1. OPENING PRAYER (Adapted From Psalm 84)
ONE How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD of hosts! Our souls long, indeed they faint for the courts of the LORD; our hearts and our flesh sing for joy to the living God. Even the sparrow finds a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, at your altars, O LORD of hosts, our King and our God.
ALL Happy are those who live in your house, ever singing your praise.
ONE Happy are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion. As they go through the valley of Baca they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools. They go from strength to strength; the God of gods will be seen in Zion.
ALL O LORD God of hosts, hear our prayer; give ear, O God of Jacob! Behold our shield, O God; look on the face of your anointed.
ONE For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. We would rather be doorkeepers in the house of our God than live in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield; he bestows favor and honor. No good thing does the LORD withhold from those who walk uprightly.
ALL O LORD of hosts, happy is everyone who trusts in you.
2. INTRODUCTION
Psalm 84 is the suggested focus lectionary reading for today.
Jewish pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem for festivals at the Temple.
Many scholars believe Psalm 84 as a song for these pilgrims.
Pilgrimages blend physical journeys and spiritual quests.
We have no guarantee that our journeys of faith will take place without weeping, the literal meaning of Baca (above)
The psalm nevertheless invites us to go on the faith journey toward our home with God, a dwelling place we experience all along the way as well as in the hope of journey’s ultimate goal.
The experience and hope of being at home with God in company with one another evoke joy.
Andrea and Mike experience with finding church homes in different places we’ve lived.
These churches, in effect, became our extended families.
Such dwelling places provide security and hope.
But these homes are not ours alone: God makes room and invites all to find place and sanctuary.
People who often are considered as outsiders and least likely to fit in are welcome.
We celebrate together the joy of living in God’s whole community.
Focus To draw strength and joy from our dwelling with God.
3. JOHN 6:56 - 69
3.1. Text
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”
61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”
66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.
67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
3.2. Discussion
Background on Holy Communion (the Eucharist)
Matthew, The central event of the last supper is the institution of the Eucharist
Mark, Luke (Holy Communion, Lord’s Supper).
John The central event of that last meal is the foot washing without an explicit establishment of the Eucharist.
John places the beginning of the Eucharist in Jesus’ discourse in Chapter 6.
Jesus transforms a well-known Jewish religious tradition (Passover) into what we know as the Eucharist.
For John, all of Jesus’ life, rather than one particular event at the end of his life, becomes the foundation for the Eucharist.
In the I am sayings, Jesus states he is the food that gives life, not manna or any other bread; and, through eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist, the believer is able to share fully in this food of life.
Participating in Holy Communion: (1) does not focus on remembering or commemorating one particular event but represents sharing all of Jesus’ life, including his death and (2) creates a relationship between Jesus and the believer that contains the promise of new life.
How do we connect the symbolism of Holy Communion (eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood as represented with the bread and wine) to what happens with the food and drink we consume in order to maintain our physical lives?
This lection reports on what happened when Jesus taught about the bread of life in the Capernaum synagogue (Verse 59).
Capernaum
A settlement, inhabited from 150 BC to about 750 AD, on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee near one of the main highways connecting Galilee with Damascus.
Home of the apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and the tax collector Matthew.
Jesus’ home Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee. He left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, (Matthew 4:12-13).
Where Jesus taught in the synagogue on Sabbath days.
Where Jesus healed a man with the spirit of an unclean devil, healed a fever in Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, and a Roman Centurion asked for healing of his daughter.
Verse 56
What meaning does the word abide have in the context of this sentence?
To tolerate, put up with, bear (e.g., I cannot abide your behavior.)
To inhabit, live with, be at home with (e.g., We will abide together in this place.)
Jesus continued to contrast people who chew on his flesh and live into eternity with individuals who ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
Why did the idea of eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood offend so many of the Jews who heard him?
Jesus’ teaching elicited a range of response from the people who heard him:
Complaining (Verse 61) Betrayal (Verse 64)
Disbelief (Verse 64) Confession of faith (Verses 68 – 69)
Rejection (Verse 66)
Ideas on how Pastor Randall used this lection as the basis for today’s sermon, which is entitled “Wonderful Words of Life”?
4. EPHESIANS 6:10 - 20
4.1. Text
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power.
11 Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
14 Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness.
15 As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace.
16 With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18 Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints.
19 Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,
20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it boldly, as I must speak.
4.2. Discussion
This lection reflects on the strength we obtained when we abide with Jesus.
Linkage with Verse 56 in the lection from John.
Verses 10 - 12
The primary foes we face are not human (blood and flesh) but the powers of evil. Nevertheless, sometimes humans succumb to the power of evil and become our immediate foes.
Verses 13 - 17
The steps described represent the order in which Roman soldiers dressed for battle.
All weapons are defensive, except for the Sword of the Spirit.
According to the Greek words used, the armor described was not for warriors on the front lines but for those who were in a defensive battle, or perhaps for Roman soldiers serving as police on security duty.
The Greek word for sword does not refer to the long battle sword but means the short sword (more like a dagger) that might be used to break up fights in close range. Accordingly, the sword Paul designated appears to be more of an instrument for preserving the public peace than for waging war.
Stand (Verse 14) has the military sense of standing watch, being on guard.
Roman soldiers soaked their leather shields in water to protect against flaming arrows (Verse 16).
Taken out of context, the section on spiritual warfare has often been used to support two views that conflict with the mystery of the gospel that the letter to the Ephesians, as a whole, reveals.
Fortress mentality Because evil surrounds us, we may attempt to hide behind the
armor and thereby protect ourselves from contact with the
world Christ came to redeem.
Fight first mentality Wage active, first-strike spiritual warfare in full
confidence (arrogance?) that we have all the truth and every
other religion or denomination needs to learn exclusively
from us.
What does one way/Christ is the way actually mean for those of us in the Community of Believers?
Ephesians does not call us to fear evil powers or to arrogance, but rather summons us to humility and confidence in the One who conquered all things and works to make a new humanity.
Verses 18 - 19
The section on spiritual defensive armor provides a strong extended metaphor for abiding with Jesus but the primary points are a call to pray, to greet and welcome a coworker Paul sends to the community of Believers at Ephesus, and to live in the fullness of the peace of Christ.
Verse 20
An ambassador has full power to represent a king or a government.
In chains means imprisoned, awaiting trial and is possibly a pun on chains of office.
5. 1 KINGS 8:1,6,10-13, 22-30,41-43
5.1. Text
1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.
6 Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place, in the inner sanctuary of the house, in the most holy place, underneath the wings of the cherubim
10 And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD,
11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.
12 Then Solomon said, “The LORD has said that he would dwell in thick darkness.
13 I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever.”
22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands to heaven.
23 He said, “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and steadfast love for your servants who walk before you with all their heart,
24 the covenant that you kept for your servant my father David as you declared to him; you promised with your mouth and have this day fulfilled with your hand.
