Life. This is a word which carries within itself as many meanings and undertones as any word in our language. Philosophically, it refers to existence. Medically, it refers to the ability of the body to function. Politically, it means anti-abortion. Joyfully, it means one is free. Spiritually, it gives the promise of an eternity with The Creator. All of these ideas are wrapped into this one four letter word. Life.
Speaking of life, a woman who shaped the lives of many young people passed today. To those whose lives she influenced, she was a woman without equal. I cannot speak for most, as they have stories of their own to share, but I can speak for me... I can tell her story through my eyes. Life.
It was in my high school years when I first met her. You see, I had been an alto saxophone player in the school band program for six years or so and it wasn't until my junior year that I decided to follow in the tradition of my family and sing in the choir--that is, I decided at her urge. I was walking out of the band rehearsal room after school hours singing The Russian Sailor's Dance when I heard the click clack of high-heels trying to run behind me. When I turned to confront the commotion, there she stood looking at me. "Was that you singing just now?" "Yes, it was" She then suggested (and those of you who knew her know that when she suggested something, it wasn't a suggestion) I audition for choir next year. I did. Life.
The subsequent year brought more blessings than any person should be allowed to enjoy over an entire lifetime. Every second of my day I wished I could spend in her choir room. I was content to make copies, collate pages, dust, run to Sonic and get a Route 44 Diet Coke with Lime added, whatever she needed to have done. Why? Why was I content to spend my senior year as a lackey? She offered to all of us something very special. Life. Life that could only be experienced through the sacred connection of voice and music--the joint effort of the physical body and the spirit. Life.
Those of you who know me know that I am where I am today because of this woman. While my short and feeble attempt at a eulogy is lacking in respect the profound effect she had on my life and it's direction, I still feel like I owe it to her. Life.
I can't begin to recount all the amazing experiences we all shared with her in ToC--there are simply too many. But what sticks out the most to me was her insistance that we acknowledge God in group prayer and ask for his blessings before any performance. This was in public school. All the moments like this one really shaped how I view music and my relationship with God throught it. Life.
In her last years, the physical pain she lived daily was unbearable. Today, she finally lives without pain. And as we always talked about in her view of Heaven, she is now prepping the Angel Chorus for an eternity of Praise!
Rest well, Mama Cato. Our memories of you and our anticipation of our reunion and an eternity of singing and praising God with you will deeply drive us toward the final goal. May God Bless you!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Melchizedek, the High Priest-King of Salem (pre-Moses Jerusalem)
If you haven't yet, please read Hebrews 7... it's not long, but the author does a better job laying out the argument for two orders of priesthood and the difference between the two better than I can in this post. If you've read it already, fantastic. It's interesting to note how Christ derived his status as Priest not from a physical descendant obligation of Law (the house of Levi... Christ was obviously the "Lion of Judah") but rather from his indestructible Life (the Hebrews author aligns this to the order of Melchizedek). Note that the House of Levi, who offered sacrifices to cleanse themselves of their sins before they could offer sacrifices to cleanse others, is the same house (religious leaders of the day presumably were of Levi) that ultimately sent Jesus, the Lamb of God, to the "altar"... which cleansed everyone... is that the fulfillment of the Law? I never did understand exactly how Christ did "fulfill" the law.
Ok. After some wrestling with who this Melchizedek could be, I've decided that is less important than what he did for now (maybe later after we discover what he did we can reassess his identity). The most important feature about him is that when Abram's 380 servant army defeated the four kings of Mesopotamia, he ran into Melchizedek, King of Salem (which is apparently, King of Jerusalem). Melchizedek was a native Canaanite before Moses and God's command to destroy and kill everything in Canaan... moreover, he was the High Priest-King of Jerusalem before it was Jerusalem... just the King of Salem (Salem meaning Peace.... so High Priest and King of Peace?... Christ was the Prince of Peace.... hmmm... did Melchizedek hold higher authority than Christ?... well only God has that authority, right?). Anyway, the interesting thing is that when Abram met Melchizedek, Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe: 10% of all the spoils of the recent war... in return Melchizedek gave him... ... a blessing ... and ... bread and wine. What? That's right, bread and wine.
In modern terms, Melchizedek offered Abram communion and a blessing and received an offering of tithe. But wait... this is a number of generations before Moses... how is this possible?
