"Tyranny" is the vogue word for political and judicial outcomes that certain politicians and pundits oppose. We need to take a deep breath.
1. The pedigree of "tyranny".
"Sic semper tyrannis." ("So always to tyrants.") John Wilkes Booth shouted this as he leaped from the balcony in Ford's Theater after murdering probably the greatest man to occupy the office of the presidency.
"Tyrant" is a dangerous word. It can lodge in a fanatical mind and manifest itself in an explosion. In the recesses of our minds, we know what tyrants deserve and how to deal with them. From Caesar to Hitler, tyrants have been removed by blood and violence. But the fanatic cannot distinguish between the real tyrant and the tyrant of the imagination.
I don't know that Timothy McVeigh specifically spoke of "tyranny". But his thoughts walked in that way before he murdered 168 people, including 19 children, in Oklahoma City. A psychiatrist visited McVeigh on death row and described him as a decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1321244.stm
I question the "decent person" part of that, but certainly the part about rage building up rings true.
This is the immediate risk of talk of "tyranny".
2. The purpose of "tyranny".
I doubt that the persons who have in our time re-inserted "tyranny" into political vocabulary intend to incite violence, however much that might be the risk. Instead, I believe they intend to whip up white-hot fervor to drive their base to the polls, to gain political power. But the fact that the polling places of America are the solution to this "tyranny" strongly suggests that it is no tyranny at all.
"Tyranny" strongly connotes illegitimacy. That's why it is used -- to delegitimize a political outcome or judicial decision. So, passing healthcare legislation -- so that sick people don't die just because they are poor, so that the unisnured don't get free treatment that drives up insurance costs for the insured -- this is "tyranny". A judge striking down Proposition 8 -- the California proposition that outlawed gay marriage -- that is "tyranny". That is, these are not just outcomes that one can disagree with or even strongly oppose. They, being "tyranny", are entirely illegitimate.
3. The operation of democracy is not "tyranny".
But these are not tyranny. These are our political and judicial systems operating as intended. Obama won the presidency and Democrats won Congress. That permitted enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This happened after eight years of perceived Republican mis-rule. And elections have consequences. So healthcare reform became law. Also financial reform. And repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It is the political process doing what it was designed to do.
The Proposition 8 decision is the progeny of Marbury v Madison. Marbury is the two-hundred-year-old Supreme Court decision that declared that federal courts have authority to declare laws unconstitutional. Agree or disagree with Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Walker's authority to make this ruling is rock solid. Judge Walker was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Now, the Supreme Court will have the last word.
At any time in the last two-hundred years, Marbury v Madison could have been repealed by amending the Constitution. But that hasn't happened, because most people think it is appropriately the law of the land. Which means that, right or wrong, Judge Walker was just doing his job, calling Constitutional balls and strikes.
And all of these political and judicial outcomes have a political solution. After passage of health-care reform, Republicans took back the House of Representatives. In the next election, they might take back the presidency and the Senate. If this is tyranny, it is a peculiar kind of tyranny.
4. The dictionary definition of "tyranny".
The politicians and pundits who have laid claim to "tyranny" are like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. Humpty Dumpty defined words as he pleased: "When I use a word, . . . it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is which is to be master – that's all." Lest we be Humpty Dumpty, here is the dictionary definition of "tyranny". (Skip this if definitions bore you.)
"[T]yranny ... n. ... 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. 3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly. 4a. Use of absolute power.... b. A tyrannical act. 5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.)
Or: "2. Cruel or oppressive government or rule." (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th Edition.)
Russia under Putin has enacted a law that allows the state to impose fines on protesters that are equal to the yearly income of the ordinary Russian. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has rigorously undermined the economic independence of his opponents. These are tyranny. These fit the definitions. When politicians and pundits equate American political outcomes to these genuine examples of tyranny, they are like the princess who was unable to sleep on high-piled matresses, because of a pea underneath the matresses.
5. "Tyranny" claims are selective.
Claims of tyranny are selective. In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down the law that prohibited unlimited corporate spending to influence political campaigns. Americans overwhelmingly supported the stricken law. Sixty-five percent of Americans strongly supported it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
There were no cries of "tyranny" after Citizens United.
Nor were there cries of "tyranny" after America turned on the Iraq war, but still had to pay taxes to support it. Dick Cheney's one-word response to a question about America's opposition to the Iraq war was "So?"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4
These seem no less "tyrannical" than passing healthcare reform and Wall Street reform, or striking down Proposition 8.
6. "Tyranny" claims are toxic to democracy.
Democracy has a doubtful future if citizens come to believe that any political outcome that they disapprove is evidence of tyranny. People who say that say, in effect, that their political sensibilities are entitled to prevail not only when they win elections, but also when they lose elections. This is a fundamental refusal to acknowledge the democratic process and the importance of electoral outcomes. This attitude is fundamentally un-democratic.
I do not take for granted that democracy in America will survive. History shows times in our history of democracy at risk. President Wilson prosecuted and imprisoned labor leader Eugene V Debs for speaking against the draft during World War I. Huey Long ran Louisiana like a dictator; Franklin D Roosevelt feared that America would lose patience with the New Deal and turn to Long, who would rule America like he ruled Louisiana. Whether that would have happened is unknowable, because Long was assassinated.