25 Therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant my father David that which you promised him, saying, ‘There shall never fail you a successor before me to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children look to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.’
26 Therefore, O God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you promised to your servant my father David.
27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!
28 Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea, O LORD my God, heeding the cry and the prayer that your servant prays to you today;
29 that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may heed the prayer that your servant prays toward this place.
30 Hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place; O hear in heaven your dwelling place; heed and forgive.
41 “Likewise when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a distant land because of your name
42--for they shall hear of your great name, your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm--when a foreigner comes and prays toward this house,
43 then hear in heaven your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and so that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built.
5.2. Discussion
The Ark of the Covenant
Symbolized God’s presence.
Had heretofore been kept in a provisional tent-sanctuary David built.
Solomon
Declares that the Creator of the universe had chosen to dwell in the darkness of the Holy of Holies.
Reminds God and the people of the covenants God made with
The Israelites, through Moses, at Mt. Sinai: The Jews would be God’s chosen people as long as they followed God’s laws (the Ten Commandments).
David: A king from the Davidic line would always rule over Israel provided the people and the king followed God’s laws.
Recognizes (Verse 27) that God does not dwell solely in the Temple, on earth, or in heaven.
Seems to instruct Israelites and foreigners to turn toward the Temple when they pray.
Reminds us of what other religion?
If God is everywhere, why turn toward the Temple to pray?
Recognizes that foreigners have a place in God’s creation.
What is the possible application to present circumstances in the US?
6. CLOSING PRAYER
Journey with us, O God, and lead us to our true home, which is in and with you. Lead us with others, with whom we share that home’s grace and presence. Lead us with Spirit, who gives us hope on the way. Lead us in Christ, who shows us the way. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ and through invocation of the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Biblical Justification for Independence Day?
05 JUL 09
SENT WITH POWER
SENT WITH POWER
OPENING PRAYER (ADAPTED FROM PSALM 48)
ONE Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised in the city of our God. His holy mountain, beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King. Within its citadels God has shown himself a sure defense.
ALL Great is the LORD!
ONE Then the kings assembled, they came on together. As soon as they saw it, they were astounded; they were in panic, they took to flight; trembling took hold of them there, pains as of a woman in labor, as when an east wind shatters the ships of Tarshish.
ALL As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the LORD of hosts, in the city of our God, which God establishes forever.
ONE We ponder your steadfast love, O God, in the midst of your temple. Your name, O God, like your praise, reaches to the ends of the earth.
ALL Victory fills the LORD’s right hand.
ONE Let Mount Zion be glad, let the towns of Judah rejoice because of your judgments. We shall walk about Zion, go all around it, count its towers, consider well its ramparts; go through its citadels, that we may tell the next generation this is God, our God forever and ever.
ALL The LORD will be our guide forever
INTRODUCTION
Living in the fullness of God’s powerful and loving presence is a faith-filled journey.
God calls and sends us to do the work of the Kingdom.
We respond based upon a trust that God sends us where we are needed.
The lectionary readings for today invite us to discern God’s wisdom as we move forward, embracing challenges and hurdles with hope and imagination.
Keeping in mind that yesterday was Independence Day, our greatest civil holiday, the lectionary readings also have relevance to the role of Christians in, and under, governments.
What authority do governments have?
What is our duty to our governments?
Focus To consider the dynamics of hearing and proclaiming the gospel.
2 SAMUEL 5:1 – 5, 9 - 10
TEXT
1 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, “Look, we are your bone and flesh.
2 For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out Israel and brought it in. The LORD said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel.”
3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel.
4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.
5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.
9 David occupied the stronghold, and named it the city of David. David built the city all around from the Millo inward.
10 And David became greater and greater, for the LORD, the God of hosts, was with him.
DISCUSSION
Last week’s Old Testament lection related how David led his own victorious troops in a lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan.
In the interim between that lection and the one for this week:
David was anointed king in Judah (which would later become the Southern Kingdom) and began ruling in Hebron.
Saul’s son, Ishbaal, was crowned king over Israel (the ten northern tribes) with the support of his general, Abner.
Saul and Ishbaal waged war against each other in order to establish the rightful claimant to the throne of the entire nation.
Feeling disrespect by Ishbaal, Abner defected to work for David.
Shortly thereafter, David’s general, Joab, killed Abner. David publicly reprimanded Joab for killing Abner.
Other assassins killed Ishbaal, probably hoping for a prominent place in David’s court.
David had these assassins executed and dismembered, thereby distancing himself from the death of Ishbaal.
This lection for this week relates
The elders of Israel (the ten northern tribes) recognized David’s military leadership on their behalf during Saul’s reign.
The Philistines were still powerful and active; therefore, these elders recognized they needed a war leader.
The elders of Israel approached David to become king over the northern kingdom.
David captured Jerusalem, rebuilt and expanded the city, and made it the seat of his government.
Verse 9
The Millo
May have been a rampart the Jebusites built prior to the Israelite conquest of the city.
The King James version footnotes Millo as The Landfill.
The New International version translates Mill to supporting terraces.
The New Revised Standard version suggests Millo (filling) was probably a built-up ravine that provided a natural defense.
Solomon also worked on the Millo.
Because God was with David, he became greater and greater – more powerful.
Scholars generally consider that David reigned from 1000 – 900 BC.
Holy Scripture continued to refer to Israel and Judah as separate kingdoms/territories, although David ruled over both. (Can be confusing.)
The consent of the governed rather than David’s military power was the key factor in establishment and continuation of his unified government. (US Declaration of Independence)
The elders of the northern tribes initiated the covenant with David; but, did not come to David because of a command performance from him.
David would have to be faithful to the elders of the northern tribes and, by extension, to all the people of Israel.
God, not only David’s inner circle, witnessed the covenant between David and the northern elders.
Biblical views on earthly governments (summary)
Governments can be of God as shown in Exodus 19:6.
You shall be for me a priestly and a holy nation
Deut 17:14 – 20 permits the establishment of monarchy (government) in Israel so long as the monarch (governmental ruling authority) is prudent and law-abiding.
When you have come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the LORD has said to you, “You must never return that way again.” And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.
Romans 13:1 – 2 states that everyone should submit to their governments because God instituted them.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Inappropriately used to justify the Divine Right of Kings.
1 Peter 2:13 – 17 also says we should accept the authority of our government.
For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.
In contrast to these generally positive views, the Book of Revelation represents the Roman Empire as a beast who came from Satan and persecuted God’s faithful followers because Christians professed Jesus, rather than the Emperor, as lord and master.
Holy Scripture makes a realistic assessment of human governments. They
Provide protection and stability (i.e., feed Jesus’ sheep).
Demand support and loyalty.
Have precious gifts that seem God-given.
Sometimes (often?) exhibit failures sufficiently serious to call into question the idea of having God-given authority.
From the Biblical perspective, therefore, the ultimate danger of governments is that they will come to see themselves as supreme, demanding worship and making claims appropriate only to God.