What if... what if the "new covenant" is not new at all... from this, it seems that the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, the body and blood of Christ, were given to Abram before the law of Moses even came into existence (millennia before Christ's actual sacrifice). We know from the Hebrews passage that the Law made nothing perfect, instead all it served to do was point out our imperfections and (from Romans) our need for a Savior. This event in Genesis does more to prove the unchanging nature of God than any other passage of the Bible.
Now, who was Melchizedek?... does it destroy substitutional attonement to think of him as a preincarnate Jesus Christ (I've learned the theological term is "Christophany")? I'm not sure at this point... but the author of Hebrews says this man Melchizedek has not birth nor death... no mother or father... is he then God in flesh?... is it possible for God to be in flesh and not be Jesus Christ?... was it Jesus Christ?... or was this just a man outside of Abraham's seed who heard the calling of God? If that is true, then for those outside of Abraham's seed who heard the calling of God, was the Mosaic Law applicable, or were they to bypass all that and simply adhere to this "new covenant" of love which was not as "new" as it before seemed?
I'm afraid that this, as all good research does, has opened more doors than it has closed... but the treatise on God's nature that it has offered is one of the most valuable that I've experienced in a long time. Fascinating.
Ok. After some wrestling with who this Melchizedek could be, I've decided that is less important than what he did for now (maybe later after we discover what he did we can reassess his identity). The most important feature about him is that when Abram's 380 servant army defeated the four kings of Mesopotamia, he ran into Melchizedek, King of Salem (which is apparently, King of Jerusalem). Melchizedek was a native Canaanite before Moses and God's command to destroy and kill everything in Canaan... moreover, he was the High Priest-King of Jerusalem before it was Jerusalem... just the King of Salem (Salem meaning Peace.... so High Priest and King of Peace?... Christ was the Prince of Peace.... hmmm... did Melchizedek hold higher authority than Christ?... well only God has that authority, right?). Anyway, the interesting thing is that when Abram met Melchizedek, Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe: 10% of all the spoils of the recent war... in return Melchizedek gave him... ... a blessing ... and ... bread and wine. What? That's right, bread and wine.
In modern terms, Melchizedek offered Abram communion and a blessing and received an offering of tithe. But wait... this is a number of generations before Moses... how is this possible?
What if... what if the "new covenant" is not new at all... from this, it seems that the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, the body and blood of Christ, were given to Abram before the law of Moses even came into existence (millennia before Christ's actual sacrifice). We know from the Hebrews passage that the Law made nothing perfect, instead all it served to do was point out our imperfections and (from Romans) our need for a Savior. This event in Genesis does more to prove the unchanging nature of God than any other passage of the Bible.
Now, who was Melchizedek?... does it destroy substitutional attonement to think of him as a preincarnate Jesus Christ (I've learned the theological term is "Christophany")? I'm not sure at this point... but the author of Hebrews says this man Melchizedek has not birth nor death... no mother or father... is he then God in flesh?... is it possible for God to be in flesh and not be Jesus Christ?... was it Jesus Christ?... or was this just a man outside of Abraham's seed who heard the calling of God? If that is true, then for those outside of Abraham's seed who heard the calling of God, was the Mosaic Law applicable, or were they to bypass all that and simply adhere to this "new covenant" of love which was not as "new" as it before seemed?
I'm afraid that this, as all good research does, has opened more doors than it has closed... but the treatise on God's nature that it has offered is one of the most valuable that I've experienced in a long time. Fascinating.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
We want a King!
Israel was ruled by judges who interpreted a Written Law (written by God) for 400 years until Saul, the first King of Israel. The elders and judges, abiding by an authoritative written Law, it seems, was God's ideal form of government. Israel, decided differently: *the italics and bold are my emphasis*
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king." Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."
What is the moral? Maybe it's that elections have consequences?
I think more fascinating as a study of God's ideal is that the people of Israel, until this point, were a free people who lived within the confines of a written standard of law... a written law (the Law of Moses) upheld by judges and elders. In the new testament, we see a similar structure for ideal construction of a church.
We had a very similar set up in the original work of our US Constitution. We were to live very free lives while allowing judges and elders (congress) to make the important decisions regarding the law, the interpretation thereof, and stability of our nation. We were to choose those who we allowed to borrow power. However, over time, even with the blessings we had, our fathers chose "a King". With that King came all the woes Samuel fortold to the elders of Israel.
Admittedly, per our constitution, our government explicitly derives her sovereignty from the will of the people, not from the will of God. However, I NEED to clarify that our form of government was written for a "moral and religious" people, and that it is unfit for anyone but. That being said, with such people, the will of the people is a reflection of God's will (note: this is not who we are anymore, I fear).
