than greed or stealing!

16. But why, I asked myself, did homosexual appear in only some translations, but not most? What is the Greek word being discussed there, "homosexual," right?

17. In looking into it, I saw that the word was NOT translated "homosexual" because that was not the word being used. There was a Greek word for homosexual, but Paul did not use that in either of these passages. Why is that? I asked myself...

18. It turned out that there are two words here that APPEAR to have some homosexual connotation. In the NIV, the words used are translated, "Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offender." I learned that these are a translation of the words "malakoi" - literally meaning "soft," and arsenokoites (and don't think I didn't notice that "arse" in there!), which is literally translated "men - bed," or maybe even, "men - penetrator," since "koitus" had a sexual connotation. I also learned that there is no consensus on how the words ought to be translated (and you can see this in the many different translations of these words).

19. Well, now that may or may not have helped my argument against all homosexual behavior. Why wouldn't Paul have just used the word for homosexual if he wanted to condemn homosexuality? I wondered. I had no good answer. Ultimately, that Paul did NOT use the normal word for homosexual when a Greek word existed, made me discount these two-three passages that I had previously considered so "obvious."

For me, then, at this point, these two passages were a wash. MAYBE they were condemning all gay behavior, but I honestly could not justify saying, "Yes, these are definitely talking about all gay behavior."

20. So, from there I moved on to the three remaining verses, which CLEARLY were speaking of gay behavior and condemning it. So, it doesn't matter if there are "only" three passages condemning a behavior. If it is wrong and that is only said so once, then that one time is enough. After all, bestiality is only condemned one time in the Bible, right? So, confident that I was still right, I turned to the three remaining passages: Two in Leviticus and one in Romans.

21. Looking at the OT:

Do NOT have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable, says Lev 18.

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death, says Lev 20.

"Do NOT do this..." "Detestable!" Clearly these two passages are condemning gay behavior and from a straightforward reading, they are condemning ALL gay behavior (well, at least all GAY MALE behavior, since no lesbian action isn't mentioned. I thought it was safely implied, though).

22. Clear, I thought, but at the same time, there was the whole OT problem. Having been raised in a traditional Southern Baptist background, I had it drilled into me repeatedly, "We are NOT under the LAW of the OT." Christians today in no way are obligated to obey all the OT rules. As Paul says in Romans 6...

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

And again, in Romans 8...

because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

23. Beyond that, clearly, NONE of us Christians would give a second thought to the notion that we ought to obey all the laws in the OT. After all, the VERY VERSE that condemned "men lying with men" said we ought to KILL THEM, and NO ONE today believes that is a good or moral teaching that applies to us. In fact, most of us would agree the second half of that verse would be horribly IMMORAL.

24. Beyond that, there are verses in the same section of Leviticus that condemns growing hair on the side of your head, wearing polyester and other behaviors that NONE OF US believed were sinful in the least!

25. So, how should I handle these two passages in Leviticus, I asked myself. I looked at them further and in context.

26. Growing up Southern Baptist, for all of its problems, gave me a very rich familiarity with the Bible. The Baptists, at least in my experience, took Bible study seriously. Because of that, I was familiar with the notion that Leviticus chapters 17 through 26 were part of what is called the Holiness Code. All of Leviticus was written specifically for Israel and the HC in particular were rules specifically for the Israelites at that time. The purpose of these rules were at least two-fold: To help the Israelis know how to rightly deal with one another in a new land and to encourage Israel NOT to adapt habits and rituals that were part of the surrounding (and often hostile) nations.

No Christian biblical scholars that I knew of at the time suggested in any way that these rules were eternal rules for all people and all times.

27. Nonetheless, there WERE rules in the HC that reflected what we might call Universal morals - behaviors to avoid that are always in all times and with all people immoral. In fact, I had heard growing up that there were three sorts of rules found in the HC: Universal rules, Ceremonial rules and Civil rules.

28. Universal rules are morals that are always to be heeded. The ceremonial rules had to do with washing your hands, not touching the dead and other ceremonial "clean-ness" issues. The civil rules were to tell Israel how to adjudge one another.

29. Of these, obviously only the "universal rules" would apply today. Okay, I thought, now I'm getting somewhere. Obviously, I thought, killing, rape, "men laying with men," these all fall under the "universal rules" of the HC, right?

30. Looking into THIS angle some more, I found out (I think I knew this, but it didn't sink in right away) that the whole notion of dividing the HC up into three categories is a modern device. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says, "These passages are to be considered universal, THESE passages are to be considered ceremonial..." Is there an objective source or way to determine which of these rules were universal? I asked myself.

Not that I could find anywhere in the text.

That angle took me nowhere.

31. Still, "Men shall not lie with men, it is detestable!" "An abomination!" in some translations. That seemed pretty strong condemnation. Wouldn't such a condemnation ONLY be used with universal morals/rules? I asked myself.

Turns out, no. That sort of condemnation was used with other behaviors that obviously aren't what we would consider "an abomination." Eating shrimp and pork, for instance (both of which I consider to be the OPPOSITE of "abomination..."). So, the whole "Wouldn't that term be used only to condemn the worst behaviors" angle didn't work out, either, to support my position against homosexuality.

32. There were probably some other thoughts I may have had about these two OT verses, but it didn't worry me, much. In short, the problem with OT passages is that they are OT, and they just don't apply en toto to us today. There are certainly great wonderful morals taught in the OT, but not every moral taught in the OT is applicable today and we have no way from the OT itself to say, "Yes, this is a moral applicable today and that isn't!" It just does not exist in the OT.

33. Didn't matter. EVEN IF there were only one verse condemning a behavior clearly, that was sufficient to say the behavior IS wrong. And I had at least one clear passage in the NT: Romans 1. Speaking of sinful humanity - those who ignored God's will and became increasingly depraved, Paul saysÉ

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Pretty clear, huh? AND it is a condemnation of both men AND women engaging in homosexual acts - any and all homosexual acts, it seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? Men "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another!" Even though that doesn't use the word, "homosexual," it is clearly condemning gay and lesbian behavior!

Or does it?

Marriage Equity: My Journey II

2011-08-03T17:32:00.002-04:00

Deer Pants, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

34. Not wanting to be shabby in my Bible study, I wanted to look at the whole text, to take this passage in CONTEXT of what was being said around it. Who were these "THEY" being spoken of in Romans 1?

35. In looking at the beginning of the passage, I see the introduction...

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of peopleÉ

...Which wicked people? I asked...

...who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them....

Those who SUPPRESS the truth, those for whom God's ways have been made plain to them. Okay. What else?

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

...Oh yeah, I remember my conservative Baptist preachers pointing this out when I was a youth/young man: This passage is speaking to those who were idol worshippers, adherents in the region to pagan religions. When I noticed that, I suddenly recalled something. I flipped back to Lev 18 to look a bit more deeply at that context...

36. Lev 18 begins...

The LORD said to Moses, ÒSpeak to the Israelites and say to them: ÔI am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

...Ah, right. This, too, I recalled from my conservative preachers growing up: ONE of the reasons why Israel was to obey the Holiness Code laws was to differentiate them from the people living in the lands all around them. These Egyptians and Canaanites held to pagan practices - sometimes horrifying practices: Sacrificing their children to their gods, holding ritualistic orgies to make the ground more fertile and appease their gods, forcing people - even boys and girls, into serving as temple prostitutes for these pagan rituals.

That sounded very familiar to what Paul was speaking of here.

37. I looked it up and saw that Paul was speaking specifically to the Roman practice of worshiping to pagan gods, much like the OT was speaking of Canaanite and other pagan worship practices. Interesting, in all three of the places where homosexuality is condemned (and to be fair, at this point, I had to say, "at least SOME FORM, if not all forms, of gay behavior is condemned..."), it is in the context of pagan rituals being condemned.

But did that make a difference? I mean, if pagan rituals included bestiality or murder, we wouldn't consider them okay today.

38. Looking back at the Holiness Code, at the beginning of each of those chapters, there's usually some sort of introduction.

Lev 17:

This is what the Lord commands of Israel...

and then there are laws (clearly for Israel) mostly about blood sacrifices.

Lev 18: This is what the Lord commands Israel - don't engage in practices like the pagans do...

and then there are rules mostly about sexual practices (including some commands that are obviously not universal, like banning sex during menstruation) and repeated allusions to the pagan worship practices of the other nations.

Lev 19: This is what the Lord commands Israel...

and then there are an assortment of rules, many of which are obviously not universal, some which DO sound universally moral, and no distinction for us to say, THIS one is and THAT one isn't universal.

Lev 20: Say to the Israelites...

and then a listing of punishments to accompany some rules, again with mentions of the pagan practices by local nations. In this case, we clearly don't hold to at least most of the commanded punishments, which mostly involve killing people or "cutting people off."

And so on.

In ALL of these passages, the commands are directed specifically to Israel. In many of the commands, we can all see that CLEARLY these are not universally moral rules. No one thinks it is sinful to cut the hair on the side of your head, for instance.

39. All of that to say that happening upon the Romans 1 context led me back to the HC context and I came to the conclusion that while the morals listed there, including what appears to be a ban against gay behavior, COULD POSSIBLY be universal in nature, there is NO WAY TO say with any biblical assuredness that they are.

On what basis could I say that ANY prohibitions listed in the OT were universal in nature?

I can see no justification for a definitive answer, short of having that behavior also clearly condemned in the NT (especially by Jesus), not from the text itself. Add to that, the possibility that the "men laying with men" was speaking specifically in reference to pagan rituals, which seemed at least possible to me at this point, if not very likely, and I just could not find "beyond a reasonable doubt" OT support AGAINST any and all gay behavior. It just isn't clearly there. POSSIBLY there? Yes. Definitively? No.

40. Still, I was holding to one passage, Romans 1, that seemed fairly clearly opposed to at least SOME gay behavior, maybe all gay behavior. But the context thing was bothering me here. In both Leviticus and Romans, there is the references to the pagan rituals which I had learned growing up included various temple prostitution and sex rituals. Was Paul condemning any and all gay behavior or just gay behavior in the context mentioned? How could I decide definitively and beyond all reasonable doubt? I returned to the text...

41. It was at this point that these lines caught my eye...

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Women exchanged their NATURAL relations for UNnatural ones. As did the men.

Coming from a very heterosexual background, I understood this perfectly. If I were to give up my natural desires for women, and pursued instead, UNnatural desires for me, well, that appears to be condemned here. But then it occurred to me: For a GAY guy, "natural relations," natural desires, would be for another guy. IF this ISN'T speaking specifically to some of the pagan rituals (as it became harder to argue against that, given the text) but ALL gay behavior, this would APPEAR then, to me, to actually SUPPORT gay behavior!

If the sin were abandoning NATURAL inclinations/desires/wants, then trying to get a gay guy/gal to be straight or a straight guy/gal to be gay, THAT would be what's condemned here, not "gay behavior," but abandoning "natural" behaviorÉ

Surely that can't be right? I thought to myself.

42. So, all of that to say that I just no longer found the biblical case as compellingly strong as I had always thought. Sure, it was POSSIBLE that all gay behavior was being condemned, but I just don't think you can say so reasonably from the text with 100% certainty. I realized, at the least, that such a position just wasn't biblically or logically provable.

43. Still, at all of that, it's not an endorsement of SOME gay behavior, it's just not a blanket condemnation of all gay behavior, either. What now? Obviously, there is no support for something like marriage for all in the Bible, is there? At this point, it seemed to me that the most I could say would be that an issue like marriage equity ("gay marriage") is a topic on which the Bible is silent. One simply can not say that the Bible offers a provable, definitive position either against of for marriage equity.

It's an issue like driving cars or recycling: It's just not covered explicitly in the Bible.

44. Of course, this was a staggering place to reach for someone who was SO SURE that the Bible was unequivocal in its opposition to all gay behavior. I still wasn't sure if I supported marriage equity, but I just could no longer say with any biblical certainty that it was certainly wrong. I can't tell you how wild that is to be SO VERY CERTAIN for some 30+ years of one's life of a position, only to find that support for that position is not certainly there.

Not only that, but I was forced to realize that much of my certainty was built upon a certain amount of cultural blindness to what was and wasn't actually said in the Bible. I thought there were MANY passages clearly condemning all gay behavior. I had to admit that this was not the case, even though I was certain of it. I guess I thought that Jesus had certainly opposed it (I don't recall now for sure what I thought Jesus had to say about homosexuality), but that was not the case, not in the least. I had to admit that all the times that the word "homosexuality" was used (all one or two times), it was a mistranslation.

I had to admit it really came down to three passages (with some POSSIBILITIES for other passages, but not with any certainty). I had to admit that two of those passages were in the OT rules and that we have no biblically provable way of saying with certainty which of those morals are universal in nature and which weren't. I had to admit that left me with ONE passage that had any (what I thought was) certainty and finally, I had to admit that even there, it just wasn't certain. It HINTED at what I had always been taught and believed, but once I began to let down my cultural blinders and look a bit more objectively, I saw much room for doubt.

Wow, that was stunning.

45. But, if it is a topic on which the Bible is practically silent, do I have any positive reasons for supporting marriage equity, or was I just stuck at agreeing that we could not say for certain?

46. Let me say that, although I was certainly opposed to marriage equity, I never found the verses about marriage that are often cited as a very compelling case against gay marriage. "Let the Bible's condemnation against homosexuality stand for itself, but saying, 'Jesus said let a man marry a woman...' is not a biblically or logically compelling argument," that would have been something I might have said.

That is, just because Jesus affirmed staying faithful in a man/woman marriage (in the context of a question about divorce and shirking marriage obligations) is not to say that Jesus was defining marriage, saying "This and only this is marriage." That is just lazy logic/exegesis/eisegesis. If I had heard someone saying that Jesus was DEFINING marriage in his comments here, I'd have said you just can't make a biblical case for that. And this was before I ever began this life-changing Bible study and while I was still opposed to any and all gay behavior.

47. The thing is, even before this study, I had realized that the Bible was not so clear on marriage as many of my fellow conservatives made out: The Bible didn't condemn polygamy. The Bible has many examples of various sexual practices. The Bible didn't say anything about the treatment of women as chattel to be "given away" in marriage. Marriage in the Bible is not marriage as we know it today and we have to admit that in order to be true to the Bible. In other words, it's not fair or sound logical biblical exegesis to speak of a modern behavior and find some similar (but different) behavior in the Bible and conflate the two.

48. And yet, none of this gets me to a biblical support for marriage equity for all people. And looking at what all the Bible DID say about marriage didn't help a whole lot, either, at least insofar as it didn't contribute anything much to the "Is marriage a good thing for all people, gay or straight?" question.