Relevance of this lection to our Independence Day celebrations
If, for the sake of this discussion, we leave aside any consideration as to whether or not the US is (or behaves like) a Judeo-Christian nation, Holy Scripture can be interpreted to provide a compelling rational for our War of Independence.
The English Empire did not act toward its American colonists according to Biblical principles defining a holy or God-ordained government.
Holy Scripture
Does not point to American Independence as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
May in some ways critique the American experiment while calling us to final loyalty in God’s reign in Jesus Christ.
We can take justifiable pride in our Independence Day celebrations as long as we keep in mind the Biblical view of the ultimate sin of a government.
As Judeo-Christians with primary allegiance to Jesus Christ, we must strive to ensure our government acts in manners always consistent with these Biblical principles.
Our tactics in working toward this goal, however, continue to bedevil us.
MARK 6:1 - 13
TEXT
1 He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him.
2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands!
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
4 Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.”
5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.
6 Then he went about among the villages teaching.
7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.
8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;
9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.
10 He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place.
11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.”
12 So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent.
13 They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.
DISCUSSION
This lection offers two related stories:
The rejection of Jesus at Nazareth.
The sending of the twelve to announce and show signs of God’s kingdom across the surrounding villages of Galilee.
Verse 2
Jesus astounded the people at Nazareth with his wisdom and deeds of power performed in other places.
Verses 3 - 4
The people of Nazareth couldn’t get over their previous image of Jesus as an ordinary person who had grown up in their midst.
Verse 5
The lack of faith from the Nazarenes prevented Jesus from illustrating God’s power and the arrival of God’s Kingdom.
Recall from last’s discussion: In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus’ miracles are demonstrations of power meant to help people in need and to show that the Kingdom of God is soon to appear.
Jesus requires belief/faith in order to do deeds of power. These deeds are not miracles to prove Jesus’ divinity.
Verse 6
Rather than allowing frustration over the lack of faith in Nazareth to inhibit him, Jesus taught in other villages.
Relevance to Independence Day: American colonists tried several approaches to get the British Empire to do “the right thing” but finally had seek a more viable option through force of arms.
Verses 7 - 13
These verses offer an example of effective tactics in proclaiming and illustrating Jesus’ power and the coming of the Kingdom of God.
Importantly, we must recognize that, if we encounter failure, we must not abandon our mission but move on to more fertile locations.
Jesus sent the disciples to villages (people), not congregations.
He gave the disciples specific behavioral instructions without doctrinal precepts.
He instructed the disciples to show the power of God’s kingdom and to proclaim repentance wherever they went, day in and day out.
The disciples’ deeds of power and way of living were the chief proclamation that some new power had arrived.
The work of the disciples illustrated Jesus’ missional strategy, which was primarily incarnational.
Not about convincing people on doctrinal grounds.
About demonstrating, in the flesh (witnessing), that God’s reign had come, thereby opening the way for dramatically changed lives.
2 CORINTHIANS 12:2 - 10
TEXT
2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows.
3 And I know that such a person--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows—
4 was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.
5 On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.
6 But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me,
7even considering the exceptional character of the revelations. Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated.
8 Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me,
9 but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
10 Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
DISCUSSION
Summary of this lection:
After describing his ecstatic experience of being caught up into Paradise, Paul tells us that his real spiritual revelation came from the assurance of the sufficiency of God’s grace in the midst of Paul’s struggles and suffering.
Need to be extremely careful about how we interpret and apply this text.
Paul does not enunciate a principle but states a conclusion reached through his own struggles with God.
Focusing on the text as a principle may lead those of us struggling with weaknesses, physical or otherwise, feeling guilty because, if we had more faith, we could circumvent the problems or they would be removed.
Paul precisely affirmed his problem (thorn in the flesh), and came to realize over a long period of time that God’s grace provided what Paul needed, even in the midst of the struggle.
Paul does not say that, if his faith were sufficiently strong, God would remove the weakness.
Paul does testify that God’s grace would allow Paul to do God’s work despite whatever infirmity Paul suffered.
CLOSING PRAYER
Gracious God, make us eager to hear your call to serve in grace and hope. Be with us as journey with the message of your powerful and saving love for all your children. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ and through invocation of the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
An Opinion on Global Warming: Part 1
This blog entry will be Part 1 of my opinions on global warming, and what we can and should do about the problem. I decided on multiple posts in order to break up what I'm writing into more manageable portions.
Why write at all on this issue other than to interact with some of my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters? Because writing helps me shape and inform my opinions. I hold with Socrates: The unexamined life is not worth living, and (for me) informed opinions constitute part of living an examined and worthwhile life.
Earth and its atmosphere constitute a closed system. Some finite but vanishingly small amounts of atmospheric gases may escape Earth's gravitational field. Material of various types from asteroids, comets, meteorites, etc. may enter the atmosphere and sometimes reach the Earth's surface. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes we live in a closed system so that what's generated on Earth stays on Earth in one form or another.
In a profound sense, we necessarily violate a major dictum of good ol' boy and gal culture: We defecate in our own nest.
Yes, we can send probes and satellites beyond the Earth's gravitational field; however, we don't yet have the technology to ship great amounts of waste products off-world.
I think this closed system concept accounts for the concern many rational persons have over global warming issues. Perhaps, some of these individuals remember or have read about a classical experiment, often repeated in Bacteriology 101 labs:
1. The student prepares a medium with all of the nutrients required to support metabolism and reproduction of a bacterium such as E.col. (Actually, almost any bacterium or other type of microbe will suffice.) This growth medium is placed in a sterilized flask.
2. A small amount of the E.coli is introduced into the flask, which is then sealed off to the outside atmosphere. There is, however, a valve in the flask through which samples of the medium can be removed. The size of the flask and amount of medium are excessively large in comparison to the amount of bacteria in the inoculate.
3. For the next several days, samples of the medium are removed and the microbial content counted. When the numbers of microbes are plotted on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, the results show:
(a) An initial lag phase in which the number of bacteria falls below the number inoculated into the flask.
(b) A slow growth phase.
(c) A subsequent growth spurt in which the number of bacteria increases logarithmically (i.e., stupendous growth).
(d) A plateau phase in which reproduction of the bacteria levels off.
(e) An accelerating decrease in the number of bacteria.
(f) Death of all bacteria. (OK, some of the bacteria may go into a spore phase and can be resurrected but, if nothing is done to or for the culture medium, no life forms will ultimately exist.
Why do the bacteria go through the plateau and death phases? Initially the resources in the flak (medium, gases) greatly exceed the requirements for bacterial metabolism and reproduction. As the supply of nutrients decreases and concentration of toxins (excretory materials) increase because of the normal metabolic activities of the bacteria, the closed system poisons the microbes.
Now, if some mechanism can be employed to continually remove the toxins in the flask and add more nutrients to the system, the microbes can continue to grow quite well.