Perhaps the broader message is that when we start thinking of our decisions as being better than God's (and not being an extension or reflections of God's will), we set ourselves up for less than what God desires for us--we get a King!
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king." Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."
What is the moral? Maybe it's that elections have consequences?
I think more fascinating as a study of God's ideal is that the people of Israel, until this point, were a free people who lived within the confines of a written standard of law... a written law (the Law of Moses) upheld by judges and elders. In the new testament, we see a similar structure for ideal construction of a church.
We had a very similar set up in the original work of our US Constitution. We were to live very free lives while allowing judges and elders (congress) to make the important decisions regarding the law, the interpretation thereof, and stability of our nation. We were to choose those who we allowed to borrow power. However, over time, even with the blessings we had, our fathers chose "a King". With that King came all the woes Samuel fortold to the elders of Israel.
Admittedly, per our constitution, our government explicitly derives her sovereignty from the will of the people, not from the will of God. However, I NEED to clarify that our form of government was written for a "moral and religious" people, and that it is unfit for anyone but. That being said, with such people, the will of the people is a reflection of God's will (note: this is not who we are anymore, I fear).
Perhaps the broader message is that when we start thinking of our decisions as being better than God's (and not being an extension or reflections of God's will), we set ourselves up for less than what God desires for us--we get a King!
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day
I had the privilege of singing today at a local Memorial Day event. Though the morning started off rainy a few people managed to show up to pay respects to our passed military veterans.
The event started with a few songs by the community band. With them, I sang the National Anthem and God Bless America. There were some prayers and some quick words of gratitude, in length, the whole event lasted maybe 45min-1hour. The most moving part though was when the Band played a medley of military hymns. The instructions to the Vets were to stand when you hear your song being played. And so it went. First out of the gate was the Air Force tune, followed by the Marine Corpse, then the Naval Hymn "Eternal Father, Strong to Save", finally, the Amry's song. More touching than the music itself, was the inherrant strength and pride in each tune that moved these often frail older veterans to do their best to stand up and represent their loyalties. When the Army's song was being played, I watch two men. The first was in a wheelchair. With the aid of his wife, he was able to stand the best he could. The second was sitting in a chair, and tried to stand. The emcee even went over to him and attempted to help him to his feet. When that didn't work, he simply remained seated. (I think I must be a softy) My eyes welled up and I felt as though I needed to go and help him stand. Sadly, I didn't. I could tell he wanted nothing more than to represent his Army by standing, he just wasn't able.
In that moment I looked around again, probably the oldest veterans in attendance served in the Korean War. I doubt anyone there was from WWII, every year we see fewer and fewer of these folks. And to me, that is a great loss because they are, in my mind, the greatest generation of Americans. The trials and injustices they overcame seemed insurmountable, yet, with grace, vigor, and humility they triumphed in the face of evil. Their evergrowing absence from this earth is a great loss to our future generations.
As we were leaving the cemetary, we decided to look around a bit. We noticed that this cemetary did not allow above ground headstones. I think that gave the place a more somber, less creepy, feel. We didn't walk far before we came across the Masonic Quarter of the cemetary. All the in-ground headstones bore the Masonic Emblem and in the center of the quarter was an above ground masonic monument that represented the three degrees of freemasonry as a foundation upon which the rest of the monument stood. At each of the three tiered levels were written "Eternal Apprentice", "Fellow Craft" and "Master Mason" appropriately. The main body had the emblems of different masonic branches all the way around, emblems such as the Eastern Star, the Shriners, etc. At the top of the monument sat a stone Bible open to Ecclesiastes 12:1, 7. The experienced sparked a quick conversation between Amanda and I regarding Freemasonry, I offered that those people who have a problem with Freemasonry are probably the same sort the take issue with Harry Potter.
Anyway, it is an interesting day and I am thankful for the services of our men and women in uniform, especially those who paid for freedom with their lives.