No, at this point, I was just stuck at, "I think that marriage equity/gay marriage is just one of those topics that isn't discussed in the Bible - which is not to say that it is good or bad, just that it isn't covered. It MIGHT be alluded to, but in good faith, I don't think we can say it is definitively."

49. On topics that aren't covered in the Bible, I'm entirely fine with another method of determining our moral values: Using our God-given reasoning. Is using our fallible reasoning a perfect way of determining moral values? No, not really. No more than using our reasoning to understand the Bible's teachings is a perfect way of determining our moral values. But is it a good and rational way to do the best we can?

I say, what option do we have?

50. On this front, some of our more traditional friends will say, "What option?! We have the Bible!!" And their thinking is that the Bible is "obvious" on many fronts and that one and only one moral conclusion can be reached on all the "big sins." For my part, I tend to think the Bible's ethical teachings ARE obvious. However, seeing as how so many of us good Bible loving Christians can't agree on what is and isn't obvious, I think it's obvious that our fallible reasoning (either logical reasoning or biblical reasoning) IS fallible and we don't always come to the same conclusions.

The point is: EVEN WHEN we are reading the Bible to understand God's ways and even when a value seems "obvious" to us, not all of us agree.

51. At any rate, using my God-given reasoning, I could see that those who wish to be married for the reasons of being faithful to a spouse, of raising family, of love for a spouse, to honor and respect and cherish a spouse... those who wish to be married in a mutually loving, committed relationship, where is there room for saying this is a bad thing? Just from a logical point of view, if people are sexual creatures and if licentious sexual acting out and roaming around can be bad (a point most of us can agree upon) and there is a more wholesome, committed, faithful alternative such as marriage, it is very hard to argue from a purely logical point of view that this is a bad thing.

What is bad in that behavior? I can think of nothing and I have heard no one offer anything.

52. As I was considering that logical angle, I was reminded of many passages in the Bible along the lines of, "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things..." and Jesus' teaching about doing good on the Sabbath, reminding us that Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for Sabbath.

That teaching, in particular, stuck with me.

53. As I went through this whole study with myself, one of the things that happened was that I moved away from the notion of the Bible as a book of rules - a mere list of things to do and things not to do - to viewing it as a book of TRUTHS. (Not that I ever would have reduced the Bible down to a mere rule book, but I leaned more that way when I was younger than I do now).

Given that, I have repeatedly noticed how this is one way that people got in trouble in the Bible: When they reduce God's ways down to a mere list of dos and don'ts. When people do that, as the Pharisees often did, you can too easily get into trouble because, as Jesus noted, the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.

The teachings and morals offered in the Bible are nearly always offered for the sake of humanity. To help us, to keep us from trouble, to keep us from making our lives a hellish existence.

By making the OT teachings a list of rules, the Pharisees were able to criticize GOD (Jesus) for merely eating, because they "violated" a rule they had come to understand as simply "don't work on the Sabbath." In so doing, they allowed the RULE to take precedence over Human needs. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding, telling us all to remember that the Sabbath (rules) were made for our sake, not US for rules' sake.

54. So, looking at the teachings and truths that things that are good, helpful, kind, respectful, committed, faithful, caring... that these things ARE good and are ALWAYS good, I found a reason to support marriage equity. And it was pretty obvious at this point: This desire to be committed and loving and faithful in a spousal relationship IS a self-evident moral good!

55. Again, wow! For someone like me - wholly opposed to any and all homosexual behavior (because I thought the Bible taught against it and I had checked that off as one of those "rules" that you just don't violate, in any and all circumstances) who had no intention to change his mind, to be convinced BY PRAYERFUL BIBLE STUDY of a wholly opposite opinion, that is just amazing and something I could not have imagined in a million years doing.

And yet, here I am, holding the opinion that marriage IS indeed a good thing for folk able and prepared to commit to it, and that does not matter if they are gay folk or straight folk.

And there you have it. My journey from opposition to any and all gay behavior, to support of marriage equity for all, all through prayer and Bible study and reflection.

Of course, this is a greatly simplified representation of my journey. It actually occurred over months of study and meditation and reflection and prayer. And I may be misremembering some of my thought processes: I'm of an age that I don't remember every little detail like I used to (and I never remembered every little detail all that well). But in general, this is how it happened.

Now, my reasoning may not convince many out there to change their position. If I could have passed these thoughts on to 20 year old Dan, it almost certainly wouldn't have changed HIS position, either. That is not the purpose of my posting this. I'm just recounting my journey to say that this is how it happened, and that it IS possible through prayerful consideration and Bible study alone to reach my conclusions.

You may disagree with those conclusions, but you can't say that I have not reached them the way I did, because, well, that would just conflict with the facts of the situation. And I'm not alone. Others have made this journey along similar paths.

Disagree if you must with our conclusions, but don't say that we have not honestly reached them.

As Martin Luther is reported to have said: "Here I stand, I can do no other."

Eleanor Roosevelt Quotes

2011-07-24T08:53:00.001-04:00

Jeff St Art Show - Brady, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I've just recently been reading about Eleanor Roosevelt and some of her quotes and was impressed and thought I'd share some of her words here. What would the world be like without our beloved, strong, smart women?

A little simplification would be the first step toward rational living, I think...

Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself...

We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk...

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world...

The word liberal comes from the word free. We must cherish and honor the word free or it will cease to apply to us...

When you know to laugh and when to look upon things as too absurd to take seriously, the other person is ashamed to carry through even if he was serious about it...

For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it...

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?

A trillion here and a trillion there...

2011-07-14T10:17:00.002-04:00

Frist Center, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

According to a Reuters repot (citing a Brown University study), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan total between $2.3 and 2.7 T-T-Trillion-with-a-"T" thus far and that costs will continue to explode when we factor in the care of the wounded and survivors of the killed. The final bill is estimated to be between $3.7 and 4.4 trillion.

Added to that, between 220,000 to 250,000 people have died from the warfare, with many more deaths attributable to the war indirectly, from the loss of clean water, healthcare and poor nutrition.

An additional ~365,000 have been wounded. 7.8 million people have been displaced/lost their homes.

This "war on terror" with fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq is our longest-running war and our second most costly (after WWII).

I feel compelled here to recall the giddy early days of our invasion in Iraq, where then-Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the cost of the Iraqi war at $50 billion, but that might be going to high, because others will help chip in and pay for it...

Rumsfeld (answering a question about the cost of the Iraq war):

Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question...

Oh, silly, silly, evil Donald! A few billion, several trillion, what's the difference?!

Unless you hold to that old-fashioned conservative notion that goes... "a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there and pretty soon, it starts adding up!"

And what is the debate going on in Washington right now, even as we speak (or write)? Why the GOP is insisting on $4 trillion in budget cuts. Hmmm, what COULD we possibly have done over the last decade to save ~$4 trillion? Oh, here's an idea! Why don't we NOT INVADE Iraq and Afghanistan. Why in the WORLD did the Democratic President insist on making that $4 trillion expenditure in the first place?! What was he thinking??

Oh, wait a second: It WASN'T a Democratic president who led us into this on-going $4 trillion + fiasco, it was a REPUBLICAN plan (one that too many stupid Democrats caved in on and went along with, despite an unprecedented public outcry against it).

Okay, enough with the sarcasm. My point is, if we don't want to be $4 trillion in debt, then perhaps we shouldn't have wrongly and foolishly invaded Iraq. Perhaps we should have been content in Afghanistan to do the initial retribution against those who supported the 9/11 attack and ended our role there.

I can't say how sickened I am by the GOP's preening about this massive debt when it can be largely laid at their feet.

Finally, it has been noted that the Bush-era protests against the war have gotten much more quiet since Obama has taken office. Charges of partisanship have been made. This is not the case, of course. We who opposed the wars, STILL oppose the wars. We strongly oppose Obama's own foray into invading nations in Libya.

But the reality is that Obama inherited these wars from Bush and we're IMpatiently waiting for him to deliver on his promises to end the wars.

But this is one of the reasons that the anti-war crowd opposes especially these sorts of invasions is precisely because, once you're there, it's hard to know what the right thing to do. "If we leave, the nation might collapse and mass killings might occur. If we don't leave, people are STILL being killed (the last six months in Afghanistan have been the deadliest for civilians, yet, according to a BBC report)." There is no good resolution to this swampy morass we were led into.

The analogy might be made to a forest fire. If some idiot started up a forest fire in a dry region and immediately set out to try to put it out... and KEPT trying to put it out and, after six months, the fire was still burning, what is the right answer? JUst leave and say, "Well, I tried..." or keep trying to put it out with no end in sight? It's not easy to leave, even though, leave we must. But the RIGHT answer is, "Don't start the fire in the first place." ESPECIALLY when that fire is going to bankrupt our nation and place us trillions of dollars in debt.

Bush started a fire, with the support of most in Congress. There is no easy way to put this fire out and no easy way to get out of the fire-fighting business. It's a lesson in WHY WE DON'T INVADE NATIONS or engage in nation-building-by-war in the first place. IF you're going to want a military, then have the decency to reserve it for protection against invasions.

As President James Madison noted...

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The Bible and Economics

2011-07-05T10:59:00.002-04:00

Sunset Flowers, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.

The last post in this series was back in April, where I looked at the first 15 chapters of the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. Today, I'm looking at chapters 16 through 20. Because of the nature of the book, it's sort of a hodgepodge of this and that, but there are definitely economic/wealth/poverty themes found in this book.

Deuteronomy 16 begins with rules about remembering Israel's departure from the economic and social oppression/slavery they lived with in Egypt. As the passage continues, there are repeated calls to "remember that you were slaves in Egypt..."

Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain. Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the LORD your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the LORD your God has given you...

Celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles for seven days after you have gathered the produce of your threshing floor and your winepress. Be joyful at your festival — you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites, the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns...

Each of you must bring a gift in proportion to the way the LORD your God has blessed you.

Deut 16:9-10, 13-14, 17

Then, there is a short point about appointing judges...

Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Follow justice and justice alone...

Deut 16:18-20

Chapter 17 offers some rules for kings...

The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Deut 17:16-17

Israel's rulers "MUST NOT" accumulate wealth? How very anti-capitalist of the author!

The first eight verses of chapter 18 tells us that the tribes of priests - the levites - were to have no land inheritance, but were to have food provided for them out of the surplus of the other tribes within Israel, and further outlines the rules regarding their special status.

Chapter 19 begins by establishing the concept of "Cities of Refuge," which were to be created equally out of shares of the land of each tribe. The purpose of these cities was to be a refuge for those who "kills a neighbor unintentionally, without malice." In modern terms: Manslaughter. The idea was to provide a place so that an angry family member won't kill - in anger - someone who killed another merely as an accident.

I mention this mostly because of the concept of shared economic burden, but also because it is an interesting aside into a penal system vastly different than ours and because our penal system costs so much in both lives and dollars.

Then, there is this one verse that deals with land ownership...

Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive...

Deut 19:14

Chapter 20 has some very interesting rules about going to war, rules that relate to how Israel was to pay for wars and about the size/formation of their military...

When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you...

The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.”

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Deut 20:1, 5-8, 10-14

Not that I'm advocating that as a model, just pointing out the economic aspect of this approach to "defense" and expansionism.

This first verse (don't worry about the great size of the enemy's army) is touched on elsewhere, where God commands Israel NOT to strive to have a large standing army, but a small militia called upon in times of need only. The point there is to NOT trust in large armies that come at a great cost (economic and spiritual) for their defense, but to trust in God. This would stand in stark contrast to the norm in today's approach to defense, even amongst most churches, where the model is "More is Better, Most is Best..." when it comes to bombs and guns and other implements of destruction.

All those "ALL"s...

2011-06-28T13:17:00.002-04:00

Signs, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

And so, keeping in mind the previous post and noting that I'm not wanting to be argumentative or divisive, I DO have a question I'm curious to hear some thoughts on...

As I've said before, I'm not a universalist. I believe God has given humanity the option of choosing grace or not, and that some people can and DO reject God's gift of grace. Now, having said that, I'd have to say that there is some biblical and logical reasons to think that some universalist-ish positions.

I got to thinking about this because of hearing some more fundamentalist/conservative types insist that ALL people truly sin (not merely have a sinful nature, but sin) - including babies. The reason they think this, they say, is because "the Bible says it and I believe it!" They point to passages such as Romans 5...

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned...

And where I see "all sinned" to be a hyperbolic way of stressing that we all are imperfect humans, prone to sin and who, given the chance, DO sin. But I would insist that it's hyperbole because, obviously, babies do not sin. A newborn just out of his mother's womb obviously has not/can not sin, just because there is no capacity there to make deliberate choice to sin.

"Not so," came the response in a recent conversation. "Babies sin, too. They're EVIL!" Seriously, some fella just asserted that babies were evil.

Anyway, I say all of that to say that, IF you go on to read that passage that says "all sin," you see the complementary passage, saying Jesus' work of grace was to save "ALL people." And I wonder about the more literalists who say "All sin" means that everyone sins, if they think that "ALL people will be justified" and saved means "ALL people," and, if not, on what basis do they claim literalism for the one sentence, but not for the other.

The passages that some more universalist-types would point to are below. Thoughts?

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for ALL people.

Romans 5: 12 - 18

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way ALL Israel will be saved...

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and God's call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that God may have mercy on them all.

Romans 11: 25-32

since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:21, 22

For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Colossians 1: 12, 20

Not looking for divisiveness or disrespectful disagreement, just wondering what your opinions are, for what they are worth?

To be clear, what I'm looking for is along these lines...

"When I read these passages, I think that 'all' is/is not to be taken literally. I think this because..."

No need to point to HIM or HER or name names about another's opinion and give your thoughts on OTHER's hunches, I'm just curious what you think about all these "ALLs."

Listen

2011-06-28T11:06:00.001-04:00

Listen, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

A couple of posts back, I referenced some of the many biblical injunctions against "argumentativeness" and "divisiveness." I think it's a good thing to keep in our minds and so I'm repeating them here, as a post.

Given other biblical examples of Godly people (including, and especially, Jesus) debating/calling out others, I think we need to acknowledge its a balancing act of speaking truth when you fear others are in error (at least at times), and doing so strongly, and doing so in love respectfully, AND choosing NOT to do so when it's mere contentiousness.

The trick is knowing when its a GOOD "speaking of truth," and when it's a foolish "quarreling over words" and useless debate over opinions.

As I've stated, my main measure for such disagreements is actual, real-world harm. That seems to be a starting place. If someone is being HARMED by another's actions (or societal practices), then speaking out for "the least of these" - those being harmed - that seems to me to be the main biblical practice.