I'll admit that the above analogy, like most analogies may not be perfect, but the message remains: At some point, human activity may produce sufficient "toxins" to wipe out human life. Why? Because human population may be in the accelerating growth phase and there's no obvious mechanism to remove toxins. For global warming enthusiasts CO2 would be prominent among the toxins.
Throughout much of our history, human population and its toxin-producing activities remained low, and did not pose a treat to human survival or the ability of Earth to regenerate itself. Thus, one might legitimately ask: Have we now reached the plateau point and, unless something can be done to regenerate our closed system, will we will soon enter the decline/death phase?
One problem with answering this question relates to the fact that our closed system is quite large, and an argument can be made that human toxins amount to only a small proportion of the overall system. For instance, cogent postulates or hypotheses can be made that, with respect to the ostensible or proposed (take your pick) increasing production of atmospheric CO2, the amounts are too small in comparison to amounts of non-human produced CO2. Thus, the entire issue may be massively overblown.
The bottom line, however, remains: We live in a closed system in which we necessarily reduce the concentration of resources and increase the concentration of materials with a deleterious impact on life. At some point, therefore, human population may indeed mimic the results of the bacterial closed flask experiment. When? I don't know but I think When is a better question than If.
I am a technological optimist and advocate; therefore, I believe (but cannot prove) that we can manage and even reverse the situation, if we're smart and apply ourselves productively as opposed to rushing headlong into a panicked irrational response. Such an irrational response might not be simply non-productive but could well be deleterious and exacerbate the situation.
More to come.
Why write at all on this issue other than to interact with some of my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters? Because writing helps me shape and inform my opinions. I hold with Socrates: The unexamined life is not worth living, and (for me) informed opinions constitute part of living an examined and worthwhile life.
Earth and its atmosphere constitute a closed system. Some finite but vanishingly small amounts of atmospheric gases may escape Earth's gravitational field. Material of various types from asteroids, comets, meteorites, etc. may enter the atmosphere and sometimes reach the Earth's surface. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes we live in a closed system so that what's generated on Earth stays on Earth in one form or another.
In a profound sense, we necessarily violate a major dictum of good ol' boy and gal culture: We defecate in our own nest.
Yes, we can send probes and satellites beyond the Earth's gravitational field; however, we don't yet have the technology to ship great amounts of waste products off-world.
I think this closed system concept accounts for the concern many rational persons have over global warming issues. Perhaps, some of these individuals remember or have read about a classical experiment, often repeated in Bacteriology 101 labs:
1. The student prepares a medium with all of the nutrients required to support metabolism and reproduction of a bacterium such as E.col. (Actually, almost any bacterium or other type of microbe will suffice.) This growth medium is placed in a sterilized flask.
2. A small amount of the E.coli is introduced into the flask, which is then sealed off to the outside atmosphere. There is, however, a valve in the flask through which samples of the medium can be removed. The size of the flask and amount of medium are excessively large in comparison to the amount of bacteria in the inoculate.
3. For the next several days, samples of the medium are removed and the microbial content counted. When the numbers of microbes are plotted on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, the results show:
(a) An initial lag phase in which the number of bacteria falls below the number inoculated into the flask.
(b) A slow growth phase.
(c) A subsequent growth spurt in which the number of bacteria increases logarithmically (i.e., stupendous growth).
(d) A plateau phase in which reproduction of the bacteria levels off.
(e) An accelerating decrease in the number of bacteria.
(f) Death of all bacteria. (OK, some of the bacteria may go into a spore phase and can be resurrected but, if nothing is done to or for the culture medium, no life forms will ultimately exist.
Why do the bacteria go through the plateau and death phases? Initially the resources in the flak (medium, gases) greatly exceed the requirements for bacterial metabolism and reproduction. As the supply of nutrients decreases and concentration of toxins (excretory materials) increase because of the normal metabolic activities of the bacteria, the closed system poisons the microbes.
Now, if some mechanism can be employed to continually remove the toxins in the flask and add more nutrients to the system, the microbes can continue to grow quite well.
I'll admit that the above analogy, like most analogies may not be perfect, but the message remains: At some point, human activity may produce sufficient "toxins" to wipe out human life. Why? Because human population may be in the accelerating growth phase and there's no obvious mechanism to remove toxins. For global warming enthusiasts CO2 would be prominent among the toxins.
Throughout much of our history, human population and its toxin-producing activities remained low, and did not pose a treat to human survival or the ability of Earth to regenerate itself. Thus, one might legitimately ask: Have we now reached the plateau point and, unless something can be done to regenerate our closed system, will we will soon enter the decline/death phase?
One problem with answering this question relates to the fact that our closed system is quite large, and an argument can be made that human toxins amount to only a small proportion of the overall system. For instance, cogent postulates or hypotheses can be made that, with respect to the ostensible or proposed (take your pick) increasing production of atmospheric CO2, the amounts are too small in comparison to amounts of non-human produced CO2. Thus, the entire issue may be massively overblown.
The bottom line, however, remains: We live in a closed system in which we necessarily reduce the concentration of resources and increase the concentration of materials with a deleterious impact on life. At some point, therefore, human population may indeed mimic the results of the bacterial closed flask experiment. When? I don't know but I think When is a better question than If.
I am a technological optimist and advocate; therefore, I believe (but cannot prove) that we can manage and even reverse the situation, if we're smart and apply ourselves productively as opposed to rushing headlong into a panicked irrational response. Such an irrational response might not be simply non-productive but could well be deleterious and exacerbate the situation.
More to come.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Economy Ruminations
I enjoy reading the continuing conservative and liberal commentaries relating the Great Depression of the 1930's to our Great Repression today. One aspect of my enjoyment relates to how each side selectively presents data to buttress its positions.
Some ruminations:
I fail to understand why former President Clinton bears any blame whatsoever for the present economic mess, as vigorously promoted by some conservative commentators. (Yes, his sexual morals demand opprobrium that should lead to guild and then to repentance.)
Admittedly, the Clinton Administration passed the legislation encouraging/forcing banks and other lending institutions to write home mortgages for people who didn't, or only marginally, qualify under more traditional criteria. I am confident that some loan officers inappropriately pushed these loans on the applicants, in effect encouraging them to purchase homes with values beyond the reach of the applicants to pay. The decision to accept the mortgages nevertheless was solely the applicants' responsibilities. The situation is much like an overweight person's decision to continue eating to excess: No one makes the overeating persons put food in their mouths. We have free will but with it comes responsibility.
Furthermore, if my conservative brothers and sisters believe this Clinton program was inappropriate, why didn't we hear from them during the succeeding eight years of the George W. Bush administration? Even if countervailing legislation proposed by the conservatives had not passed through Congress, the Bush Administration still had the bully pulpit and could have tried to mobilize public opinion. At least my conservative brothers and sisters would have been firmly on the record as opposing this "inappropriate" misguidance of mortgage policy rather sounding like a bunch of retrospective blame shifters.