The event started with a few songs by the community band. With them, I sang the National Anthem and God Bless America. There were some prayers and some quick words of gratitude, in length, the whole event lasted maybe 45min-1hour. The most moving part though was when the Band played a medley of military hymns. The instructions to the Vets were to stand when you hear your song being played. And so it went. First out of the gate was the Air Force tune, followed by the Marine Corpse, then the Naval Hymn "Eternal Father, Strong to Save", finally, the Amry's song. More touching than the music itself, was the inherrant strength and pride in each tune that moved these often frail older veterans to do their best to stand up and represent their loyalties. When the Army's song was being played, I watch two men. The first was in a wheelchair. With the aid of his wife, he was able to stand the best he could. The second was sitting in a chair, and tried to stand. The emcee even went over to him and attempted to help him to his feet. When that didn't work, he simply remained seated. (I think I must be a softy) My eyes welled up and I felt as though I needed to go and help him stand. Sadly, I didn't. I could tell he wanted nothing more than to represent his Army by standing, he just wasn't able.
In that moment I looked around again, probably the oldest veterans in attendance served in the Korean War. I doubt anyone there was from WWII, every year we see fewer and fewer of these folks. And to me, that is a great loss because they are, in my mind, the greatest generation of Americans. The trials and injustices they overcame seemed insurmountable, yet, with grace, vigor, and humility they triumphed in the face of evil. Their evergrowing absence from this earth is a great loss to our future generations.
As we were leaving the cemetary, we decided to look around a bit. We noticed that this cemetary did not allow above ground headstones. I think that gave the place a more somber, less creepy, feel. We didn't walk far before we came across the Masonic Quarter of the cemetary. All the in-ground headstones bore the Masonic Emblem and in the center of the quarter was an above ground masonic monument that represented the three degrees of freemasonry as a foundation upon which the rest of the monument stood. At each of the three tiered levels were written "Eternal Apprentice", "Fellow Craft" and "Master Mason" appropriately. The main body had the emblems of different masonic branches all the way around, emblems such as the Eastern Star, the Shriners, etc. At the top of the monument sat a stone Bible open to Ecclesiastes 12:1, 7. The experienced sparked a quick conversation between Amanda and I regarding Freemasonry, I offered that those people who have a problem with Freemasonry are probably the same sort the take issue with Harry Potter.
Anyway, it is an interesting day and I am thankful for the services of our men and women in uniform, especially those who paid for freedom with their lives.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Giving
Amanda and I were volunteering our time today at the Monroe County Community Kitchen (the kitchen's goal is to provide free meals to anyone who would like to partake of its services). We quickly learned that husband and wife should be separated and not allowed to work together because they quickly become hypercritical of each other's decisions in how to prepare the meals. We had a good time :)
The interesting thing happened when I was cleaning up. I was wiping down the tables with bleach water when a gentleman came in. He had obviously walked to the location, and I assume he walked from Kroghetto (the 2nd street Kroger) which was probably 5 or 6 blocks away. He was wearing some unkempt clothing and was unshaven. If you had to picture what a man would look like after living out of his car for a week or two, he might look like this gentleman. He walked up to me carrying 2 plastic bags with food and handed me a box of storebought oatmeal raisin cookies and said "These are for you all, I made them myself" as he smiled and gave a light chuckle. I quickly realized they weren't for me personally but rather for the Community Kitchen. He added that he appreciated what the kitchen does for everyone.
Immediately I was reminded of the widow's mite and how the poor widow, owining next to nothing gave all she had to God's work. Jesus praised the woman and said that her gift, though far less than what others had given, was the largest gift because it was everything she had.
The most astonishing part of the moment wasn't the size of the gift, because honestly, in size, it wasn't much. Rather it was the thought. He obviously was thinking about the community and the kitchen and decided that he ought to give back something for the services he was being offered. But he didn't wait until it was time to pass the collection plate at the designated Offeratory time on Sunday morning, he took the opportunity at that moment to give what he could.
I don't think I need to say anything more about this, if you want to see how this ties into my views on charity, just scroll down and read some of those posts. But I clearly think this was an awesome demonstration of how human nature is fundamentally good and that if we, as a society, saw the need to help each other out, then even those of us with the least means would donate what they could to aid their fellow neighbors. We don't need federal intervention to provide for those in need.
The interesting thing happened when I was cleaning up. I was wiping down the tables with bleach water when a gentleman came in. He had obviously walked to the location, and I assume he walked from Kroghetto (the 2nd street Kroger) which was probably 5 or 6 blocks away. He was wearing some unkempt clothing and was unshaven. If you had to picture what a man would look like after living out of his car for a week or two, he might look like this gentleman. He walked up to me carrying 2 plastic bags with food and handed me a box of storebought oatmeal raisin cookies and said "These are for you all, I made them myself" as he smiled and gave a light chuckle. I quickly realized they weren't for me personally but rather for the Community Kitchen. He added that he appreciated what the kitchen does for everyone.