But for most of our disagreements over relatively harm-less opinions (I think it's okay to drink, she thinks not, he thinks it's okay to smoke, they think not, I think it's good to marry, they think not, I think the Trinity is the right way to think of God, she thinks not, etc, etc, etc), it can be okay to discuss these and offer our opinions, but I just am not convinced that it's anything to get riled up about or to spend TOO much energy in divisive, strife-ful dissension.

And so, I offer these passages for a reminder to keep our eyes on the important things and lighten up on the less important...

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

~Galatians

A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.

~Proverbs

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

~Titus

If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

~1 Corinthians

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

~Romans

For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?

1 Corinthians

Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.

~Romans

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

~2 Corinthians

Ouch. "Those who do such things will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God." Now, THAT is a serious warning, one that I'm striving to take to heart. So, if in the future, I seem reluctant to argue too much with you, you'll know why.

Just Ask the Donkey

2011-06-25T11:28:00.002-04:00

Flying "Clouded Sulphur" Butterfly, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

In keeping with my mood following some of the previous comments and my vacation, I'm offering up a poem from ancient Persian Poet/Wise Man, Hafiz...

Why
Just ask the donkey in me
To speak to the donkey in you,

When I have so many other beautiful animals
And brilliant colored birds inside
That are all longing to say something wonderful
And exciting to your heart?

Let's open all the locked doors upon our eyes
That keep us from knowing the Intelligence
That begets love
And a more lively and satisfying conversation
With the Friend

Let's turn loose our golden falcons
So that they can meet in the sky
Where our spirits belong—
Necking like two
Hot kids.

Let's hold hands and get drunk near the sun
And sing sweet songs to God
Until He joins us with a few notes
From His own sublime lute and drum.

If you have a better idea
Of how to pass a lonely night
After your glands may have performed
All their little magic
Then speak up sweethearts, speak up,
For Hafiz and all the world will listen.

Why just bring your donkey to me
Asking for stale hay
And a boring conference with the idiot
In regards to this precious matter—
Such a precious matter as love,

When I have so many other divine animals
And brilliant colored birds inside
That are all longing
To so sweetly
Greet
You!

Grace Enough?

2011-06-19T10:29:00.001-04:00

Grace, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I've a question specifically for more conservative/traditional types of Christians. Not really looking for debate, just a straightforward answer to what seems like to me a straightforward question:

We recently had a lengthy discussion with a fellow claiming to Christianity yet you said that grace was not enough for salvation.

His claim?

That one must be saved by grace AND by agreeing that gay marriage is wrong. One cannot believe that gay marriage is a good and holy thing and be saved by grace, he contends (and he is free to offer his own statement if he does not think I'm stating his position correctly).

His exact words were...

One cannot be saved by grace alone when one's beliefs so blatantly counter clearly revealed teachings on human sexual behavior

Since that is so far afield from basic orthodox Christianity, I was hoping to hear from other conservative types who'd agree with me that God's grace is sufficient.

EVEN IF you disagree with those who think gay marriage is good (or even if you disagree with those who'd say Christians can go to war or with those who'd say that God sometimes commands people to kill babies or whatever the topic might be), orthodox Christianity does not teach that we must be "right" or have perfect knowledge on all topics or even on some topics. We are not saved by our good understanding, but by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.

I was wondering if I could find any conservatives who'd affirm this basic Christian tenet. How 'bout it?

Summer Boys

2011-06-10T10:54:00.002-04:00

2002 Folly Beach Dan Jordan, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Since the crazy heat outside tells us it’s summertime, even if the calendar doesn’t, I thought I’d repost a summery essay from a few years back. Enjoy…

Riding jet skis, if you are unfamiliar with them, looks like riding a motor scooter on the water, blasting over waves and Riding the Sea, Victorious! It couldn't be much harder than riding a bike, we figured.

We were wrong.

My friend, Eddie, and I were at the ocean and wanted to try jet skiing. To save money, we decided to rent one and take turns. Eddie went first.

As Eddie zoomed away from the shore, he beamed with joy. However, I quickly noticed that he spent an awful lot of time trying to stand up on the jet ski, as they are supposed to be ridden, only to fall over. Once you fall off, jet skis have been designed to ride in circles around you.

Presumably, this is to ensure that you do not get stranded in the ocean as your jet ski putters off into the sunset. Watching from the shore, it looked more as if the jet ski were taunting him.

With each failed attempt to mount the monster, I had to laugh. Clearly, Eddie was just too tall to ride this thing. I’d be able to do better.

After many attempts to ride the jet ski, Eddie lay there, hands on the handlebars to keep it from doing its victory laps, but going nowhere. His stomach lay on the jet ski footboard and his long legs just dangled like spaghetti.

He was whipped.

"Bring it in!” I yelled. “It's my turn!"

He returned to shore and collapsed like a long, skinny beached whale.

"Ed, you know that you're supposed to stand up on the thing, right?"

"Go ahead. Laugh," he said. "You'll see. It's not easy."

He tried to warn me, but I wouldn’t listen – it was my turn to Ride the Sea, Victorious!

What I learned later Eddie was trying to tell me: Beware the Jets.

Ideally, when you ride a jet ski, you give it some gas to get some speed going and then quickly jump to your feet and ride the waves. The key thing is to get up QUICKLY.

The problem in not promptly standing has to do with the placement of the jets on the jet ski. Picture this: the jets are right at the back of the jet ski. When you are getting started, your hands are on the handlebar, your belly is on the footboard and the jets are blasting out what feels like a million gallons of water right below your gut.

Each time you gun the gas, it's like getting a crotch shot in softball. And, if this unkind kick weren't enough, you also have to worry about you going one way and your swimming trunks, the other.

Soon, the jet ski was doing victory laps around me. It was all I could do to pull my trunks back up.

When I returned to shore, Eddie was smiling, but not taunting. He knew my pain. I didn't even care that I no longer had my pride.

I was just glad to have my swimming trunks.

Anniversary!

2011-06-02T10:52:00.005-04:00

There Is a Lady, Sweet and Kind

Thomas Ford

There is a lady sweet and kind,
Was never a face so pleased my mind;
I did but see her passing by,
And yet I'll love her till I die.

Her gesture, motion, and her smiles,
Her wit, her voice my heart beguiles,
Beguiles my heart, I know not why,
And yet I'll love her till I die.

Thoughts on Tradition and Learning Styles

2011-05-24T09:38:00.002-04:00

King Amos, Queen Lydia, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Tradition can be a fine, fine thing. We can learn from traditions, benefit from traditions, pass on traditions and these can all be good things.

But tradition itself does not guarantee a practice is a good thing. There are good traditions and bad traditions and those in between.

I say all of this because I was recently reading a person on the internet who was wrong. (ha!)

This person (and there are many like this person - again, it's the idea that I'm speaking of, not the person) was bemoaning the fact that churches don't tend to keep children in their church services. Instead, they coddle them by taking them out for their own "special service," and thus deprive them, they contended, of the benefits of learning to sit through and endure a church service that means very little to you.

The reason, of course, this person wanted to see kids sit through church services was because the Bible is so clear on the point. "Thou shalt keep the little ones in the synagogue, yea even though the little ones are bored out of their skull..."

No, wait, that's not right. In fact, there is no biblical demand to keep children in a service or, in general, to treat them as adults to make them learn by sheer repitition the value of sitting through something that makes no sense to them.

No, the reason that this person wanted children to sit through services was because of all the pedagogical studies that show the benefit of forcing children to sit still and listen to stuff that makes no sense to them in the learning process.

Wait, that's not right, either. There ARE no such studies.

In fact, as far as I can tell, there was one reason and one reason alone that this person wanted children to remain in their church service: It was the way they were brought up and if it was good enough for kids back then, it's good enough for kids today.

Tradition.

This person said...

I come from an older generation. When we were kids, we went to church with our parents. We sat quietly and listened or doodled or something, but we sat there.

Me, too. I'm from that generation, as well. I remember that tradition.

But what is the logical or biblical or pedagogical reason for this? None, so far as I can determine.

I mean, the reasoning is, "IF they learn to sit through this and be still now, while they're kids, then they'll be able to sit through boring sermons in the future, too."

And there IS some value, I think, to learning patience and to endure through things, even things that are extremely boring and irrelevant to you. But is forcing kids to sit quietly through a service a good way to do this?

I don't think so.

This person reasoned...

I don't believe it's because the kids won't understand the preaching. I think it's because the kids will disrupt the preaching. I don't think it's because the children aren't mature enough to understand. Nor do I think it is less than valuable for them to remain. It's my conviction that the primary reason children are dismissed from church services at the edge of the sermon is that they lack the discipline not to be a distraction to the people around them. It's not a maturity problem or even that kids are better taught at their own age level. It's a parenting problem.

Of course.

This person goes on to concede...

You know, under the age of 1 with nursing and all, I can imagine the need for a nursery. I was thinking more of the age where kids are being taught, not simply present.

So, at 18 months, apparently, this person thinks that children can be effectively taught something in church services and they lament that parents no longer see the value in raising children as this person was raised.

The thing is, EVEN THOUGH, learning to sit and learn can be a good thing, we don't ask five year olds to sit through a physics class, insisting they be relatively still so the adults around can learn what is being taught. We don't ask two year olds attend and sit quietly through a medieval history class. There is the concept of age-appropriate material and teaching styles that are suited for children of particular ages.

When we force most kids to sit through class after class (in a church service or a school or wherever) and endure something that is being taught in a manner that is over their heads, time after time, most kids DO learn something: They learn, "BOY! That's boring! I don't want NOTHING to do with that!"

How much better to take children out of a church service (or other adult-themed class) and teach them something they CAN learn in a teaching style suited to children, not to adults? My concern would be that we're teaching kids the wrong things when we teach them in the wrong way.

There is something to the concept of age-appropriate teaching and just because it isn't in your tradition to have age-appropriate teaching does not mean that your tradition is right.

I think a good question to ask is, "Is there any logical, biblical, study-based, common sense reason to believe this tradition is a good one?" and if the answer is No, then perhaps it's time to let that tradition go, or at least quit suggesting that people are wrong for following a tradition simply for tradition's sake.

Earth Day 2011

2011-05-22T19:12:00.000-04:00

Happy Earth Day* from Jeff St Baptist Community!

Here we have an impromptu Earth Day String Band, playing and singing "Bird Song."

Them gals sure can sing pretty.

* We always celebrate Earth Day later in the year, in the hopes that the weather will permit us to be outside.

Bike to Work...

2011-05-19T11:08:00.002-04:00

And They're Off, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

...to school, to church, to play, to shop...

Tomorrow, we in Louisville celebrate Bike To Work Day and it is a good day to recall that, as Grant Peterson noted, the bicycle is "rideable art that can just about save the world."

An astounding claim, but not a hyperbolic one, I'd suggest.

It's also a good time to recall how important bicycles were at least for a small part of our history. Here, I'll quote from a fine essay from the American Studies website at the University of Virginia...

Amongst the bicycles most important, and perhaps most enduring, legacies is its effect upon women's issues; indeed the mark the bicycle left upon gender relations in the 1890s is difficult to underestimate. One must remember that the America of years past was one of rigidly defined gender roles, with distinctly separate spheres of activity for men and women. The distinctions between the sexes were certainly as rigidly defined as ever in the years leading up to the 1890s--the years we popularly refer to as the Victorian era.

However, as the 19th century came to a close, women were gradually making headway into the male-dominated public sphere, through increased roles in education, social and political organizations. Perhaps as a response to the seemingly increasing potential for equality amongst the sexes, men begin to more and more delineate themselves in terms of physical prowess. Cycling, then took its natural place amongst football, baseball, and other male dominated spheres of activity. One can imagine the indignation, often expressed in terms of health or morality, that many a male felt when the woman was shown to be just as adept at handling the cycle as her counterpart.

Simply put, the bicycle allowed for movement into new spaces, literally and figuratively. The woman of the 19th century who had been given little opportunity to cultivate or express her autonomy now had a vessel with which one could not only develop autonomous power, but do so while leaving behind the old reliance upon men for travel. It's easy to see then, why Susan B. Anthony, women's rights advocate and future star of an ill-fated dollar, was to say that the bicycle had "done more to emancipate women then anything else in the world"...

Rational dress aside, the bicycle, despite being heaped with scorn by outraged men, was consistently trumpeted by progressive women as a tool for increased freedoms. Indeed, many feminist tracts of the day frequently invoked the bicycle as a metaphor for increased self-control... the author of Bicycling for Ladies, Maria Ward, bluntly notes that "Riding the wheel, our powers are revealed to us...".

Ride or DieIt is precisely this sort of attitude, empowerment coupled with visions of an increasingly egalitarian future, that angered many men greatly. Simply put, the woman on wheels was a threat to the well ingrained system of practical inferiority that men had been taking advantage of for centuries, and outraged men were quick to point to the bicycle as a threat to the social order. The cycle, it was argued, would disrupt the delicate sphere of the family unit by allowing the woman to travel beyond her previous limits without the surveillance of a knowing husband nearby. The younger woman, too was vulnerable to a bicycle induced lapse in morals, for it allowed her to stray farther a field with members of the opposite sex during courtship.

The leveling effect acheived by the woman on the bicyle was so great that the coming of the automobile and subsequent demise of the bicyle can be though of as a major step backwards for women's empowerment.

So, take an historic stand. Ride a bike. Save the world.

Grace in the Benefit of the Doubt

2011-05-09T10:40:00.002-04:00

Jeff St Easter, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I am posting the bulk of my pastor's sermon from yesterday. I usually post these church-y types of things on our church blog, but it is so fitting in light of recent conversations around here that I wanted to post it here.

Our services tend to have two types of sermons/services:

1. Those that are powerful, gripping and dripping with God's grace and challenging us to walk by grace in the steps of Jesus, and
2. Those that are even MORE powerful, gripping and dripping with God's grace.

This is one of the latter sort... at least it was for me.

======

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

~John 20

It’s interesting to me that out of all the things that the Risen Christ might have said, maybe did say to his cowering in fear disciples, that out of all the blessings, out of all the charges that he could have given, that the one that the author of John reports is about forgiving and retaining sins.

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

I’ve always wondered what he meant by that. And I’ve shied away from ever really preaching about it because on the surface it kind of sounds like the Risen Christ was giving the church the power to forgive or to not forgive sin, to decide who is in and who is out, who is clean and who is unclean, etc. And I, for one, have not been very happy with the church’s record in that regard.

I grew up believing that God didn’t forgive you until you said a special little “please forgive me of all my sins, Jesus” prayer, which meant that the large majority of the non-Southern Baptist world, having not said that particular prayer, was left unforgiven. I’m exaggerating about that a little bit, but not much.

But what I’ve realized along the way is that this statement isn’t about the church’s power to forgive sin or to not forgive sin. It’s about Christ’s power to forgive sin, and about the church’s power through Christ to proclaim the forgiving love of God, and to live as forgiving and forgiven people.