What is the real reason there was no countervailing legislation during the GWB administration? I suspect politics of the most callous type: (1) The program was popular with a broad segment of the population, including normally conservative people at the lending institutions eager to profit from the situation and the conservatives didn't wish to antagonize these new homeowners, and (2) The conservatives properly realized that, as liberal leaning voters become property owners saddled with mortgages and other homeowner responsibilities, these liberal leaning new homeowners tend to become more conservative and vote Republican.
My liberal brothers and sisters in the Democratic Party once again have become confused about economic reality and "good works" with the so-called stimulus bill. (Actually, I like the term "Prokulus" bill that one conservative brother applied to the legislation." As I will argue in a subsequent post, the application of Keynesian economic theory - increased governmental spending including deficits - actually blunted the effects of the Great Depression of the 1930's and other recessions prior to this one. The stimulus bill, if "pure", would have been expected to do the same for this Great Recession. (There's no need to try to "educate" me on this point until after my next post.)
What did the Democratic Liberals do that has jeopardized the clean application of Keynesian economics? The Democrats loaded up the stimulus bill with an inordinate amount of "good works" projects. Now, don't get me wrong. Some (a few, many, most - take your pick) of these "good works" have arguable merit and should be funded. The problem is that the funds for these non-stimulatory "good works" were included in the stimulus bill rather than having been debated as separate funding authorizations. Shame on the Democrats in Congress and shame on President Obama for allowing this perversion.
I very much enjoy the Republican bluster about President Obama's forthcoming budget in which he proposes to restore taxation on individuals making more than $200,000, about 1 % of all taxpayers, I believe. President G W Bush's administration essentially wiped out, or massively reduced, the tax burden these affluent persons payed in an attempt to apply "trickle-down" economic theory. That is, these individuals, relieved of their tax burden, would subsequently and quite naturally use their increased funds for investments that would stimulate the economy.
Unfortunately, the GW Bush administration not only failed to reduce governmental spending but increased it and incurred massive deficits. Let us look at the data: A significant budgetary surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration, a humongous mutli-trillion dollar deficit at the end of the GW Administration. The data are irrefutable. Clearly, "trickle-down" economics don't work without accompanying reductions in budgetary spending.
Don't posit the War on Terrorism (for lack of a better term, and which includes the Iraq, Afghanistan, and other worldwide conflicts as the reason for the deficits because the costs involve only about 10% of the deficits of the GW Bush years.)
As a penultimate comment before I have my afternoon cocktail: Would someone please explain to me why the interest we pay on the national debt (about 1 in 10 taxpayer dollars at the present time) is not equivalent to paying increased taxes to keep the budget in equilibrium?)
Finally, I hope that my conservative and liberal brothers and sisters (including myself) will remember Einstein's dictum: Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I feel the need for the euphoric effect of, at least, 3 oz of sour mash.
Blessings to all.
Some ruminations:
I fail to understand why former President Clinton bears any blame whatsoever for the present economic mess, as vigorously promoted by some conservative commentators. (Yes, his sexual morals demand opprobrium that should lead to guild and then to repentance.)
Admittedly, the Clinton Administration passed the legislation encouraging/forcing banks and other lending institutions to write home mortgages for people who didn't, or only marginally, qualify under more traditional criteria. I am confident that some loan officers inappropriately pushed these loans on the applicants, in effect encouraging them to purchase homes with values beyond the reach of the applicants to pay. The decision to accept the mortgages nevertheless was solely the applicants' responsibilities. The situation is much like an overweight person's decision to continue eating to excess: No one makes the overeating persons put food in their mouths. We have free will but with it comes responsibility.
Furthermore, if my conservative brothers and sisters believe this Clinton program was inappropriate, why didn't we hear from them during the succeeding eight years of the George W. Bush administration? Even if countervailing legislation proposed by the conservatives had not passed through Congress, the Bush Administration still had the bully pulpit and could have tried to mobilize public opinion. At least my conservative brothers and sisters would have been firmly on the record as opposing this "inappropriate" misguidance of mortgage policy rather sounding like a bunch of retrospective blame shifters.
What is the real reason there was no countervailing legislation during the GWB administration? I suspect politics of the most callous type: (1) The program was popular with a broad segment of the population, including normally conservative people at the lending institutions eager to profit from the situation and the conservatives didn't wish to antagonize these new homeowners, and (2) The conservatives properly realized that, as liberal leaning voters become property owners saddled with mortgages and other homeowner responsibilities, these liberal leaning new homeowners tend to become more conservative and vote Republican.
My liberal brothers and sisters in the Democratic Party once again have become confused about economic reality and "good works" with the so-called stimulus bill. (Actually, I like the term "Prokulus" bill that one conservative brother applied to the legislation." As I will argue in a subsequent post, the application of Keynesian economic theory - increased governmental spending including deficits - actually blunted the effects of the Great Depression of the 1930's and other recessions prior to this one. The stimulus bill, if "pure", would have been expected to do the same for this Great Recession. (There's no need to try to "educate" me on this point until after my next post.)
What did the Democratic Liberals do that has jeopardized the clean application of Keynesian economics? The Democrats loaded up the stimulus bill with an inordinate amount of "good works" projects. Now, don't get me wrong. Some (a few, many, most - take your pick) of these "good works" have arguable merit and should be funded. The problem is that the funds for these non-stimulatory "good works" were included in the stimulus bill rather than having been debated as separate funding authorizations. Shame on the Democrats in Congress and shame on President Obama for allowing this perversion.
I very much enjoy the Republican bluster about President Obama's forthcoming budget in which he proposes to restore taxation on individuals making more than $200,000, about 1 % of all taxpayers, I believe. President G W Bush's administration essentially wiped out, or massively reduced, the tax burden these affluent persons payed in an attempt to apply "trickle-down" economic theory. That is, these individuals, relieved of their tax burden, would subsequently and quite naturally use their increased funds for investments that would stimulate the economy.
Unfortunately, the GW Bush administration not only failed to reduce governmental spending but increased it and incurred massive deficits. Let us look at the data: A significant budgetary surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration, a humongous mutli-trillion dollar deficit at the end of the GW Administration. The data are irrefutable. Clearly, "trickle-down" economics don't work without accompanying reductions in budgetary spending.
Don't posit the War on Terrorism (for lack of a better term, and which includes the Iraq, Afghanistan, and other worldwide conflicts as the reason for the deficits because the costs involve only about 10% of the deficits of the GW Bush years.)
As a penultimate comment before I have my afternoon cocktail: Would someone please explain to me why the interest we pay on the national debt (about 1 in 10 taxpayer dollars at the present time) is not equivalent to paying increased taxes to keep the budget in equilibrium?)
Finally, I hope that my conservative and liberal brothers and sisters (including myself) will remember Einstein's dictum: Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I feel the need for the euphoric effect of, at least, 3 oz of sour mash.