Immediately I was reminded of the widow's mite and how the poor widow, owining next to nothing gave all she had to God's work. Jesus praised the woman and said that her gift, though far less than what others had given, was the largest gift because it was everything she had.
The most astonishing part of the moment wasn't the size of the gift, because honestly, in size, it wasn't much. Rather it was the thought. He obviously was thinking about the community and the kitchen and decided that he ought to give back something for the services he was being offered. But he didn't wait until it was time to pass the collection plate at the designated Offeratory time on Sunday morning, he took the opportunity at that moment to give what he could.
I don't think I need to say anything more about this, if you want to see how this ties into my views on charity, just scroll down and read some of those posts. But I clearly think this was an awesome demonstration of how human nature is fundamentally good and that if we, as a society, saw the need to help each other out, then even those of us with the least means would donate what they could to aid their fellow neighbors. We don't need federal intervention to provide for those in need.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Crisis? and the nature of God
I think there is no denying that we are in some tough times right now, although the media often blows this way out of proportion. Yes, unemployment is on the rise, some very large companies are in some pretty bad shape, but this is NOT the great depression that the media would have you believe it is. Unemployment is not at 20%, a wheel-barrow money still purchases much much more than 1 loaf of bread, and Americans are NOT standing in soup lines.
However, this is a bit of a problem that could last for a long time depending on the spending choices of the administration, which up to this point have been anything but hopeful.
The problem, I think, is a problem of idolotry. As a people, who/what has become our god? Becaue of the pluralism of American culture, there are as many gods as there are people, but I think that largely, money or more specifically, Credit, has become our god. Now, I'm not enough of a historian to know when this all started, but I suspect that sometime after the Great Depression (after WWII), in a booming American economy, Credit became widely available to the masses. All the WWII boys coming home to thier sweethearts and wanting to build families had access to the new GI Bill which not only provided funds for education but also gave veterans access to loans to build new homes or start new businesses. Don't misunderstand, this really helped the returning vets and the good economic times made it possible to fund this (rightly or wrongly). But I wonder if this massive loaning system replaced conventional wisdom with social wisdom; that is, I wonder if it replaced debt-free life with credit-based life. I can't speak authoritatively on the issue, so I can only rely on personal experience with people of that generation and I must conclude that the WWII generation certainly did not live for debt. In fact, it was Grandfather's wisdom that warned against taking out loans for things and against the dangers of credit cards. So how did credit become such a big deal?
I suspect housing is the root. Here is a brief history of the government's involvement in housing borrowed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development:
--July 1947 - The Housing and Home Finance Agency established
--July 1949 - The Housing Act of 1949 is enacted to help eradicate slums and promote redevelopment
--September 1959 - The Housing Act of 1959 allows funds for elderly housing
--September 1965 - HUD is created as a cabinet level agency by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
--April 1968 - The Fair Housing Act is made to ban discrimination in housing
--August 1969 - The Brooke Amendment establishes that low income families only pay no more than 25 percent of their income for rent
--August 1974 - Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 allows community development block grants and help for urban homesteading
--October 1977 - The Housing and Community Act of 1977 sets up Urban Development Grants and continues elderly and handicapped assistance
--July 1987 - The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act gives help to communities to deal with homelessness
--February 1988 - The Housing and Community Development Act provides for the sale of public housing to resident management corporations
--October 1992 - The HOPE VI program starts to revitalise public housing and how it works
--October 1992 - The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 codifies within its language the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that creates the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and mandates HUD to set goals for lower income and underserved housing areas for the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
--March 1996 - The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act give public housing authorities the tools to screen out and evict residents who might endanger other existing residents due to substance abuse and criminal behavior
--October 1998 - Government laws are proposed which would allow local housing authorities to open up more public housing to the middle class
--November 2007 – HUD initiates program providing seller concessions to buyers of HUD homes, allowing them to use down payment of $100
Of course all of these are an enrochemnt upon the private market, but the one's I've put in bold have been, I think, the most damaging. Some of them gave the government too much control over private property but others dictated how much people will pay for housing! Especially terrible was the October 1992 entry of that set up the GSEs (Goverment-Subsidized Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and MANDATED these GSEs set goals as to what percentage of their loans (assets) should be signed to sub-prime candidates. With Loans and CREDIT so easy to obtain, housing prices inflated under an artificial bubble because of government involvement. The inflated housing prices opened the doors for lenders to give 2nd mortgages which allowed home-owners to borrow against the new equity that was growing into the houses through inflated prices.