Martin Niemoeller talks about Easter as the “unexpected act of the living God, which interrupts and runs counter to the uniform rise and fall of the world’s rhythm.” Talk about running counter to the uniform rise and fall of the world’s rhythm — some of us experienced that this week, didn’t we, when our world was cheering over the death of Bin Ladan, and we were saddened, or if not saddened, concerned, or if not concerned, at least ambivalent over the violent death of, yes, we can say it, one of God’s children.

I attended part of a conference at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary on Monday morning, and there was a part of the worship service where people were voicing prayers aloud, and as I was struggling to find words to express a prayer about our response to the death of Bin Laden, someone else simply prayed, “God, give us the courage to forgive our enemies.” It was perfect, and I was grateful to be in a setting where people were seeking to love, seeking to not gloat, to not rejoice in the demise of another, however dastardly that other was. I was grateful to be in a community where the uniform rise and fall of the world’s rhythm was interrupted by a great jolt of forgiveness.

Of course, it’s easier to gloat, to not forgive. But thankfully, Craig Barnes reminds us that “we are not on our own for this. Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit before he called us to forgive. The work of the Spirit is to bind us into the work of Jesus Christ. What this means is that we disciples are not called to produce forgiveness. We’re called to be the priest pronouncing that which has been produced on the cross...”

Jesus’ charge to the disciples was to carry on the work that he had started. I am thinking of the woman caught in adultery. The crowd was ready to stone her, but Jesus said, “Let the one among you who has never sinned cast the first stone.” I am thinking of the story of when Martha came out of the kitchen madder than a wet hen because Mary hadn’t been lifting a finger to help cook, and Jesus defended Mary. “Mary has chosen that right thing,” he said. And later, when Judas jumped all over Mary for wasting an expensive bottle of perfume to annoint Jesus, and once again Jesus defended her.

It seems to me that one of the things that Jesus did consistently through the Gospel of John was to give people the benefit of the doubt, to take what others saw as “sin,” as “shortcoming,” as “uncleanliness,” and to reinterpret it.

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, he didn’t downplay the seriousness of the woman’s sin, but he did put it into context for everyone there: “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.” Yeah, okay, she sinned, but really who hasn’t? And in the stories of Mary, with Martha, and with Judas, he reinterpreted Mary’s actions, which were seen as negative by others in both cases, Mary should have been working in the kitchen, fulfilling her role as a woman, right, and Mary shouldn’t have wasted so much money on one lavish act of love, right, he reinterpreted her actions, and pronounced them good, pronounced her good. “Wherever the gospel is preached, she will be remembered.”

And it strikes me that while the forgiveness that we usually talk about is, I will forgive you for what you have specifically done to me, that it’s broader than that. It’s an approach to the world, it’s a lavishness, a liberality, an automatic giving of the benefit of the doubt. It’s a willingness and not just a willingness, but a habit of going deeper, of looking beyond and beneath, of seeing people, not just in light of what they’ve done, of how they’ve screwed up, but through the eyes of someone who truly loves them...

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

If we look at people through a stingy, judgmental lens, we are retaining their sins, accentuating their failures, perpetuating their sense of shortcoming. But if we look at people through a lens of grace and tenderness and love, then, poof, it’s no longer their shortcomings that are foremost in our minds, and maybe, just maybe not in their minds, at least for awhile, either.

What is that verse in 1st Peter? “Love covers a multitude of sins.”

Of course, we can proclaim forgiveness, live in a spirit of forgiveness and grace and still not seem to make much a difference in the lives of those around us. But we can be assured that the one place that it will make a difference is in our lives.

In his book about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Process, Bishop Desmond Tutu tells the following story: A recent issue of the journal ‘Spirituality and Health’ had on its front cover a picture of three U.S. ex-servicemen standing in front of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. One asks, “Have you forgiven those who held you prisoner of war?” “I will never forgive them,” replies the other. His mate says: “Then it seem they still have you in prison, don’t they?”

Bishop Tutu says that forgiving does not mean forgetting and it does not mean condoning. It does not mean minimizing what happened or not taking it seriously. And I would add that it does not mean going back to an abusive partner or putting yourself in a situation where you will be used or taken advantage of. What it does mean is, says Tutu, is “drawing out the sting in the memory that threatens to poison our entire existence.”

Eugene Peterson, in his paraphrase of scripture, The Message, interprets it like this:

"If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"

Craig Barnes, again, says, “If we do not forgive those who hurt us, the only alternative is to retain the sins. To retain means to hold, and to hold onto hurt is to lock ourselves into the identity of victim. In the words of Lewis Smedes, ‘When you forgive you set a prisoner free. And then you discover that the prisoner was you.’"

On Easter, Karen mentioned the movie that some of us had gone to see the day before, “Of Gods and Men,” about nine Catholic priests who chose to remain at their monastery in Algeria even though they knew that their lives were in danger due to a rebel-led insurrection against the government. In one of the most on the edge of your seat scenes, the rebels, who had previously executed a number of foreigners in the same town, force their way into the monastery to demand medical care and supplies.

Brother Christian, the leader of the priests, refuses to send the elderly doctor with them, saying that he is too feeble to make the journey and that they can come to the clinic instead. He also refuses to give them medicine, saying that their supplies are low, and that the villagers need them. The rebel leader says, “You have no choice.” And Brother Christian, knowing that he could be shot to death any minute, replies, “Yes. I do.”

The people of the Risen Christ know that we always have a choice. Not in what happens to us, but in how we respond. We can choose to love, we can choose to walk the second mile, we can choose to turn the other cheek, we can choose to forgive, we can choose to live powerfully as the people of the Risen Christ, defined only by love, controlled only by love.

We have a choice. We are free.

Irony

2011-05-04T11:04:00.002-04:00

kmw Ghosties 1, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

IRONIC FUNDAMENTALIST COMMENT OF THE DAY:

Warning: Be sure to save your comments if you post at [Mr X's] site. He has a history of deleting comments, only to then lie about what the comments really said. Should we be surprised that a false teacher would do such a thing?

This was said by a Religious Right sort of dude who routinely moderates, deletes and bans those who disagree with them and has set up a whole blog dedicated to lying about people's positions, twisting their words and comments and, of course, refusing to allow them to defend themselves!

Is it really possible that this person fails to see the irony?

It truly is amazing how consistently - at least in my tiny little corner of the blogging world - that there is ONE group of bloggers that ban and moderate comments: The Religious Right (or maybe Christian Fundamentalists is the better descriptor?).

There ARE exceptions - Marshall, Doug and Chance (and John, when he belonged sort of to the Religious Right) allow people to make comments and are prepared to get in there and discuss their views and our views without feeling the need to moderate or delete or ban outright. Good for them on this point, if nothing else.

But beyond those few hearty souls, religious right blog after religious right blog, nearly down to the man (and it IS almost always men), either moderate or outright ban and delete comments from those who disagree too much on the wrong topics.

Why is that?

I tend to call it cowardice - that they're afraid to engage with those with disagreeing opinions - that they're afraid to let people defend their own arguments, scared that other people will be won over by the "false teachings" of "heretics" and "pagans." But they DO engage in SOME conversation, even if only for a little bit, with people they disagree with. So, they're not totally averse to having conversations with those who disagree.

But sooner or later (oftentimes sooner), the ban comes down, the moderation goes up.

Or, truly, many, many of these sites have moderation on right from the get-go. They want to be the gatekeeper to approve only those messages that they deem worthy (based on what? one wonders).

So, there IS an element of fear in their moderation/banning, but I don't think that's exactly the right word. Intellectual laziness, perhaps - they don't want to have to spend TOO much time defending their position - that might be part of it, at least for some of them.

But is there a more apt term for that sort of behavior?

And worse, what of those who will spend whole threads demonizing/twisting/slandering/gossiping others they disagree with and then refuse to allow that person to defend themselves?

What IS the best word for such despicable behavior?

Cowardice? Intellectual laziness? Anti-intellectualism? Ungentlemanly or Unseemly (those both seem way too mild)? Indecorous? Untoward? Indecent??

I'd love to see some study into how widespread this phenomena is (after visiting dozens of such sites, personally, I'd say I've seen it in at least 90% of them) of banning/moderation by the religious right (or fundamentalists) and how it compares to those who are not more fundamentalist in nature?

It would also make for any interesting psychological study, I'd think.

Whatsoever Things are Lovely

2011-04-29T13:43:00.002-04:00

Jeff St Easter, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I've lately been in another discussion on marriage equity at another blog. This time, I've taken up the POSITIVE biblical and rational case for marriage as it relates to hetero- and homosexuality. I re-post them here.

First, I review the FIVE VERSES in the whole Bible that seem to touch on homosexuality and point out why those discussions, as interesting as they might be, are moot in this discussion. That is followed by the rational, biblical defense of marriage equity for all...

1. THREE verses/passages in the WHOLE BIBLE seem to say fairly clearly that some form of homosexuality is wrong: Levititcus 18, Lev. 20 and Romans 1. The hunch from my side – given the obvious context – is that these THREE PASSAGES are all speaking specifically of some form of pagan ritualistic sex practices, NOT any and all homosexual practices.

The hunch from the other side – given that this is how they’ve traditionally interpreted it – is that it IS speaking of any and all forms of homosexuality.

2. TWO additional verses (in the WHOLE BIBLE) refer to Paul’s made up word of “arsenokoitai” – literally “man-bed.” The hunch from my side of the fence is that, frankly, we don’t know WHAT Paul is referencing in these two passages. There was a Greek word for homosexual, so it does not appear to be referencing any and all forms of homosexuality, but we just don’t know what it is referencing. We have ideas, but just can't know for sure.

The hunch from the other side is that it IS referencing any and all forms of homosexuality.

3. The point is - and it's a HUGE POINT - I can NOT prove my hunch is the ONE TRUE, APPROVED-BY-GOD-ALMIGHTY (tm) interpretation of these passages. And THEY can NOT prove THEIR hunch, either. We could go around all day talking about the various reasons why we think yes or no, but at the end of the day, I can’t prove that MY HUNCHES on these five verses are correct AND, NEITHER CAN THEY.

Neither side can “prove” our hunches on the interpretation of these passages is “right.”

4. So, is that the end of the topic, then? An unsatisfying, “we can’t tell”?

I don’t think so.

On the POSITIVE side of the defense of marriage rights for all, we see that the Bible tells us...

“Finally, friends, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

The Bible tells us...

“But the fruit of the Spirit [of God] is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

While we can’t say authoritatively WHAT God’s opinion is about gay marriage, since God hasn’t told any of us; while we can’t prove definitively that these five verses in the whole Bible are speaking negatively of ALL homosexual practices or just certain ones, we can say with GREAT confidence that those things that are good, true, faithful, forgiving, gracious, loving, pure, etc ARE good things.

And, carrying on, we can say with great confidence that a healthy marriage – one in which two individuals LOVE each other, RESPECT each other, are FAITHFUL, MERCIFUL, GRACIOUS, KIND to each other – that these things ARE GOOD THINGS.
Where is the rational argument against two adults being monogamous, loving and faithful to one another? Would it be better to be polyamorous and unfaithful to each other? No! There is no sound rational argument against commitment, love and fidelity that I have ever heard.

At the very least, it would seem the anti-gay marriage crowd would have to concede that marriage between all folk is a MUCH BETTER solution than licentiousness and polyamory. EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong, it would seem you’d have to concede that marriage would at least be a step in the right direction.

And just a reminder: The topic here is NOT Dan Trabue. It would seem wise, respectful and adult to stick to the topic. It would seem obviously moral to refrain from slander which we KNOW is wrong in your defense of your position on marriage equity, which is what the question is.

I point that out because almost without fail, the ad hom attacks come, instead of rational defenses on the topic at hand. I welcome the one and will reject, point out and/or mock the other.

It almost makes you wonder if they know they have no rational defense for their position so they MUST stoop to attempts at character assassination?

Happy Easter!

2011-04-24T22:50:00.001-04:00

Easter blessings from the tribe at Jeff St Baptist Community...

Not many years their rounds shall roll
Each moment brings it nigh
And all your glories stand revealed
To our admiring eye
You wheels of nature speed your course,
You mortal powers decay
Fast as you bring the night of death
You bring eternal day

~from "Florence," by Crooked Still

Confrontation Monday!

2011-04-22T08:19:00.003-04:00

This was something I posted at my church blog on Monday that I've decided to post here, as well, since it touches on some common themes we discuss here...

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there.

He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves*, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”

The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

~Mark 11

*Doves - the offering specifically mentioned by Jesus - were the offering required to be paid by the poor folk, who'd often bring in their own doves, only to find out they were not "pure" enough for a sacrifice and thus, the poor were forced to pay more - that they couldn't afford - in order to be in God's Temple. Thus, the "den of robbers" charge, especially insofar as they were ripping off especially the poor, who could least afford it.

It is this action that was at least one of the final straws for the religious authorities that drove them to plan Jesus' execution by the state.

True Cost of Driving Cars

2011-04-19T21:04:00.003-04:00

My Bike, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

[A reprint from a previous post, with updated numbers, in honor of the pending Earth Day. Thoughts on saving the planet AND saving money by cutting back on driving...]

On the actual Cost of Cars...

Owning a car cost (on average) $8,588 per a year in 2010 according to AAA. That's figuring in gas, repairs, insurance, car costs, etc.

AAA

This is up from $6,890/year on average (according to [a now missing] article back in 2004). Wow. Costs are rising quickly.

Here's a website that calculates your personal expenses - telling you how much you're paying a month for the privilege of owning a car and how much you'd be saving if you didn't have a car:

bikesatwork.com

And here's another that calculates your direct costs to drive a car along with your expenses occurred indirectly (accidents, road costs, pollutions costs, lost time costs, etc).

(This site includes the little factoid that, if I did NOT own a car and invested that savings instead - beginning at the age of 25 - that I could have saved $1 million + by retirement age. Or I could easily pay for my children to go to college.)

According to that last website, my wife and I are spending a little under $7,000/year for our car.

Let me go ahead and say $7,000 for the purpose of my following illustration.

Now, if we work 250 days (5 day workweek x 50 weeks) a year, that means we're paying $28/work day for owning a car (7000/250). That means, if you make $9/hour, you have to work 3 hours every day to pay for that car. if you make $14/hour, you're working 1 1/2 hours to pay for it.

I bring this up because I want to make the case for walking/biking/busing places instead of driving. Some people look at me and say, "You're spending 1 1/2 hours walking to work and back home! That's great if you can work it out, but how do you have the time to do so??!!"