Blessings to all.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wonderful Worship Experience
We had a wonderful worship experience today at Georgetown First United Church. The chancel choir performed two special numbers and the large hand bell choir played a moving piece. As usual, the sermon was outstanding and the fellowship awesome. The highlight of the service, however, was the baptism of a young father and his small daughter.
The wife and mother, obviously pregnant with her second child, was baptized and joined the church last year while her husband served in Iraq. Now that he's back, the husband/father wanted to join the church. The couple tried to hold their willful and inquisitive young daughter throughout the two baptisms. Things went rather well for the father's ceremony, despite the daughter's activity. When the time came for the daughter's baptism, she fussed and squirmed to get out of her parents' arms. Finally, the parents allowed the little girl to stand on the floor in front of the baptismal font and she behaved very well. The minister realized that the child would pitch a hissey-fit if anyone tried to pick her up for the ceremony.
The minister announced, "Alright, we'll do it her way," and he and the assistant minister knelt on the floor at the child's level and performed the ceremony, which the little girl tolerated quite well. The parents remained standing, probably in a state of high anxiety. Once the post-baptismal prayer was completed, the minister said, "Let's see if she'll let us show her to the congregation." He put the child in his arms without her protesting and carried her up and down the isles of the sanctuary, all the time gently bouncing her up, down, and from side to side. The little girl obviously enjoyed the experience.
After the service, Andrea remarked how the episode illustrated the openness of this congregation and ministerial staff. I thought the same and, also, that the experience provided a modern day example of how Jesus reaches out to people in their particular circumstances to give his listeners precisely what they need to hear in order to come into the Kingdom of God.
I'm thinking specifically about the post-Resurrection experience of Thomas. Many people erroneously believe this episode teaches us not to doubt, i.e., not to be "Doubting Thomases". I think the meaning is much deeper. Jesus provided Thomas with exactly what Thomas needed in order to accept the Resurrection of his Lord and Savior. So what if Thomas acted like an early day scientist by insisting upon hard data? That's what Jesus provided. At least Thomas did actually put his fingers in Jesus' wounds but I suspect Thomas clearly saw them.
Wonderful day!
Blessings to all.
The wife and mother, obviously pregnant with her second child, was baptized and joined the church last year while her husband served in Iraq. Now that he's back, the husband/father wanted to join the church. The couple tried to hold their willful and inquisitive young daughter throughout the two baptisms. Things went rather well for the father's ceremony, despite the daughter's activity. When the time came for the daughter's baptism, she fussed and squirmed to get out of her parents' arms. Finally, the parents allowed the little girl to stand on the floor in front of the baptismal font and she behaved very well. The minister realized that the child would pitch a hissey-fit if anyone tried to pick her up for the ceremony.
The minister announced, "Alright, we'll do it her way," and he and the assistant minister knelt on the floor at the child's level and performed the ceremony, which the little girl tolerated quite well. The parents remained standing, probably in a state of high anxiety. Once the post-baptismal prayer was completed, the minister said, "Let's see if she'll let us show her to the congregation." He put the child in his arms without her protesting and carried her up and down the isles of the sanctuary, all the time gently bouncing her up, down, and from side to side. The little girl obviously enjoyed the experience.
After the service, Andrea remarked how the episode illustrated the openness of this congregation and ministerial staff. I thought the same and, also, that the experience provided a modern day example of how Jesus reaches out to people in their particular circumstances to give his listeners precisely what they need to hear in order to come into the Kingdom of God.
I'm thinking specifically about the post-Resurrection experience of Thomas. Many people erroneously believe this episode teaches us not to doubt, i.e., not to be "Doubting Thomases". I think the meaning is much deeper. Jesus provided Thomas with exactly what Thomas needed in order to accept the Resurrection of his Lord and Savior. So what if Thomas acted like an early day scientist by insisting upon hard data? That's what Jesus provided. At least Thomas did actually put his fingers in Jesus' wounds but I suspect Thomas clearly saw them.
Wonderful day!
Blessings to all.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Second Post of the day: Stimulus Ruminations
One aspect of current reality demonstrates that we now have a massive "stimulus" bill ready for President Obama's signiture. That is, we have a purported (pejorative, ostensible, claimed, idiotic, rational - choose your descriptor) economic stimulus ready to be applied, whether or not we agree with the concept and its execution.
We could argue that our economy would "ultimately" recover without the stimulus bill or at least with a massively reduced one. Politics derived from the sentiment of the population, however, mandates that something be done. I only hope that we're not in an economic "death spiral" that will lead to a "crash and burn" outcome.
I am aware of the controversy about whether or not President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal spending actually lead to economic recovery. I'll comment on this issue with a later posting. The interpretation depends upon the data used and time at which the data relate.
Neither conservative nor liberal members of Congress or, as well, a large number of "talking heads" and economic "experts" distinguished themselves in constructing and passing this massive bill.
My liberal brothers and sisters clearly put too many spending measures in the bill, measures that may promote worthy outcomes and programs but are difficult to link to the desired economic stimulus. We observed the usual liberal Democratic fixation with social goals. To a large extent, I define these spending programs as forced charitable strictures. (More about this concept later.)
My conservative brothers and sisters had an overwrought focus on reducing taxes, in my opinion related to the wrong socioeconomic classes. The conservative Republican fixation on cutting taxes on persons with high incomes to produce a "trickle-down" effect to stimulate the economy clearly did not work during the eight years of President George W. Bush's tenure. Yes, I know the theory (more an hypothesis than a theory) sounds good but, come on, the deficit was $5 trillion dollars at the beginning of President Bush's administration and $10 trillion at the end. Why? Because my conservative brothers and sisters in Congress and the administration didn't control, much less cut, budgetary spending along with the tax cuts. Also, don't raise the issue of costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These expenses accounted for a relatively small part of our GDP and annual budgets. (I'm not talking about the entire defense budget, only the expenses directly related to the two wars.)
In view of my earlier posting today, I'm not so much interested in assigning blame to individuals for economic mess as I am in exploring the past in order to "fix" things in the future. Therefore, the following is not blame-assignment as much as a lesson: If my conservative brothers and sisters believe the bulk of the spending in President Bush's administration resulted from liberal Democratic "budget-busting", we must ask - "How many budget bills did President Bush veto?" I can recall only one. Yes, the Democratic legislative majorities might have overridden all of President Bush's vetoes but he had the "bully pulpit" and could have attempted to influence public opinion and, thereby, legislative outcomes. The lesson for the future relates to Presidents using the "bully pulpit". Now, regardless of whether or not we agree with President Obama, he is using the "bully pulpit".
A significant part of our economic problems derives from a system of taxation that has outlived its usefulness in the 21st Century. As an hypothesis, a progressive income-basis for taxation might be relevant provided: (1) There are no exceptions/exemptions whatsoever, except for issues directly related to our national defense, (2) spending must be rigorously controlled.