So I'm not sure how it started, but this trying economic time is how it ended. I told you all this to hopefully prepare you for the idea that with all the credit all over the place, most of Americans would buy things with the idea of "how much will this cost me per month" instead of "what is the price". This mentality and misuse of money put us where we are. Consider this, if even 60% of Americans were debt-free, would we have ever been in this position? If we had not allowed Credit to become our god, would we be in this problem?
I haven't reconciled how God operates yet, but I often equate the Old Testament to rules for society, while the New Testament is the playbook for personal daily life. As such, the blessings and punishments for Israel were as true then as they are today. Often when I'm reading Kings or Chronicles, I try to equate God's reaction to Israel's leaders to our leaders. Is this punishment for worshipping at the altars of Bael? Or is this the natural consequence of our actions?
This brings me to a bigger conversation on the nature of God. Let me reiterate that I'm not sure yet, so allow me to postulate a bit. I've heard arguments that because of God's absolute holiness, he is incapable of doing Evil. If God told the Israelites to kill off all the Canaanites including women and children and animals, then how can God be holy? And then there is some difficulty in reconciling that with the idea that God plays a passive role in our lives and when bad things happen they are the consequences of our actions not an active punishment from God. But then how does God change from the Old to the New Testaments? How does He shift from the pnishing, just, jealous God to the God of Love, Peace, and Forgiveness? I wonder about this: what if Jesus, who sits at the right hand of God, is our counsel who constantly pleas on our behalf to the Supreme Judge of the Universe? God the Father is unchanging and punishes and rewards today as He did 5,000 years ago, while Jesus, our doorway to God the Father, is the buffer. It's almost like when a child does something wrong and dad wants to punish the child. Mom steps in, soothes dad's mood, and the child is forgiven and given a warning instead of a spanking. Is this possible? Could this be how God opperates within Himself?
But then, maybe this is problematic too. Maybe this assumes that God changes His mind. But I think it's possible for God to be persuaded. Why pray if He can't be persuaded? Didn't Lott prolong the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by asking God to spare the cities if 50...... 5 righteous people could be found therein? I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides.
However, this is a bit of a problem that could last for a long time depending on the spending choices of the administration, which up to this point have been anything but hopeful.
The problem, I think, is a problem of idolotry. As a people, who/what has become our god? Becaue of the pluralism of American culture, there are as many gods as there are people, but I think that largely, money or more specifically, Credit, has become our god. Now, I'm not enough of a historian to know when this all started, but I suspect that sometime after the Great Depression (after WWII), in a booming American economy, Credit became widely available to the masses. All the WWII boys coming home to thier sweethearts and wanting to build families had access to the new GI Bill which not only provided funds for education but also gave veterans access to loans to build new homes or start new businesses. Don't misunderstand, this really helped the returning vets and the good economic times made it possible to fund this (rightly or wrongly). But I wonder if this massive loaning system replaced conventional wisdom with social wisdom; that is, I wonder if it replaced debt-free life with credit-based life. I can't speak authoritatively on the issue, so I can only rely on personal experience with people of that generation and I must conclude that the WWII generation certainly did not live for debt. In fact, it was Grandfather's wisdom that warned against taking out loans for things and against the dangers of credit cards. So how did credit become such a big deal?
I suspect housing is the root. Here is a brief history of the government's involvement in housing borrowed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development:
--July 1947 - The Housing and Home Finance Agency established
--July 1949 - The Housing Act of 1949 is enacted to help eradicate slums and promote redevelopment
--September 1959 - The Housing Act of 1959 allows funds for elderly housing
--September 1965 - HUD is created as a cabinet level agency by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
--April 1968 - The Fair Housing Act is made to ban discrimination in housing
--August 1969 - The Brooke Amendment establishes that low income families only pay no more than 25 percent of their income for rent
--August 1974 - Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 allows community development block grants and help for urban homesteading
--October 1977 - The Housing and Community Act of 1977 sets up Urban Development Grants and continues elderly and handicapped assistance
--July 1987 - The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act gives help to communities to deal with homelessness
--February 1988 - The Housing and Community Development Act provides for the sale of public housing to resident management corporations
--October 1992 - The HOPE VI program starts to revitalise public housing and how it works
--October 1992 - The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 codifies within its language the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that creates the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and mandates HUD to set goals for lower income and underserved housing areas for the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
--March 1996 - The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act give public housing authorities the tools to screen out and evict residents who might endanger other existing residents due to substance abuse and criminal behavior
--October 1998 - Government laws are proposed which would allow local housing authorities to open up more public housing to the middle class
--November 2007 – HUD initiates program providing seller concessions to buyers of HUD homes, allowing them to use down payment of $100
Of course all of these are an enrochemnt upon the private market, but the one's I've put in bold have been, I think, the most damaging. Some of them gave the government too much control over private property but others dictated how much people will pay for housing! Especially terrible was the October 1992 entry of that set up the GSEs (Goverment-Subsidized Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and MANDATED these GSEs set goals as to what percentage of their loans (assets) should be signed to sub-prime candidates. With Loans and CREDIT so easy to obtain, housing prices inflated under an artificial bubble because of government involvement. The inflated housing prices opened the doors for lenders to give 2nd mortgages which allowed home-owners to borrow against the new equity that was growing into the houses through inflated prices.