The answer is, because I'm not working 1 1/2-2 hours to pay for a car. In fact, by the time you figure that if I drove, I'd be spending 1/2 hour to get to and from work, then I'm coming out with at least 1/2 hour MORE free time than the person in my situation who drives. More still, if that person also later drives to a gym (where they pay MORE money) to exercise.

Want a million dollars? Want to pay for your kids' college? Want to SAVE time?

Sell that car. Or, at least consider it. It's not the time saver you might think it is. And for folk working at minimum wage (where paying for a car might take closer to HALF your workday!!), give it a serious consideration.

Or just take a walk or a bike ride for the sheer joy of it.

Happy Earth Day.

Obama and Jefferson

2011-04-14T12:14:00.002-04:00

Fair Play Fire Co, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

President Obama has announced his plan for reducing the deficit and it involves some of the cuts I mentioned in my previous post, but also, a promise of progressive taxation...

The president is likely to repeat his broad contention that he stands with middle-class Americans and believes the wealthy need to bear more of the burden of caring for the elderly and less fortunate, stances he says are reflected in his deficit plan.

On this point, Obama is in agreement with Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith and other supporters of a progressive taxation scheme.

According to these folk from our history...

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise.”

~Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785

"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."

~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer [ie, working class/poor] will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."

~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811

"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."

~Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..."

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."

Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations

I've read repeatedly that both Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin were progressive taxation proponents. Although I was finding it more difficult to find good quotes. Here's one...

"...as a Tax, and perhaps the most equal of all Taxes, since it depreciated in the Hands of the Holders of the Money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the Sums they hold and the Time they held it, which is generally in proportion to Mens Wealth."

~Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Ruston, October 9, 1780

All of these folk are just in support of the self-evident truism that those who have much can be expected to contribute much. In the words of Jesus, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Now, of course, Jesus was not speaking of taxation. Rather, he was just uttering a reasonable truism, a point that is self-evident and obviously moral to probably most people today.

Some will try to complain, saying, "But Jefferson wasn't speaking of a progressive INCOME tax!" and he wasn't. But that does not change his clear intent (nor does it change that of his colleagues) in support of SOME sort of progressive taxation where proportionally more is paid for by those with more.

It's simply morally reasonable. Self-evident.

All of which to say that Obama is in good company and staking out a morally sound stand in desiring to see a progressive tax scheme. Those who would call it socialism are just being ridiculous. Those who call it "theft" are being duplicitous and ridiculous. Those who suggest it is anti-American are just un-informed.

IF someone wants to argue reasonably against it at all, they could suggest that, while progressive taxation can be a good thing, AT SOME POINT, it becomes too much. And then they could make that argument as to why they think Obama's level of progressive taxation is "too much," but I just don't see how anyone can reasonably argue against progressive taxation in general. Much less, if they are resorting to calling it names lilke "communism" or "theft," which it clearly isn't.

Save! Save! Save!!

2011-04-12T15:10:00.002-04:00

Worlds Largest Junky Store, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

So, the Republicans want to cut $100 billion from the federal budget? No problem. Here are my proposals for EASILY reducing federal spending by $300 billion:

1. De-criminalize marijuana (at least) and cut back on the crazy drug war.

The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.

860,000 people arrested for marijuana-related offenses in 2009.

source

A 1999 study showed that 60,000 individuals were behind bars for marijuana use. This cost taxpayers $1.2 billion.

Nor does it reflect the number of individuals or the amount spent on those who had their probation or parole revoked for marijuana use. In total, in prosecuting and policing individuals with regards to marijuana, between $7 billion and $10 billion was spent — and that’s just last year.

source

$42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September.

source

Savings: ~$20-50 billion (more, if we expand it beyond just marijuana)

2. End wars in Iraq/Afghanistan...

...according to the Pentagon, the cost of the Afghan War in 2012 will be almost $300 million a day or, for all 365 of them, $107.3 billion. Like anything having to do with American war-fighting, however, such figures regularly turn out to be undercounts. Other estimates for our yearly war costs there go as high as $120-$160 billion.

source

According to infoplease, we spent $65 billion in Iraq in 2010 and $105 billion in Afghanistan.

End those wars.

Savings: ~$150 billion

3. Other Defense cuts...

As we pointed out earlier this month, the Pentagon could save around $358 billion by the end of 2015 by implementing the following ten measures:

* Terminate the Marine Corps’s expeditionary fighting vehicle
* Permanently reduce the number of U.S. military personnel stated in Europe and Asia
* Redirect the majority of the Department of Defense’s planned efficiency savings toward reducing the baseline defense budget
* Cancel the V-22 Osprey program
* Roll back post-September 11, 2001 efforts to grow the ground forces
* Reduce the number of civilian DOD personnel concomitant with the reduction in military end strength
* Reduce procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
* Reform military personnel policies, including the military health care system for retirees
* Retire and do not replace two existing carrier battle groups and associated air wings
* Update the U.S. nuclear arsenal and missile defense systems to counter the threats of the 21st century

source

Savings: ~$100 billion

Three suggestions, saving us somewhere around $300 BILLION a year. Nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in three years.

Sorta makes the silly "Stop funding NPR and save $400 million annually" seem pretty limp and flimsy.

By all means, boys and girls, let's cut our spending. But let's be serious about it.

Anyone else have some good spending cuts to make some serious progress in reducing the size of the gov't? Preferably ones that won't cost us MORE in the long run (like cutting the EPA or Education would do) and, also preferably, ones that aren't borne on the backs of the poor, sick, elderly and otherwise marginalized.

Real Costs of Oil

2011-04-06T11:10:00.001-04:00

Bike Shirt, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Earth Day is a few days away.

The tragic anniversary of the BP Oil "Spill" is also days away.

It's a good time to try to consider the actual costs of oil and gasoline. I've said it before that I think the free market can be a relatively efficient way of managing our business, BUT ONLY if real costs are being paid.

To illustrate: If we have two widget factories producing widgets. Company A can make widgets responsibly - disposing of waste and cleaning up after themselves - at $10/widget and then sell them at a profit at $15/widget.

BUT, Company B discovers they can produce the widgets much more cheaply if they DON'T dispose of their wastes and clean up after themselves responsibly. By cutting corners, they can produce widgets at $5/widget and sell them at a profit for $10/widget, thus undercutting the "more expensive" widget company by Company A.

Additionally, Company B has paid lobbyists to get federal and state subsidies to produce their widgets, thus reducing their costs to $2/widget and allowing for even more profit.

Responsible Company A goes out of business due to the fact that Company B was NOT paying actual costs, nor were their consumers. Not paying actual costs can skew a responsible market.

Looking at just the gov't subsidy angle (what we'd call "welfare," if we were talking of assisting those in actual need) on gas prices, consider...

"...an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry...

...Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers...

...Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs...

“We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway.”

Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights...

Over the last 10 years, oil companies have also been aggressive in using foreign tax havens. Many rigs, like Deepwater Horizon, are registered in Panama or in the Marshall Islands, where they are subject to lower taxes and less stringent safety and staff regulations. American producers have also aggressively exploited the tax code by opening small offices in low-tax countries. A recent study by Martin A. Sullivan, an economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts, found that the five oil drilling companies that had undergone these “corporate inversions” had saved themselves a total of $4 billion in taxes since 1999...

Despite the public anger at the gulf spill, it is far from certain that Congress will eliminate the tax breaks. As recently as 2005, when windfall profits for energy companies prompted even President George W. Bush — a former Texas oilman himself — to publicly call for an end to incentives, the energy bill he and Congress enacted still included $2.6 billion in oil subsidies. In 2007, after Democrats took control of Congress, a move to end the tax breaks failed."

NY Times

That article cites a $4 billion/year price for oil company subsidies. In This article (in the Rush Limbaugh Letter!) cites a Christian Science Monitor story that places the annual price tag for energy subsidies between $50-100 billion!, with ~$40 billion going to oil/gas companies.

There appears to be a problem in sorting out just how many billions of dollars are going to oil companies (coal companies, gas companies, etc). What counts? Does "free" military protection of oil sources overseas count? Does "free" drilling in public land count?

I'd be curious to know if anyone thinks they have a reliable source for a rough total annual subsidies going to oil and gas companies.

In the meantime, I hope we could agree that giving these sorts of billions of dollars to support an industry skews the cost of oil/gas to make it artificially cheaper than it actually is. Of course, that's not counting the many, even larger ways we under-pay in gas prices, which I'll save for another day (but that include environmental degradation, human costs, health costs, societal costs, etc).

We need a way of getting our prices in the fossil fuel industries to reflect something like actual costs in order to best let the Market do its magic. Ending corporate welfare for wealthy oil/gas industries would be a start.

The Bible and Economics

2011-03-30T13:54:00.002-04:00

Farming Friends, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.

Today, I’m looking through the book of Deuteronomy. I’m grabbing excerpts from the first 15 chapters, but I think one can make the case that these excerpts represent a line of reasoning offered by God for HOW and WHY we ought to care for the poor, the foreigner, the outcast, and what that would look like at a societal level. These passages contain the rather audacious and amazing claim: There need be NO poor among you.

!

Do these rules/guidelines/commands really represent a systematic plan from God for EFFECTIVELY dealing with the problem of poverty in the real world – in a real nation? It seems to me the answer is Yes!

[With the caveat that this passage goes on to point out that there WILL still be the poor amongst them, presumably because they would not follow a systematic plan to deal with poverty.]

How does that work?! Something worth considering, seems to me.

Deut 6:

In the future, when your son asks you, “What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?” tell him: “We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand...

The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.

Deut 8:

Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the LORD promised on oath to your ancestors.

Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep God's commands. God humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years...

Observe the commands of the LORD your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him. For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land—a land with brooks, streams, and deep springs gushing out into the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing [!?!]; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe God's commands, laws and decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

God led you through the vast and dreadful wilderness, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. God brought you water out of hard rock. God gave you manna to eat in the wilderness, something your ancestors had never known, to humble and test you so that in the end it might go well with you. You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” But remember the LORD your God, for it is GOD who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today.

Deut 10:

And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to God, to love God, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?

...For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

Deut 14:

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

Deut 15:

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.

You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, God will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.

Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.

Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.

What do you think? Are these type of passages speaking of a specific plan (for that specific time and place) for effectively dealing with poverty on a societal level?

Liberty, Laws and Regulations

2011-03-28T10:56:00.002-04:00

Prohibited, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I've had some related conversations lately on the topics of criminalization and regulation of behaviors. I thought I'd bring the topic here. Some of the conversations went like this...

I made the point that I am fine with criminalizing behavior that is harmful (ie, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose) and was generally opposed to criminalizing behavior that isn't harmful.

For instance, even if you disagree with gay marriage, where's the actual, physical harm? I KNOW that some think there is spiritual harm in gay marriage, but we don't generally criminalize those behaviors that cause spiritual harm, only that which causes physical harm. I am strongly opposed to the notion of trying to criminalize that behavior which SOME MIGHT THINK causes spiritual harm. That is not the proper role of gov't.

Anyway, I am fine with criminalizing that behavior which causes actual harm. As are most people. We have no problem making it against the law to take something which does not belong to you - taking my bicycle, taking her barbie doll, whatever, we rightfully criminalize theft because of the obvious harm by one to another.

FURTHER, I am generally fine with the notion of regulating/taxing other behaviors that cause harm at the larger level. One person driving a car is not necessarily dangerous or harmful in and of itself. BUT, 200 MILLION people driving cars, emiting toxins, causing wrecks... THIS does cause harm.

In saying this, one person asked...

How much power are you willing to cede to the government to regulate your actions? At what point do we start calling it tyranny?

I’m willing and desiring that the People would say to a company that would pollute the groundwater, “You can’t do that.” Are you willing to cede to enterprise your right to clean water? At what point does “free market” become tyranny?

Don’t be melodramatic. I’m speaking of behavior that has measurably harmful effects. The right of the coal company to blow up a mountaintop ends at the People’s right to clean water and intact mountains. Do I support the freedom of a coal company to dig for coal? Yes. Do I support the People’s freedom to regulate that behavior if and when it becomes toxic, dangerous or at a loss to the People? Yes! It would be ridiculous not to do so.

To give up our right to do so IS to give up freedom.

Obviously, at SOME point, regulations and laws could lean towards tyranny, or at least be overbearing and counterproductive. I think of the Prohibition laws against alcohol back in the day, or the prohibiiton laws of today against marijuana and other drugs.

But there is a line somewhere that needs to be drawn.

This critic seemed to be presenting this as if on ONE side his side) there is the fight for liberty at all costs and on the OTHER side (mine) there is the attempt to promote tyranny. As already noted, BOTH sides involve a loss of liberty.

Telling a motorist that he has to drive 25 mph in a residential zone IS taking away “liberty” – the freedom to drive as fast as he wants – but we’d be stupid NOT to regulate that behavior.

The thing is, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We DON’T have a right to take that away from others. THAT’s the difference I’m speaking of...

This person also said...

There is an extremely fine line between regulation and tyranny, so fine no one can really say where it is. When the government regulates pay? When it sets production? When it starts regulating what you eat, or how much you eat? How far you can drive? What you can drive?

I responded that I thought he was making this too hard: We have a right, as a People, to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As a result, we have a right and obligation to either criminalize or regulate behavior that takes away these.

"So fine that no one can really say where it is?" Of course we can and need to draw lines! Will these lines be perfect? No, but they are necessary nonetheless.

We already limit what you can drive: You can’t drive a tank. You can’t drive a street rocket.

I was asked...

Tell me where regulation ends and tyranny begins, in the name of “protection”.

The limit is, that which causes harm to others. When we allow people to take away the rights of others to life, liberty, etc in order to give OTHERS the right to make money, drive as fast as they want, blow up whatever they want, pollute, etc, we will have an ugly, undesirable society. I won't engage in the same sort of hyperbole as this critic and call it "tyranny," but I will call it unhealthy and undesirable.

sigh...

2011-03-24T09:36:00.002-04:00

Dave Amos Working, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

In the news...

[CNN] Maine Gov. Paul LePage ordered a 36-foot mural depicting the state's labor history be removed from the lobby of the Department of Labor headquarters building in Augusta, Maine, according to LePage's office...

The 11-panel mural depicts labor scenes including a cobbler and a textile worker, and pro-labor organizations have used the action to criticize the governor.

A statement from the Maine AFL-CIO said removing the mural is an "insult to working men and women" and is another example of how LePage is putting politics before people.

And, from Politico.com...

LePage’s push to remove the mural came after “several messages” from members of the public complained about it, as well as an anonymous fax last month from someone who said the artwork was reminiscent of “communist North Korea where they use these murals to brainwash the masses.” And it comes as several governors and legislatures around the country are engaged in debates over the power and privileges of labor unions.