As a relevant aside, I will comment on "wealth redistribution", a criticism against President Obama leveled by my conservative brothers and sisters. Let's get real. Anyone who has ever owned a home, especially one financed through a mortgage, participates in "wealth redistribution" through significant tax breaks. We may ague that a budget is too high or too low but once passed, the money to pay for that budget must come from taxpayers. Home owners, through their various deductions/credits/etc., force other segments of taxpayers to make up the difference lost to the IRS. That, my brothers and sisters, is "wealth redistribution" on a grand scale. Widespread home ownership may be a laudable goal (which can be argued, however) but the owners should pay, not other segments of the tax paying population. The same thing goes for so-called "corporate welfare".
I think the present income tax system has been corrupted beyond "fixing". The time has come for serious consideration of a modified system that might incorporate elements of a national sales tax and a flat rate income tax. I candidly admit that a sales tax in our current economic situation would not generate the requisite income; however, budgets could be cut and we could engage in the Keynesian approach of running manageable deficits leading to spending stimuli on the economy, at which time growth/re-growth could generate funds to reduce the deficit and balance budgets.
With respect to budgets (national, state, local), I object to what I've termed, "forced charity". Much of our social spending may be for worthy causes such as health care for the indigent, distribution of vaccines, unemployment insurance, etc. What I object to is being forced to participate in these programs. I believe the bulk of our "charitable endeavors" should come through the Community of Believers, not governmental taxation. (And by the way, I think churches/religious organizations should receive no taxation exemptions.)
I firmly agree that some programs can best be managed and the benefits distributed through appropriate governmental action. Nevertheless, we should be careful about this process.
Again, perseverantia usque ad finem – perseverance to the end
We could argue that our economy would "ultimately" recover without the stimulus bill or at least with a massively reduced one. Politics derived from the sentiment of the population, however, mandates that something be done. I only hope that we're not in an economic "death spiral" that will lead to a "crash and burn" outcome.
I am aware of the controversy about whether or not President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal spending actually lead to economic recovery. I'll comment on this issue with a later posting. The interpretation depends upon the data used and time at which the data relate.
Neither conservative nor liberal members of Congress or, as well, a large number of "talking heads" and economic "experts" distinguished themselves in constructing and passing this massive bill.
My liberal brothers and sisters clearly put too many spending measures in the bill, measures that may promote worthy outcomes and programs but are difficult to link to the desired economic stimulus. We observed the usual liberal Democratic fixation with social goals. To a large extent, I define these spending programs as forced charitable strictures. (More about this concept later.)
My conservative brothers and sisters had an overwrought focus on reducing taxes, in my opinion related to the wrong socioeconomic classes. The conservative Republican fixation on cutting taxes on persons with high incomes to produce a "trickle-down" effect to stimulate the economy clearly did not work during the eight years of President George W. Bush's tenure. Yes, I know the theory (more an hypothesis than a theory) sounds good but, come on, the deficit was $5 trillion dollars at the beginning of President Bush's administration and $10 trillion at the end. Why? Because my conservative brothers and sisters in Congress and the administration didn't control, much less cut, budgetary spending along with the tax cuts. Also, don't raise the issue of costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These expenses accounted for a relatively small part of our GDP and annual budgets. (I'm not talking about the entire defense budget, only the expenses directly related to the two wars.)
In view of my earlier posting today, I'm not so much interested in assigning blame to individuals for economic mess as I am in exploring the past in order to "fix" things in the future. Therefore, the following is not blame-assignment as much as a lesson: If my conservative brothers and sisters believe the bulk of the spending in President Bush's administration resulted from liberal Democratic "budget-busting", we must ask - "How many budget bills did President Bush veto?" I can recall only one. Yes, the Democratic legislative majorities might have overridden all of President Bush's vetoes but he had the "bully pulpit" and could have attempted to influence public opinion and, thereby, legislative outcomes. The lesson for the future relates to Presidents using the "bully pulpit". Now, regardless of whether or not we agree with President Obama, he is using the "bully pulpit".
A significant part of our economic problems derives from a system of taxation that has outlived its usefulness in the 21st Century. As an hypothesis, a progressive income-basis for taxation might be relevant provided: (1) There are no exceptions/exemptions whatsoever, except for issues directly related to our national defense, (2) spending must be rigorously controlled.
As a relevant aside, I will comment on "wealth redistribution", a criticism against President Obama leveled by my conservative brothers and sisters. Let's get real. Anyone who has ever owned a home, especially one financed through a mortgage, participates in "wealth redistribution" through significant tax breaks. We may ague that a budget is too high or too low but once passed, the money to pay for that budget must come from taxpayers. Home owners, through their various deductions/credits/etc., force other segments of taxpayers to make up the difference lost to the IRS. That, my brothers and sisters, is "wealth redistribution" on a grand scale. Widespread home ownership may be a laudable goal (which can be argued, however) but the owners should pay, not other segments of the tax paying population. The same thing goes for so-called "corporate welfare".
I think the present income tax system has been corrupted beyond "fixing". The time has come for serious consideration of a modified system that might incorporate elements of a national sales tax and a flat rate income tax. I candidly admit that a sales tax in our current economic situation would not generate the requisite income; however, budgets could be cut and we could engage in the Keynesian approach of running manageable deficits leading to spending stimuli on the economy, at which time growth/re-growth could generate funds to reduce the deficit and balance budgets.
With respect to budgets (national, state, local), I object to what I've termed, "forced charity". Much of our social spending may be for worthy causes such as health care for the indigent, distribution of vaccines, unemployment insurance, etc. What I object to is being forced to participate in these programs. I believe the bulk of our "charitable endeavors" should come through the Community of Believers, not governmental taxation. (And by the way, I think churches/religious organizations should receive no taxation exemptions.)
I firmly agree that some programs can best be managed and the benefits distributed through appropriate governmental action. Nevertheless, we should be careful about this process.
Again, perseverantia usque ad finem – perseverance to the end
President Bush and President Obama
I have detected a similarity or an analogy between former President George W. Bush and President Obama.
Many, if not most, of my liberal friends had, or still have, a disturbing tendency to define President Bush as an uneducated, unintelligent good ol’ boy from Texas. I suspect that much of this criticism or even downright hostility resulted from the fact that President Bush does not speak well in public unless he closely follows a prepared script. That is, he does not appear to have great verbal skills, certainly not to the extent that many academics expect or want in our leaders. The model for these academics appears to be Mr. Tony Blair and other politicians who grew up in the UK parliamentary system that highly values verbal skills, the sharp give and take of debates. This lack of verbal ability coupled with President Bush’s titular conservatism resulted in many liberals calling him an idiot.
I usually respond to this unfair description in the following fashion: President Bush’s admittance to Yale University may have resulted primarily from his “patrician” or East Coast family background and Yale family heritage. I doubt, however, he would have received a “heritage” pass on his grades. He did graduate from Yale, albeit not with the most distinguished academic record. I fail to understand that he would have been admitted to Harvard Business School as a “heritage” student, and he did earn an MBA from that illustrious institution. Again, to think the faculty would have given him an unearned pass defies reality. Finally, an unintelligent person does not learn to fly a high performance fighter jet fighter – and live. This blog entry is not the forum to discuss whether or not President Bush faithfully fulfilled his military obligations to the Air Force in response to his training and commission.