So I'm not sure how it started, but this trying economic time is how it ended. I told you all this to hopefully prepare you for the idea that with all the credit all over the place, most of Americans would buy things with the idea of "how much will this cost me per month" instead of "what is the price". This mentality and misuse of money put us where we are. Consider this, if even 60% of Americans were debt-free, would we have ever been in this position? If we had not allowed Credit to become our god, would we be in this problem?
I haven't reconciled how God operates yet, but I often equate the Old Testament to rules for society, while the New Testament is the playbook for personal daily life. As such, the blessings and punishments for Israel were as true then as they are today. Often when I'm reading Kings or Chronicles, I try to equate God's reaction to Israel's leaders to our leaders. Is this punishment for worshipping at the altars of Bael? Or is this the natural consequence of our actions?
This brings me to a bigger conversation on the nature of God. Let me reiterate that I'm not sure yet, so allow me to postulate a bit. I've heard arguments that because of God's absolute holiness, he is incapable of doing Evil. If God told the Israelites to kill off all the Canaanites including women and children and animals, then how can God be holy? And then there is some difficulty in reconciling that with the idea that God plays a passive role in our lives and when bad things happen they are the consequences of our actions not an active punishment from God. But then how does God change from the Old to the New Testaments? How does He shift from the pnishing, just, jealous God to the God of Love, Peace, and Forgiveness? I wonder about this: what if Jesus, who sits at the right hand of God, is our counsel who constantly pleas on our behalf to the Supreme Judge of the Universe? God the Father is unchanging and punishes and rewards today as He did 5,000 years ago, while Jesus, our doorway to God the Father, is the buffer. It's almost like when a child does something wrong and dad wants to punish the child. Mom steps in, soothes dad's mood, and the child is forgiven and given a warning instead of a spanking. Is this possible? Could this be how God opperates within Himself?
But then, maybe this is problematic too. Maybe this assumes that God changes His mind. But I think it's possible for God to be persuaded. Why pray if He can't be persuaded? Didn't Lott prolong the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by asking God to spare the cities if 50...... 5 righteous people could be found therein? I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides.
Friday, May 1, 2009
America, the Christian Nation?
I have been reading a fascinating book: Founding Faith by Stephen Waldman. The book analyzes, very neutrally, the role of faith in Colonial America and its influence on the founding of our nation (I think later, it ties that faith and original intent into the "separation of Chruch and State" stuff).
It's interesting that while the colonies were escaping religion persecution from Europe, they were practicing their faiths very dogmatically. Government and Religion were inseparable, in fact, if you were a practicing Quaker in a Puritan Colony, you could be imprisoned, evicted from the Colony, or sentenced to death (think Salem Witch Trials... of course this was the extreme situation which, as we're taught in school, "always happens when you mix Church and State"). Religious Tolerance was non-existant until the mid 18th century; however, while the protestant Christian sects were becoming more tolerant of each other, there was still a great fear of the Catholic faith (or as they called it, Papism). Part of the reason for these settlers' departure from England was the growing influence of Catholicism in the Anglican Church.
When England, the Crown included, heard what was happening over here religiously, they decided it was time to Anglicanize the colonies because at least that way, the colonies wouldn't be killing each other over religion. This book suggests that perhaps more of the Revolution was about Religious freedom (anti-Anglicanism) than even about Taxes and government representation.