And so, the governor has decided that THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR is an inappropriate place for artwork depicting the HISTORY OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT? Really??

And this, after complaints that artwork depicting Labor history is too much like the Communists of N Korea?!!?

I repeat: sigh.

Or maybe Aaaarrrrggh! would be more appropriate.

When wilt thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
The people, Lord, the people,
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
Flowers of thy heart, O God, are they;
let them not pass like weeds away
Their heritage a sunless day
God save the people

Shall crime bring crime forever,
Strength aiding still the strong?
Is it thy will, O Father,
that men shall toil for wrong?
No, say thy mountains; No, say thy skies;
man's clouded sun shall brightly rise,
and songs be heard, instead of sighs,
God save the people!

Storytelling and Truth

2011-03-22T10:14:00.002-04:00

Listen a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

In a previous post with a rolling set of interesting commentary following it, the question of storytelling arose. I hold storytelling in high value and think that the stories told in the Bible are tremendous sources of truth and ought to be taken as truths to contend with. However, that is not to say that I consider all the stories therein to be likely strictly fact-based.

As far as I know, most early storytelling falls into the "storytelling for the purpose of passing on truths, or for entertainment, or for moral lessons" category - as opposed to storytelling with an emphasis on telling strictly factual, linear history of a more modern sort. That sort of fairly strictly factual history-telling didn't really start happening until somewhere around 500 BC - 500 AD.

As far as I can tell. I'm not an expert, I just know what I've read and what makes sense. Can I do some research and discover "proof" that, of ALL the stories ever told in our earliest history, none were told in a factual, linear sort of way? No, of course not. One can't prove a negative. And so, I can't say it didn't happen and I'm not saying that.

Rather, what I'm saying is simply that, I see no evidence of it. I have seen no early writings with an emphasis on linear factual storytelling in a more modern historic sense. If you google "ancient historians," you come up with names such as Herodotus (known as the "father of history"), Josephus, Tacitus, Thucydides and Sima Qian, among others. All of these folk lived in that 500 BC - 500 AD window. And even amongst these who are credited with beginning "history" as a category of writing, the emphasis on facts was not always apparently strict.

source, source, source

So, what does that say of our biblical history stories? Most of the Old Testament, after all, falls prior to this 500 BC start of more modernistic history-recording. Is that to say that these stories are "false" and therefore unreliable?

I say, No. I say that early peoples told valuable stories and kept their history, they just didn't do it in the way we do it today. To suggest that early history-storytellers who might include some fiction right alongside some fact are "liars" or that lessons learned from these stories are compromised simply because they told history-stories in the style of their day is not to denigrate those lessons or those stories. It's just that we need to keep in mind the context and read these history-stories accordingly.

And yet, in the aforementioned post, we found some commenters who DID seem to suggest that ancient history-storytellers who include fiction and fact side by side ARE liars. That the lessons learned in such stories ARE compromised or wholly invalid.

Comments made include...

"How does one find comfort is something that didn't happen?"

and,

"Just because they were primitive doesn't mean they were stupid."

(I had pointed out that these were a "primitive" people, by Merriam Webster definition, meaning simply an earlier, pre-literate people with differing cultural/storytelling norms than we have - nothing in that was to suggest they were stupid, nonetheless, that was what one commenter appears to have gathered.)

I offered an example of my OWN storytelling (with some departures from the facts) from my own family and that was met by,

"I'm glad you have so little regard for factual accuracy. Great so you tell funny stories, is it somehow less valuable/funny to use the facts of the situation. Personally this is a weak analogy, the Israelites were not just telling some funny stories around the campfire, they were relating their national history."

and,

better to not make inferences about the character of a real person from a fictional tale in the first place.

Given all this, I wonder if it's the case that some of these commenters just hold storytelling itself in contempt? Human history has a long and wonderful history of storytelling that is not wholly dependent upon facts. From one source speaking of native American storytelling traditions, we read...

In the time before The Change (European contact), the oral narrative was a "sacred" process and the soul of Indigenous People. Without a written language traditional culture and customs were handed down using the spoken word as the base. They provided social, cultural and historical contexts, and acted as a social cohesive for the entire tribe...

In other words, the oral narrative was a highly developed, sophisticated medium supported by ages old teachings and explanations that were based on fact, observation, oral claims and contracts (in front of witnesses), and a complex set of social and cultural customs for dealing with the sacred and the supernatural.

Native people did not distinguish between the physical and supernatural because everything was viewed as a vast continuum; whether it be animate or supernatural, the world existed in 'real time' and in a conscious state of existence. Every living thing was a member of one large family: the four elements (earth, air, fire and water), plant, animal and human worlds were connected to each other in often complex and sophisticated ways. In other words, every object that existed in the physical world or sprang from the rich imaginations of the storytellers was in effect in possession of ‘real’ life and co-existed in perfect harmony with all other living beings - all were considered human...

Missionary damnations of Indigenous culture was as a result of refusal to acknowledge or understand the descriptive narrative base of Indigenous languages. Patriarchal Christian biases, coupled with attempts to translate the stories into a utilitarian language such as English caused a double jeopardy of linguistic confusion and misinterpretation. This distortion continues to exist, as colourful transformation figures such as Raven, Glooscap, Napi and Coyote were reduced to mere caricatures of buffoonery...

It was simply beyond the pale for the average missionary to contemplate them as akin to the level of Jesus Christ - that is a figure sent by Great Mystery to bring order to the world. Clutching rosaries and muttering homilies, Christian missionaries scuttled about, "Raven, Jesus, Coyote in the same sentence?" "I don't think so!" and so, the culture heroes were relegated to the only other place in Christian sensibilities, hell and Satan.

Indigenous narratives defy simple classification. 'Myth' seems to be a popular category, but it is incorrect. Myth, by definition means the stories are not real because they refer to fictitious themes that include imaginary persons or things that were spoken of as though they existed.

For the Ancestors, all beings whether they were physically real or from the visions of the Old Ones did exist, and in real time, albeit sometimes in an altered or supernatural state. The oral narrative also passed down important claims and entitlements - territory, crests, clans, names.

If labels are to be applied, 'Lore' is probably closer because it invokes a teaching, or the act of being taught by someone who has knowledge of a particular group or subject matter of a traditional nature...

source

I've read things of this nature before and believe it to be a common theme in ancient history-storytelling. The people told stories well, passed down histories accurately by their terms, and if ancient people had "fictional" talking Ravens in a story next to an actual person in the real world or a fictional dragon and an actual king, it was NOT because they were lying - these were real to them and their "factual" non-existence was irrelevant to the story.

Storytelling - regardless of rigid factuality - was of GREAT importance throughout history and still is today. The truths learned in these stories are not to be rejected and the authors reduced to "liars" simply because the storytelling style is different. It has been and still is a rich, beautiful, wonderful and powerful to convey great truths, deep personal connections and histories, even if every line is not factual.

My Poetry??

2011-03-19T10:24:00.002-04:00

Almost Sarah Bike a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I'm having a senior moment. I was looking through an old “poetry” folder on my computer and found an incomplete poem there I don't recognize. Now, generally, my poetry folder would be full of poems that I wrote. And all the other poem documents in that folder ARE my writings.

But this one, I don't remember or recognize, and it doesn't really sound like me (maybe a little bit – I DO like me some trebuchets...)

But, given the lovely weather here in Louisville today and that it's THAT time of the year, I will offer you an anonymous incomplete poem on a bicycle girl, grooving around the globe...

With the wind under her wheels,
She flew like a dog behind a cat
Like a penguin in a jet

Like a pumpkin recently on a trebuchet.

Smooth.
Subsonic.
Substantial.
Sublime.

No time for gravity, sister astronaut
On a round-the-globe groove
Shakin’ sprockets and grease and...

...and that's it!

Anyone recognize that? I tried googling some excerpts and came up with nothing.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

SPRING!

2011-03-11T16:32:00.002-05:00

Daffodil 2 a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

I'm going to go ahead and announce it: Spring is here!

It's been two weeks since I first spotted crocus spears piercing the cold winter ground.

This week, I've seen daffodils blooming.

I've seen two bald eagles circling in the sky above me.

I've seen two peregrine falcons hollering back and forth at each other.

I've heard two million bird songs.

And, although the sky was spitting snow yesterday, today, the sun was shining, grass was growing green anew, the bike couriers had an extra little oomph in their pedaling, my gardening friends have been buying seeds and I know that, even though winter isn't finished with us yet, Spring is here.

======
"He who hopes for spring with upturned eye never sees so small a thing as Draba. He who despairs of spring with downcast eye steps on it, unknowing. He who searches for spring with his knees in the mud finds it, in abundance."

~Aldo Leopold

Blessed Are You Who Are Poor...

2011-03-02T09:01:00.001-05:00

Lady Statue
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

One of our more conservative blogger friends has recently pondered the Luke 6 passage that includes the teachings from Jesus...

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets...

Give to everyone who begs from you.

The blogger asked...

What did Jesus mean when He said "Blessed are the poor" if He didn't mean "You should all be poor and stop trying to help poor people because you're stealing their blessing"?

Are we supposed to aim to be poor, hungry, hated? And are we actually mandated by our Lord to give to everyone who asks of you without considering anything at all (like "Is this a con?" or "Would that be in their best interest?" or "Is there something better that I could do for them?")?

Or are we just supposed to take these things at cold, hard, face value, give up all our possessions, and aim for starvation -- you know, in order to be blessed?

And opened it up for conversation, which hasn't really happened much at his place, so I thought I'd bring it up here.

For my part, I take this fairly literally. I think when Jesus said, "blessed are you who are poor," he meant just that. I don't think he was encouraging us to BE poor necessarily, nor was he suggesting that we ought not HELP the poor (obviously, since he has taught that elsewhere). I think Jesus meant just what he said, "Blessed are the poor..." and "Woe to you who are rich."

Why? Why are the poor blessed in God's eyes? I suspect the point here is that God is with the poor, on the side of the poor, identifies with the poor in very real, very tangible ways.

Conversely, I think "woe to you who are rich" is there because, as the Bible teaches, wealth can be such a trap, such a stumbling block that it can lead to such grief.

I don't think it means that you can't BE rich and a Christian, just that wealth brings with it a certain amount of woe, of sorrow, of things that tend to trip us up.

I think Jesus meant just what he said but we ought be careful not to wrongly extrapolate beyond what he said. Obviously, taking the rest of Jesus' teachings into consideration, we ARE to help the poor, so we'd be wrong to refuse help to the poor because they are "blessed," that would be a wrong extrapolation.

Interpret scripture using scripture. Interpret the individual passage through the whole of scripture. Interpret through the lens of Jesus' teachings.

Doing this, I think we can safely assume Jesus meant just what he said here.

What do you think?

Sunset Grass

2011-03-01T22:21:00.001-05:00

Sunset Grass
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again.

The heavens change every moment, and reflect their glory or gloom on the plains beneath.

~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Early Crocus

2011-02-22T09:32:00.001-05:00

Crocus Bloom
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

It has been five days ago now that I spotted my first Crocus spears piercing the ground, looking for an early Spring.

Since it is only mid-February, I fear her brave efforts may prove foolhardy.

My little town is certain to have more winter on the way, despite early hints of the coming thaw.

And so I am torn between joy and despair at this early foray from her sleeping bed by this daring Lady Crocus.

I find great joy in the promise of Spring so soon, and yet, these early springers will almost certainly be frozen out in a few days.

For today, though, I choose to find the joy in the promise of what is yet to be and what will be, soon enough.

I Go Among the Trees

2011-02-21T16:49:00.001-05:00

Dan On Frozen Path
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

I go among trees and sit still.
All my stirring becomes quiet
around me like circles on water.
My tasks lie in their places
where I left them, asleep like cattle.

Then what is afraid of me comes
and lives a while in my sight.
What it fears in me leaves me,
and the fear of me leaves it.
It sings, and I hear its song.

Then what I am afraid of comes.
I live for a while in its sight.
What I fear in it leaves it,
and the fear of it leaves me.
It sings, and I hear its song.

After days of labor,
mute in my consternations,
I hear my song at last,
and I sing it. As we sing,
the day turns, the trees move.

~by Wendell Berry, in A Timbered Choir

Liberals Have a Tiny Bible??

2011-02-15T17:13:00.002-05:00

God Photobomb? 2
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

One of our more fundamentalist brothers has made a recent attempt at humor, suggesting that liberals have "tiny Bibles..."

There used to be a video store near us that rented movies with objectionable parts removed so the whole family could watch them. I remember thinking, “What a time saver – you can watch Pulp Fiction in 5 minutes!”

In the same way, you can read the Theological Liberal Bible in about that time, and that is barely an exaggeration. Thomas Jefferson famously made his own religion with his “Jefferson Bible.” Theological Liberals just go many steps further. I’m pretty sure this post is longer than their Bible.

Funny Pulp Fiction and liberal joke aside (and I DO think it's humorous, as a stereotypical joke), I think if we were to look at it as a serious commentary, we might have to flip the insight over.

Progressive Christians tend to try NOT to tie God down. We recognize the Bible as the Word of God, profitable for teaching and correction, but we don't think it's some magical book that contains ALL the "Word of God" of an infinite and all-powerful God. Rather, we tend to look at the Bible as God's revelation to humanity from the folk who wrote these accounts thousands of years ago.

But God will not tied down to a few hundred pages.

I find God writ large in each and every mountain and hill, and each and every leaf, blade, flower and needle upon each plant and tree upon each of those mountains; in poems and prose so large that one million million hikes would not allow me to begin to read, much less comprehend.

I find God writ upon the billions of stars across millions of galaxies scattered across an infinite universe.

I find God writ in the little acts of love shown by children throughout the ages, as well as the great acts of selfless bravery and giving by humanity throughout time.

I find God's Word written throughout all of God's creation, in big and small words and they are always written with that tell-tale evidence of love and grace of its Author.

Do Progressive Christians have a tiny sense of the Word of God? No, I can't say that I have found this to be true. Nor do most good conservative Christians that I know and have known.

However, some fundamentalist types have managed to trap the word of a God in a few hundred pages, or at least they seem to think so.

I kind of have to doubt it.

I Love the Mountains Day

2011-02-12T10:59:00.003-05:00

Love Mountains Poster
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

Every year, the last few years, we have found ourselves in our state's capitol on Valentine's Day, expressing our love for the mountains and our opposition to their destruction. Kentucky author Wendell Berry - God bless him! - has, in fact, camped out at the governor's office this weekend in protest.

Unfortunately, our Democrat governor has placed himself on the side of (in the pocket of?) coal companies and is suing the EPA for daring to actually do its job and "P" the "E!"

The story about opposition to Mountaintop Removal can be found here.