My criticism of President Bush’s intellectual abilities focus on two aspects: He is intellectually incurious and, and with respect to his advisers/top members of his administration, he placed a higher premium on personal loyalty to him and his family than on competence and a realistic view of history relating to current events.
Now to President Obama. Many, if not most, of my conservative friends define President Obama as an “empty suit”, a creation of the purported liberal media. That is, President Obama supposedly does not have a great intellectual capacity or his purported policies arise from a deficient and non-intellectual view of history and current reality.
My response to these assertions is as follows: The future President Obama graduated from Columbia University, which many people would consider on a par with Yale University. He earned a law degree from a prestigious law school, Harvard. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Neither of these higher-level academic institutions would have given the future President Obama a race-related free “pass”. Accordingly, President Obama must be considered intellectually capable to a high degree and not an “empty suit”, leaving aside for the purposes of this post any comments about the claimed idiocy of his purported liberal agenda. Furthermore, suppose President Obama is a “creature of the media”. >If so, he demonstrated considerable smarts in manipulating the media to support him, keeping in mind the dearth of his previous legislative accomplishments in Illinois and in the US Senate. I suspect he saw his moment and seized it.
My conservative brothers and sisters should realize that the primary operating principle of the media, even the ostensible liberal segments, is disbelief in what is put before them. That is, even today, most of the media are reasonably rational skeptics, although often approaching issues from different perspectives. (To see this point, look at the panel debates on CNN, FOX, and PBS.)
If conservatives believe President Obama’s liberal and socialistic agenda will “destroy” our free enterprise system and this country as we know it, then my conservative brothers and sisters should really be concerned because we have a truly smart and manipulative person leading this country to damnation. That is, conservatives should not consider President Obama to be a trivial force.
I think my conservative brothers and sisters will have the same degree of success in pushing the claim of an “empty suit” and liberal destroyer of this great country for President Obama as did my liberal brothers and sisters with their claim that President Bush is an idiot whose conservative principles could have led/did lead to the economic and moral destruction of our country.
Liberals and conservatives, as is appropriate, are engaged in a contest for the soul and future of this country; however, we should be clear about the terms of engagement. As my liberal brothers and sisters under estimated President Bush, my conservative brothers and sisters should neither under nor over estimate President Obama. Finally, I suggest all parties to the current contest focus on presenting reasoned proposals, not character invectives and endless discussions about the past.
George Santayana did say that those of us who do not learn from the mistakes of the past will repeat the errors of the past. And, yes, Einstein did say that insanity consists of doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result. But, assigning blame for past mistakes has less value than proposals to correct past mistakes and move the country forward.
Perseverantia usque ad finem – Perseverance to the end
Many, if not most, of my liberal friends had, or still have, a disturbing tendency to define President Bush as an uneducated, unintelligent good ol’ boy from Texas. I suspect that much of this criticism or even downright hostility resulted from the fact that President Bush does not speak well in public unless he closely follows a prepared script. That is, he does not appear to have great verbal skills, certainly not to the extent that many academics expect or want in our leaders. The model for these academics appears to be Mr. Tony Blair and other politicians who grew up in the UK parliamentary system that highly values verbal skills, the sharp give and take of debates. This lack of verbal ability coupled with President Bush’s titular conservatism resulted in many liberals calling him an idiot.
I usually respond to this unfair description in the following fashion: President Bush’s admittance to Yale University may have resulted primarily from his “patrician” or East Coast family background and Yale family heritage. I doubt, however, he would have received a “heritage” pass on his grades. He did graduate from Yale, albeit not with the most distinguished academic record. I fail to understand that he would have been admitted to Harvard Business School as a “heritage” student, and he did earn an MBA from that illustrious institution. Again, to think the faculty would have given him an unearned pass defies reality. Finally, an unintelligent person does not learn to fly a high performance fighter jet fighter – and live. This blog entry is not the forum to discuss whether or not President Bush faithfully fulfilled his military obligations to the Air Force in response to his training and commission.
My criticism of President Bush’s intellectual abilities focus on two aspects: He is intellectually incurious and, and with respect to his advisers/top members of his administration, he placed a higher premium on personal loyalty to him and his family than on competence and a realistic view of history relating to current events.
Now to President Obama. Many, if not most, of my conservative friends define President Obama as an “empty suit”, a creation of the purported liberal media. That is, President Obama supposedly does not have a great intellectual capacity or his purported policies arise from a deficient and non-intellectual view of history and current reality.
My response to these assertions is as follows: The future President Obama graduated from Columbia University, which many people would consider on a par with Yale University. He earned a law degree from a prestigious law school, Harvard. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Neither of these higher-level academic institutions would have given the future President Obama a race-related free “pass”. Accordingly, President Obama must be considered intellectually capable to a high degree and not an “empty suit”, leaving aside for the purposes of this post any comments about the claimed idiocy of his purported liberal agenda. Furthermore, suppose President Obama is a “creature of the media”. >If so, he demonstrated considerable smarts in manipulating the media to support him, keeping in mind the dearth of his previous legislative accomplishments in Illinois and in the US Senate. I suspect he saw his moment and seized it.
My conservative brothers and sisters should realize that the primary operating principle of the media, even the ostensible liberal segments, is disbelief in what is put before them. That is, even today, most of the media are reasonably rational skeptics, although often approaching issues from different perspectives. (To see this point, look at the panel debates on CNN, FOX, and PBS.)
If conservatives believe President Obama’s liberal and socialistic agenda will “destroy” our free enterprise system and this country as we know it, then my conservative brothers and sisters should really be concerned because we have a truly smart and manipulative person leading this country to damnation. That is, conservatives should not consider President Obama to be a trivial force.
I think my conservative brothers and sisters will have the same degree of success in pushing the claim of an “empty suit” and liberal destroyer of this great country for President Obama as did my liberal brothers and sisters with their claim that President Bush is an idiot whose conservative principles could have led/did lead to the economic and moral destruction of our country.
Liberals and conservatives, as is appropriate, are engaged in a contest for the soul and future of this country; however, we should be clear about the terms of engagement. As my liberal brothers and sisters under estimated President Bush, my conservative brothers and sisters should neither under nor over estimate President Obama. Finally, I suggest all parties to the current contest focus on presenting reasoned proposals, not character invectives and endless discussions about the past.
George Santayana did say that those of us who do not learn from the mistakes of the past will repeat the errors of the past. And, yes, Einstein did say that insanity consists of doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result. But, assigning blame for past mistakes has less value than proposals to correct past mistakes and move the country forward.
Perseverantia usque ad finem – Perseverance to the end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