It wasn't until the revolution and George Washington that the effort was seriously made to unify all sects of Christianity under one common God (for obvious reasons). He seriously believed the successes of the Continental Army were purely based on their obedience to God and that their defeats were not due to "bad soldiering" (he knew there was plenty of that) but because of disobedience to God. In his most bitter moments, Washington despaired that he must surely rely on God because he wasn't going to be able to count on his poorly trained and occasionally mutinous army. "Providence has heretofore saved us in remarkable manner and on this we must principally rely." (pp. 70). Another quote from the book, Chapter 7: Holy War:
Given the tremendous debate in recent years over whether the Founders believed America was a "Christian Nation," it's worth noting that, at this particular moment, the Continental Congress seemed to view it that way. Most public declarations sipmly assumed a Christian audience and vocabulary. On November 1, 1777, representatives approved a resolution to celebrate December 18 as a time of thanksgiving and call for acts to "please God through merits of Jesus Christ" and to nourish "the means of religion, for the promotion of enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy ghost.' " (pp. 71)
There is no doubt our heritage is a Judeo-Christian one. So how did we get from there to where we are today?... I have my suspicions. I think that it has much to do with the growing influence of Darwin in the mid 19th century which blossomed into the Modern Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. Growing from his theories of evolution and survival of the fittest, a number of conclusions have been made. His theory does not only effect science, it effects world view and that effects every aspect of a person's life. I'm not quite ready to post about it yet, but stay tuned, sometime this summer (hopefully) I want to dive into Darwinism: The Political, Philosophical, Religious, and Moral Implications of an Evolutionist Worldview (hehe, that will be the title of the post). Anyway, I have a few more books to read before I'm ready to tackle that issue. For now, understand that while you may not consider the United States a Christian nation today, I assure you, our original intent was to be so.
It's interesting that while the colonies were escaping religion persecution from Europe, they were practicing their faiths very dogmatically. Government and Religion were inseparable, in fact, if you were a practicing Quaker in a Puritan Colony, you could be imprisoned, evicted from the Colony, or sentenced to death (think Salem Witch Trials... of course this was the extreme situation which, as we're taught in school, "always happens when you mix Church and State"). Religious Tolerance was non-existant until the mid 18th century; however, while the protestant Christian sects were becoming more tolerant of each other, there was still a great fear of the Catholic faith (or as they called it, Papism). Part of the reason for these settlers' departure from England was the growing influence of Catholicism in the Anglican Church.
When England, the Crown included, heard what was happening over here religiously, they decided it was time to Anglicanize the colonies because at least that way, the colonies wouldn't be killing each other over religion. This book suggests that perhaps more of the Revolution was about Religious freedom (anti-Anglicanism) than even about Taxes and government representation.
It wasn't until the revolution and George Washington that the effort was seriously made to unify all sects of Christianity under one common God (for obvious reasons). He seriously believed the successes of the Continental Army were purely based on their obedience to God and that their defeats were not due to "bad soldiering" (he knew there was plenty of that) but because of disobedience to God. In his most bitter moments, Washington despaired that he must surely rely on God because he wasn't going to be able to count on his poorly trained and occasionally mutinous army. "Providence has heretofore saved us in remarkable manner and on this we must principally rely." (pp. 70). Another quote from the book, Chapter 7: Holy War:
Given the tremendous debate in recent years over whether the Founders believed America was a "Christian Nation," it's worth noting that, at this particular moment, the Continental Congress seemed to view it that way. Most public declarations sipmly assumed a Christian audience and vocabulary. On November 1, 1777, representatives approved a resolution to celebrate December 18 as a time of thanksgiving and call for acts to "please God through merits of Jesus Christ" and to nourish "the means of religion, for the promotion of enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy ghost.' " (pp. 71)
There is no doubt our heritage is a Judeo-Christian one. So how did we get from there to where we are today?... I have my suspicions. I think that it has much to do with the growing influence of Darwin in the mid 19th century which blossomed into the Modern Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. Growing from his theories of evolution and survival of the fittest, a number of conclusions have been made. His theory does not only effect science, it effects world view and that effects every aspect of a person's life. I'm not quite ready to post about it yet, but stay tuned, sometime this summer (hopefully) I want to dive into Darwinism: The Political, Philosophical, Religious, and Moral Implications of an Evolutionist Worldview (hehe, that will be the title of the post). Anyway, I have a few more books to read before I'm ready to tackle that issue. For now, understand that while you may not consider the United States a Christian nation today, I assure you, our original intent was to be so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)