And so, I ask any readers who are so inclined to think of our wonderful mountains and valleys this weekend. Think of the gall it takes to believe it is acceptable to blow off the top of hundreds of mountains for the sake of cheap energy. Artificially and unjustly cheap energy. Pray for the opposition, if you are a praying sort. Write letters, if you are a letter-writing sort. Change your lifestyles so that it is less dependent upon cheap fossil fuels, if you are a bold sort.

Thanks. I'll leave you with some quotes on creation from Marvelous Mr. Muir...

The wrongs done to trees, wrongs of every sort, are done in the darkness of ignorance and unbelief, for when the light comes, the heart of the people is always right.

Fresh beauty opens one's eyes wherever it is really seen, but the very abundance and completeness of the common beauty that besets our steps prevents its being absorbed and appreciated. It is a good thing, therefore, to make short excursions now and then to the bottom of the sea among dulse and coral, or up among the clouds on mountain-tops, or in balloons, or even to creep like worms into dark holes and caverns underground, not only to learn something of what is going on in those out-of-the-way places, but to see better what the sun sees on our return to common everyday beauty.

Another glorious day, the air as delicious to the lungs as nectar to the tongue...

Brought into right relationships with the wilderness, man would see that his appropriation of Earth's resources beyond his personal needs would only bring imbalance and begat ultimate loss and poverty by all.

Any fool can destroy trees [and, I would add, Mountains - dt]. They cannot run away; and if they could, they would still be destroyed - chased and hunted down as long as fun or a dollar could be got out of their bark hides. Branching horns, or magnificent bole backbones. Few that fell trees plant them; nor would planting avail much towards getting back anything like the noble primeval forests...

Who publishes the sheet-music of the winds or the music of water written in river-lines?

Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life...

These temple-destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar. Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.

How infinitely superior to our physical senses are those of the mind! The spiritual eye sees not only rivers of water but of air. It sees the crystals of the rock in rapid sympathetic motion, giving enthusiastic obedience to the sun's rays, then sinking back to rest in the night. The whole world is in motion to the center. So also sounds. We hear only woodpeckers and squirrels and the rush of turbulent streams. But imagination gives us the sweet music of tiniest insect wings, enables us to hear, all around the world, the vibration of every needle, the waving of every bole and branch, the sound of stars in circulation like particles in the blood...

Come to the woods, for here is rest. There is no repose like that of the green deep woods. Here grow the wallflower and the violet. The squirrel will come and sit upon your knee, the logcock will wake you in the morning. Sleep in forgetfulness of all ill. Of all the upness accessible to mortals, there is no upness comparable to the mountains.

No synonym for God is so perfect as Beauty. Whether as seen carving the lines of the mountains with glaciers, or gathering matter into stars, or planning the movements of water, or gardening - still all is Beauty!

God never made an ugly landscape. All that the sun shines on is beautiful, so long as it is wild...

Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean.

You can read more wonderful Muir excerpts here.

Undeserved Fidelity

2011-02-08T08:17:00.001-05:00

Riley Sarah Sara hiking at Laurel Falls
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

We were speaking of fidelity at church this last week, and had many wonderful testimonies from the congregation on the topic. I added the following bit of confession, apology, gratitude for all those who have graciously been faithful to me, perhaps when it wasn't even deserved.

I was thinking specifically of all my gay, lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters towards whom I am sure I have been awful towards in days past. Thank God for grace when it does show up...

For my sake, he walked with me.

We walked together for miles and years,
He walked with me on sunny days and gray

We took breath-taking hikes together
enjoying one another's company
and the soft jubilation of creation

He walked beside me, holding my hand, being my friend.

And he walked with me still, even as I belittled him and mocked his life
When I said, in not so many words, that I despise him and everyone like him
When I said, indirectly and with a laugh, that he disgusted me
When I spat upon his humanity, he never once flinched
When I used love like a hammer and god like a hatchet,

Still, he walked with me

I guess faith really is the substance of things hoped for
The evidence of things not seen.

Because, even at my coldest, at my cruelest, at my worst, he walked with me

for my sake.

Prohibited!

2011-02-02T09:21:00.001-05:00

Prohibited
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

In the news:

Pastor Ralph White of the Bloomfield Full Baptist Church in Memphis won’t bless a baby in his church unless the parents are married.

“We will do it, but not in the church setting,” he said. “We’ll go to the home or if they want to have an event somewhere, we’ll go there and do it.”

White said he hopes to send a message to young fathers: step up and provide for your family.

“Biblically speaking, a man who doesn’t take care of his children or family is worst than an infidel,” he said.

This is his way of fighting teen pregnancy...

======

My favorite comment thus far on this story?

"...but, Jesus’ mommy wasn't married to Jesus’ daddy..."

Squirrelly Grace

2011-01-31T08:30:00.002-05:00

Squirrel
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

Last year on one of my walks, I saw a squirrel running down the fence line ahead of me. I was on a sidewalk and he was on the fence between two yards, heading towards the sidewalk and the tree growing there.

I wasn't really paying that much attention to him, just casually noticed him out of the corner of my eye. I kept walking down the sidewalk, closer to the point where this fence line and tree met up, and the squirrel was doing the same.

As it happened, I arrived at that junction about the same time as the squirrel did and it finally occurred to me that this squirrel was going to be jumping over my head to the tree and because it was so close to running into me, I suddenly jerked my head to see what he was doing.

I think the sudden jerk of my head frightened the squirrel and this happened right at the moment he was jumping. As a result, he missed his timing or cut short his jump or something, but the end result was almost cartoon-like. You remember how the Coyote would be chasing the Road Runner (or Elmer Fudd chasing Bugs Bunny) and he would accidentally run off a cliff and his feet would keep spinning for a while until it occurred to him he had run off a cliff, and then he'd stop running and stand there in mid-air with a sad look of realization on his face, and then finally, he'd fall?

That's what this squirrel did.

His little feet spun in the air several inches short of the branch he was jumping for and then, well, he just grace-lessly fell to the sidewalk.

I guess all in nature is not always smooth and graceful.

=======
Addendum:

In other, tragic rodent-related news, the frozen carcass of Punxsutawney Phil was uncovered today as the crowd awaited his appearance for Groundhog Day.

"This does NOT bode well for spring," the mayor was heard to say over the howling blizzard-condition winds...

A Prayer for Warmth

2011-01-21T09:47:00.001-05:00

Snow Thistle
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

I'm outside enough year-round to know a little something about the difference twenty degrees can make. For the most part - not so much.

The difference between 92 degrees and 72 is the difference between hot and comfortable, fair enough. But find a place in the shade with a cool breeze and 92 is not usually impossibly unbearable.

The difference between 72 and 52 is even less a difference - the difference between pleasant and slightly cool. No big deal. Put an extra shirt or jacket on.

The difference between 52 and 32 is still not that great. Sure, you need to put on a jacket and an extra layer or two and you'll be okay.

But, the difference between 32 degrees and 12 degrees - 20 degrees below freezing - is a huge difference. You move from merely cold to literally freezing. Your hands stiffen and turn dry and red. Your cheeks sting and you can tell immediately if you don't have enough socks on your feet. This is the sort of cold that hurts.

However, walking half an hour or an hour through this sort of weather is not unbearable, IF you're prepared for it. Today is one of those days. I wore three layers of shirts and three layers of jackets. I had a cap on my head and extra longjohns and socks on to keep my legs and feet warm. Thus prepared, it's just a slightly brisk walk - and that, from a heated home to a heated office. Not that big of a deal.

Having said that, every day on my way to work, I walk past my homeless brothers and sisters. I pass by the mental health agency where shivering, marginalized souls suffer outside the doors, waiting for the office to open. I pass by the folk who stay at the homeless shelters as well as the homeless who camp out.

I see their suffering, dry skin and frozen noses and know that there is a world of difference in twenty degrees. I recognize the huge difference in taking a short-lived walk from warm building to warm building and in standing - just standing - waiting in the bitter cold. Waiting for a chance to get in some place warm and welcoming (hard to come by, that). Waiting for warmer weather, which is MONTHS away, not minutes.

Wondering if you'll live to see Spring's thaw again.

So today, I lift up a prayer for our homeless friends, to our mentally ill friends, to all those out suffering especially on these coldest days. I lift up a prayer of thanks for Diane, for Donna, for Sally's and VOA and Jeff Street and all those places and people who offer a warm cup of coffee and an open door into a warm respite.

"For I was cold, and you offered me a jacket and a warm place to stay."

Amen.

So, What Are You Proposing?

2011-01-20T19:20:00.002-05:00

Donna Welcomes the Creepy New Year
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

So, given this conversation about false teachers, someone asked me in an email some (I think) very reasonable questions. They raised a question to the effect of, it seems like you'd like for people to say, "well, we can't really know, so just be quiet and don't say anything, don't take any actions based on what you THINK is right."

My answer is that I would not want anyone to surrender any righteous, non-harmful action they might feel led to, any more than I would want to surrender my option to take action on my beliefs.

I simply want to remind myself and all of us to do so in love and humility, recognizing that, even though we may be "100% certain" or only "nearly totally positive," we could still be mistaken.

Further, I'd like us all to have sort of a sliding scale of rigidity and seriousness over topics of disagreement based upon how closely or not they are to Jesus' actual teachings and real world ramifications.

Someone wants to argue that Mary had ten children after Jesus and someone else wants to argue that Mary had NO children after Jesus? No big deal. Don't sweat it.

There's not much impact there one way or the other and Jesus never says specifically that Mary had X number of children so enjoy a discussion on the topic if you'd like, but keep perspective. Slide the scale back many notches on "debating" that pretty insignificant issue.

Someone wants to argue that drinking alcohol is always wrong and another wants to debate that it's acceptable in moderation? No big deal. Jesus did not stake out a position on drinking alcohol and there is no real harm done either way.

Someone wants to argue against the Triune nature of God and someone else wants to argue in favor of it? Well, Jesus did not stake out an opinion and I can't see a huge amount of harm done either way (depending I guess on how those arguments went). Disagree if you wish, but don't get up in a sweat about it. Don't denounce the Other as non-Christian or false teacher over something that Jesus did not teach and that likely has not serious ramifications (and to be clear: I DO believe in the Triune nature of God, before anyone misses the point... I probably shouldn't use that as an example!).

On the other hand, someone wants to teach that we are to HATE our enemies and kill off their children? Well, that is:

1. directly contradicting something that Jesus said AND
2. it has horrifying consequences.

That's a profound argument worth debating vigorously.

Someone wants to teach that we are saved NOT by grace, but by following rules set up by Jim Jones or someone else? That's a profound disagreement with serious consequences. Worth debating vigorously.

My point is that most things that people want to denounce others as "non-Christian" and "false teacher" about are not even direct teachings of Jesus and don't have overtly serious consequences.

On THOSE points, we all ought to lighten up, is what I'm saying, and remember not to argue about mere words or human commands.

The question was also asked, "If we both might be wrong, why not acquiesce to ME, rather than go with your hunch? Why not, for instance, just NOT support gay marriage, since I might be right about it?"

First off, just because we BOTH could be wrong does not mean that I think both our arguments are equally valid. I obviously think my view is the most reasonable or I would not hold it.

Beyond that, why would I support legalizing and oppose criminalizing marriage? Because of the harm and oppression involved in the criminalization. It's a human rights issue and I think Christians should be in the forefront of working for human rights and against oppression.

If a church does not approve of gay marriage then, while it saddens me, so be it. Don't marry any gay folk. Turn seekers away from the door if they wish. No harm (well, some... depending on how foul they are about it), no foul. I'll disagree with them and move on.

BUT, if they want to criminalize two adults getting married (gay/straight/black/white/whatever), THEN they have moved over into harmful territory, impinging on others' rights. That is where I think is a reasonable place to draw the line.

I don't think AT ALL that recognizing our fallibility and lack of perfect understanding means we do nothing. You don't see ME doing nothing, do you? I engage in conversations. I support and oppose legislation. I choose where and how I shop, live, spend my money, donate, etc. We can do just about anything. Anything Good. Anything Pure. Anything Just.

Anything BUT oppress, cause deliberate harm to others, lie, slander, gossip, kill, torture.

First, Do no harm.

Do you disagree with a behavior? Don't support that behavior. Do you think abortions are wrong? Don't have one. Do you think war is wrong? Don't go to war. Do you think gay marriage is wrong? Don't get married to someone of the same gender!

Do you think a loved one is wrong for getting married to a gay (black, Muslim, Jewish, Fundamentalist) guy/gal? Then speak to them in love about it if you really feel you must. But do so with grace and humility.

But, keep in mind: When it comes to telling others that their non-harmful behavior (non-harmful as far as we can see) is wrong, though, most adults need to reach their own conclusions and talking down to them, telling them they're not Christian, they're a "false teacher," they're going to hell for disagreeing with you, etc, will seldom win converts, so it's not especially helpful if winning them over is your goal.

Simply stick to, "I am concerned because it seems to me that..." and lay out your case with love AND being willing to listen to their side, as well.

That's what I think we should do.

Which is a lot, seems to me.

False False Teacher Teachings: Conclusion

2011-01-17T15:39:00.002-05:00

Crow1a_Wavy1a
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

Allow me to try to summarize what I've gleaned from the many helpful (and some, less so) comments about "false prophets" as spoken of in the Bible.

The points on which those who commented appeared to agree were...

We can recognize false prophets...

1. By their actions - by lives that are NOT full of grace, love, purity, self-control, kindness, gentleness, concern for the poor, etc, who instead, engage in slander and gossip and are greedy and who sexually act out (with greed being a primary cause for their preaching false teachings; that is, they preach false doctrine knowingly in order to get money).

2. by their being deliberate in their false doctrine, not speaking of those who are merely mistaken in sincerity, but blatantly lying.

3. By denying Jesus was sent of God, is the Son of God, divine.

4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings.

5. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal humanity.

6. By the weight of impact of their false teaching - if they are driving people from Christianity, for instance, or are teaching doctrine that would result in damnation (ie, teaching we are NOT saved by grace through faith in Jesus, or adding human rules to the "hoops" one has to jump through in order to be saved).

7. They "quarrel about words" and "promote controversial speculations" and "have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction..." There seems to be something pretty specifically in mind when this repeated warning about quarrels, I just can't see that it's clear exactly what. Does anyone have more insight into this aspect?

8. By being intimately aware of the situation/people under consideration. In the instances in the Bible, it always seems as if the writer is speaking of some situation/person wherein the writer is well familiar with the people and the situation. This, as opposed to commenting on some random blogger/writer/speaker where you've heard a few excerpts of their writing/teaching.

9. By being an actual teacher in some venue, as opposed to some guy just espousing opinions (this one is rather vaguely defined, but perhaps worth consideration).

These are the things that it seemed most of the folk who were participating seemed to mostly agree upon.

Of those who I've met online who most use the term "false teacher," we had the least amount of support for their tendency to use the term. As we can see from those who DID offer opinions who tend to disagree with me and mine, they are offering opinions of the term not supported in the biblical text.

For the most part, those who disagree with my general gist here continue to hold to the "it's obvious" criteria for such disagreements. That is, they allow that on some topics there ARE some dudes we just disagree with and that it's okay on those topics, it's not as if they're false teachers simply because they disagree with me.

But then, the reasoning goes, on other topics, it's NOT okay to disagree with their take on a particular theme or passage because "it's obvious," and anyone who disagrees with this "obvious" teaching must be a false teacher. This is without regard to intent (ie, someone who is honestly mistaken) or, apparently for some, they think IF they teach differently than what I think on this topic, then they MUST be lying and intentionally misleading because, well, it's obvious.

Further, for these folk, by THEIR loose and whimsical definition/usage of the term "false teacher," nearly everyone becomes a false teacher. In other words, if I truly think Mr X is mistaken on a topic, AND it turns out that Mr X WAS mistaken on that topic, then he WAS a false teacher, regardless of intent. There is no grace here for human fallibility, it seems to me.

Anyone who is a teacher who mistakenly holds a wrong position on certain topics (loosely and undefined topics, vague as to the point of meaninglessness) IS a false teacher and will be held to a higher level of accountability.

According to some.

I think the biblical witness is pretty clear that intent is important.

Several of these folk who frequently use the charge "false teacher" consider themselves Christian Apologetics teachers - they aim to make a rational, biblical case for Christianity and their specific tenets they associate with Christianity. So, I would hope that these fellas could see that, with the paucity of evidence for their position (which appears to be quite loose and subjective, depending upon the whim of the "apologist" to decide who is and isn't a "false teacher") that I can see no valid reason to grant them this looser, broader, unbiblical description of "false teacher" that they appear to vaguely support.

False False Teacher Teachings 2

2011-01-10T09:53:00.002-05:00

No, no, no
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

To help matters along, here are some of the more pertinent "false teacher/apostle/prophet" teachings from the Bible. This isn't an exhaustive list, because (for one thing) sometimes false teachers are just mentioned without much accompanying explanation. These passages have at least a little context and explanation for what might be considered a false teacher.

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

~1 Tim 1

What is Paul warning of there? What is the false teaching being spoken of? It's not exactly clear, but we can read that the teachings described are not coming from a pure heart of love and a sincere faith, so maybe that helps.

Also, there is the reference to those who "promote controversial speculations" instead of "advancing God's work."

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

~1 Tim 6

False teachers, Paul tells us, are those who do not agree with the sound teaching of Jesus and "godly" teaching (left undefined, but we probably generally share a good notion of at least some godly teachings, things like the fruit of the Spirit, perhaps?)

They also have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels that lead to malicious talk and evil suspicions, for what it's worth.

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel...

If we died with him,
we will also live with him;
if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
if we are faithless,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot disown himself

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

~2 Tim 2

Here Paul lists avoiding godless chatter, quarreling about words, and not believing in Jesus' death and resurrection.

They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand...

Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness...

For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”

~2 Peter 2

In that passage, we find a goodly numberr of more specific traits of false teachers.

1. "carousing/eyes full of adultery..." some sort of sexual sin, it would appear
2. "Experts in Greed" - those who chase after money
3. "Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them," denying Jesus as the son of God, perhaps?
4. "Not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings..." Bold and arrogant
5. In Coffman's commentary, he notes the "fabricated stories" or "feigned words" indicates those who'd deliberately teach false doctrine, not the merely deluded.

More from Coffman...

This includes reviling "magistrates," (celestial beings) as Macknight said, but much more is meant. It is a loudmouthed, blasphemous declamation against all that is high, honorable, or holy. Authority of any or all kinds is anathema to this class.

Continuing...

For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth...

They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

~Titus 1

Again, Greed is a telling characteristic of false teachers. Also "meaningless talk" and deception. We also have those here, it appears to me, who are adding to grace, by demanding IN ADDITION to being saved by grace, we also have to be circumcised.

Additionally, we have the suggestion that false teachers are liars (indicating deliberate deception - and with apologies to any decent Cretans out there...) who embrace "jewish myths" and "mere HUMAN commands."

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. “You will know them by their fruits.

~Matt 7

That's Jesus weighing in on the topic, stating clearly that we will know them by their fruits, by their ill-behavior.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God...

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them...

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.

~1 John 4

John stating the familiar theme of knowing false prophets by their denying that Jesus was the son of God (probably referring to gnostics, who denied Jesus had an actual earthly body) and the evidence of love, for Love is from God and "EVERYONE who loves has been born of God," quite the astounding statement.

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness...

~2 Cor 11

So...

It appears to me that false teachers can be recognized

1. By their actions - by lives that are not full of grace, love, purity, self-control, kindness, gentleness, who slander and gossip and are greedy and who sexually act out.
2. by their being deliberate in their false doctrine, not speaking of those who are merely mistaken in sincerity, but blatantly lying.
3. By denying Jesus was sent of God.
4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings.
5. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal humanity.

For your consideration...

ADDENDUM:

I thought of another important passage, where JESUS himself was accused of being "of the Devil," suitably close to being accused of being a false teacher...

when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?

~Matt 12

So, here again, we see the measure of "good fruit," of those who live good lives, as being evidence AGAINST the "false teacher" charge. And it comes with the warning: "YOU BROOD OF VIPERS, how can you who are evil say anything good..." and "Anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

owch. So, I would say that, while it is true it is very wrong to be a false teacher - one according to the Bible who deliberately teaches wrong teachings - but it is equally true, it seems to me, to be VERY wrong to falsely accuse someone of God to be a false teacher.

It seems that those who are false teachers can be forgiven and brought back into the family of God, but those who falsely ACCUSE of false teaching, it sounds like they can't be!

False False Teacher Teachings?

2011-01-09T16:55:00.001-05:00

Wolf
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

What is the difference between a "false teacher" and just "some dude I disagree with?" As many who read here know, some of our friends out there whip out the "false teacher" charge like a cheap gunslinger whips out his six shooter, with similarly dangerous results.

We all know some of the bloggers who engage in the whole "false teacher" gunslinging abuse, and I'm sure we all know some beyond the "regulars."

I recently met a new gunslinger and he had this to say (going from memory, as he decided to delete the record of our discussion so as not to "pollute" his blog with my "false teaching")...

I agree with you that we don't have perfect knowledge, nor are we required to know everything perfectly in order to be saved...

So far, so good...

But, I'm NOT wrong on this point. I CAN NOT be wrong because I'm just telling you what God has said in the Bible.

Wow. So, he "knows" he CAN'T be mistaken on some point (gay marriage, in this case, natch) and he "knows" that I am a false teacher because I disagree with him on that point.

And when I suggested that this might be a bit on the arrogant and presumptive side ("I CAN NOT BE WRONG") for someone who agrees he's a fallible human, he starts deleting things in a snit.

Which got me to thinking about the whole "false teacher" rigamarole. Do these gunslingers really understand what the bible has to say about false teachers? What DOES the Bible have to say about them? What is the difference between a false teacher and some dude that just disagrees with me? Do the gunslingers have any objective measure for this or is it entirely whimsical and subjective, as it seems to be to me?

These are the questions I have tried asking here lately, with no good results. So I'm asking here.

(As to this latest gunslinger, I'll leave him anonymous, along with the other slingers - my point is not to point out how awful or stupid any one person is, I'm wanting to talk about the IDEAS they represent, not the people promoting them - although I actually would hope that maybe some of them might make their way here and see fit to comment)

So, how about it? What objective measure IS there for the charge of "false teacher" for those who regularly use it? I've seen them occasionally disagree with one of their comrades without resorting to calling THEM false teachers, so obviously, it's not simply a matter of "those who disagree with me are false teachers." But, what, then?

A false teacher is recognizable because... what?

And should any one respond to this question, I hope it's not simply them saying, "One who disagrees with God's teachings is a false teacher," because that is entirely subjective. When they say that (and that's what they usually say) what they are ACTUALLY saying is "One who disagrees with MY UNDERSTANDING of God's teachings is a false teacher," and when you point that out, they seem to drop back to "No, not MY UNDERSTANDING, but God's actual teaching, and I KNOW the right way to take that teaching because it is 'obvious...'"

And when you ask, "Obvious to WHO?" well, then they get in a snit, call you a false teacher and delete your comments.

But I would hope that some of these fellas and gals (usually fellas, but there's some gals, too) would give it some thought and offer a response.

Intro to the Sermon on the Mount

2011-01-04T13:23:00.001-05:00

Lower Signpost
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

About once a year or so, our Youth Minister, Roger, presents a telling of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. He has committed the sermon to memory and tells it, much as it must have sounded hearing Jesus tell it. It's a wonderful, powerful way to consider the teachings of Jesus.

This year, Roger prepared an introduction to the Sermon, to give us some context. This, too, I thought was very cool, and so I present it here (cross-posted at the Jeff Street Baptist blog) for your consideration.

Palestine in the time of Jesus was difficult. Galilee, Samaria, Judea and the rest of the eastern Mediterranean region was under the occupation of the Roman Empire. Luke’s birth narrative begins with, “In the days of Caesar Augustus…” and Caesar Augustus was the first full-blown emperor of Rome. Rome had been a republic until Julius Caesar seized control and began the transition away from more democratic principles toward empire. His nephew, Octavius, inherited his power, took the name Caesar Augustus, and consolidated Rome’s position as an empire. Not only did Caesar Augustus consolidate political power, but he began to consolidate religious power as well. The expectation was for the conquered lands to worship the divine Caesar as a god.

This proved to be a problem for the Jews. Whereas most of the Mediterranean world already believed in many gods and had little difficulty assimilating Caesar in as another god to be worshipped, it was not the same for the Jews. The Jews believed there was but one true God, the creator and master of the universe. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”

There was no way they could worship God and worship Caesar. Fortunately, because this was their religion when Rome took control, they weren’t forced to sacrifice at the altars to Caesar Augustus, but they were expected to capitulate to the political and social expectations of the empire.

But even this was too much for the Jews. “How can we, the chosen people of God, live in this unacceptable situation? Why are we again under the rule of the pagan gentiles? Didn’t we have our own rulers and our own temple? What has gone wrong?”

There were four significant points of view on this question in the days of Jesus. The zealots wanted to rise up like the Maccabees and violently drive Rome from the Promised Land. “It’s our land and we’ll kill the Romans and their lackeys to keep it.”

The Sadducees and Herodians urged the people to go along to get along with the rule of the empire. “If we rise up we’ll be destroyed. We must work together.” The Sadducees and Herodians had a credibility problem with the people, though, because as collaborators with Rome they became rich oppressors themselves.

The Pharisees viewed Roman rule as punishment from God for the people’s sin. “If we would only purify ourselves and truly become God’s holy people, then God will send his Messiah to lead us to victory against God’s enemies.” They were pretty serious about this, too, developing over 600 specific rules to make sure they were pure in the sight of God. This approach left little room for error and as a result the Pharisees tended to be a tad judgmental and intolerant toward those who didn’t follow their rules just so.

The Esseenes said, “All y’all are crazy and don’t get it” and they withdrew from society into the wilderness and refused to trouble themselves with earthly concerns and conflicts.

And in the region of Galilee from the town of Nazareth, Jesus, a carpenter turned rabbi, began a ministry of healing and of signs and wonders that the people had not seen before. And he had a message that put him at odds with everyone.

The zealots liked the way he exposed the hypocrisy of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, but he also said, “Do not take revenge against the evil doer” and “Love your enemies, too, like God does.”

The Sadducees liked Jesus’ words of blessing to the poor people of the land, but when he enjoined them to stand up to those who backhand you and turn the other check to make them treat you like an equal or to stand naked before the judge and expose the economic injustice of the system or to turn the tables on Roman law by refusing to give a Roman soldier back his backpack after he has forced you to carry it for a mile – why, that just rocks the boat too much!

The Pharisees liked many of the themes of Jesus’ teaching – almsgiving, praying, and fasting, these were good, measurable acts of righteous in their eyes – but then he sums up the law with “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” and their 600 plus rules seem a bit silly and extreme.

The Esseenes could relate to the times Jesus withdrew to the mountains in solitude to pray, but then he always came back to the people and invited them to participate in the kingdom of God right now. And this participation was not based on how zealous or rich or pious or mystical one was. “It’s not even about calling me Lord,” Jesus said, “or prophesying, or casting out demons or performing miracles. That’s not how you know me and that’s not how you participate in the realm of God.” Instead it was based on recognizing the traps that pull us to sin and avoiding them. It was based on embracing God, not as the master of the universe, but as our Abba, our Daddy, and on carrying on the family business of reconciliation and love. It wasn’t about selfish prestige, or monetary gain, or being afraid and worrying about getting it right. It was based on simply treating others the way we’d like to be treated in return.

The Sermon on the Mount is the longest sermon of Jesus in the Gospels. Listen for these themes. Listen to how his message was heard by the zealots and the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Esseenes. Listen to how his message was heard by his disciples and by the people of the land. And then listen to how his message sounds to you as you try to live your life with integrity in the empire today.

The Sermon on the Mount

Happy New Year!

2010-12-31T13:05:00.001-05:00

Dennis1_Paint1
Originally uploaded by paynehollow

What if, in this new year, we agreed to make these blogging resolutions?

1. In an effort to be more respectful, if I disagree with a commenters point, I'll quote it, restate it and ask if I am understanding correctly (ie, Bubba, you said, "X" and that sounds like to me Z. Is that what you mean...?)

2. When it's been pointed out that I have misunderstood another's position, I will promptly apologize for the misunderstanding, offering an explanation if helpful (ie, "My bad. It SOUNDED like to me that was what you were saying, can you understand how I got that impression...?")

3. I will refrain from making the assumption that if a statement SEEMS to be saying something to me, that my assumption is not the sum total of all possibilities. I will stick more to direct quotes and talk about what the commenter directly said, rather than discussing my summary of what it SEEMED like to me.

4. I will try to treat those I disagree with as my literal brother or uncle or some beloved family member with whom I have disagreements. ("What if this commenter is actually my crazy ol' Uncle Fervent? I really ought to be nice to him, even if he is a little loopy...")

5. I will try to recognize that if someone criticizes a position of mine, they're not necessarily criticizing me. IT'S OKAY TO DISAGREE. And if they are indeed criticizing me, I will strive to ignore the ad hom attack and deal with the criticism of a position, if there is one being criticized.

Wouldn't the blogosphere be a better place if we all practiced these sorts of niceties?