Widespread belief in the "tyranny" of the outcomes of ordinary democratic and judicial processes produces fissures in our political bedrock. These fissures risk to crumble this bedrock in case of great crisis, collapsing the house that the Constitution built.
7. The solution: take a deep breath.
The solution is to stop. Just stop. But not only to stop, but to go the opposite direction. Nelson Mandela united a fractured South Africa by his extraordinary decency to the White minority.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22friedman.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman
We can use a little Nelson Mandela in American politics. And any American politician who acts in that way deserves our strong support and admiration.
Because we have heard it said from when we were toddlers: "United we stand, divided we fall." And, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We don't have to agree on all issues. We won't. No vibrant democracy has perfect consensus. But we can agree that it is illegitimate to delegitimize. We can agree that the political processes and judicial processes working the way they were meant to work is not "tyranny".
8. Democracy eats itself.
But let me carve out an exception to what I have said. Government is legitimate because it operates with the consent of the governed. When democratic processes are used to undermined that core principle of democracy, democracy undermines democracy.
In the name of eliminating a problem that largely does not exist -- voter fraud -- states are deliberately shrinking the voter pool. In the name of democracy, this bludgeoning of democracy must stop.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Gains Under Barack Obama
Barack Obama has a competent record that he can run on. Here are some examples.
1. Economics.
Europe doubled down on austerity as a way out of the on-going recession. Great Britain, under conservative Prime Minister Cameron, made itself a living laboratory for fiscal austerity. Great Britain u-turned into recession, and several European economies are now on the brink.
Contrast America. America, under Obama, spent money to prime the economy. Our economy improved. This meant people continued to work that would have lost their jobs. Many, many people.
We didn’t crash, which had been our trajectory and would have been our fate if we had followed Europe. The economy is slowing down, now. This coincides with the tapering off of the stimulus spending. But that’s the fault of Republicans in Congress, not Obama.
2. Health.
Babies born with serious illnesses were once un-insurable. Before the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare" to its detractors) parents of unhealthy babies had to watch their babies die; or (more likely) they had to take on a debt that drove them into bankruptcy. This deprived them of the small prosperity that they might have built for themselves in their young lives.
And who doesn’t know someone who has a pre-existing medical condition, if they don’t have one themselves? The Affordable Care Act makes insurance companies sell medical insurance to persons with pre-existing condition. This is the triumph of the Affordable Care Act.
And it is the reason for the insurance mandate that makes everyone have health insurance. Without the mandate, if anyone could get insurance, even with a pre-existing condition, people would wait until they got sick to buy insurance, knowing that they could not be turned down. Then insurance would be so expensive that it wouldn’t be insurance. The mandate keeps people from gaming the system to everybody's detriment.
So the insurance mandate is necessary, but it is unpopular. Without it, sick people would be un-insurable. Treatable illnesses would kill or bankrupt them. The Affordable Care Act compassionately ends that hard choice between insolvency and death.
3. Terrorism.
Osama bin Laden loathed America. He continued to scheme to murder Americans until the time of his death. Under the previous president, interest in finding him had fallen off. But under Obama, America actively sought the bloody-minded enabler of the terrifying crushing of three-thousand innocent American lives. Bin Laden doesn’t scheme any more.
The decision to send special forces into Abbottabad was hard. In America, among citizens of a certain age, the memories of the catastrophic Iranian hostage-rescue and Black Hawk Down are still green. And it was not clear that the occupant of the compound in Abbottabad was even bin Laden.
Defense Secretary Gates, a hold-over from the Bush administration, opposed the special-forces mission to take bin Laden. But Obama overruled his own defense secretary, and he ended the sinister schemes of an evil man.
America continues to incinerate our enemies with drone strikes, and at a much greater pace than under the former administration.
4. War.
Wars are costly, and when we go to war our brave young men and women, bless them, suffer and die. In Iraq, we lost almost 5,000 of our young people and a trillion dollars. In contrast, Obama removed a brutal dictator in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi, with zero loss of American lives, and at a cost of one-billion dollars. This was infinitely fewer deaths, and one one-thousandth of the cost, compared to Iraq.
5. Diplomacy.
Nations engage in diplomacy so that they don’t have to go to war. In contrast to the go-it-alone, screw-the-world attitude of the previous administration, the Obama administration has re-engaged with the world. America has engaged the world with a considerable skill last seen in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration. Our standing in the world rises.
6. Energy.
Under Obama, domestic crude-oil and natural-gas production have increased, and oil imports have decreased. There has been substantial government encouragement of alternate, sustainable energy. This is important, because the kingdom of King Oil is shrinking and will one day end.
7. Education.
Obama’s program Race to the Top encourages and funds improvement in education. Contrast this with the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind had an inspiring name, but it put burdens on local school districts and never helped them with those burdens.
8. Fiscal responsibility.
Compare two programs: one from the Bush administration, one from the Obama administration. The Bush administration pushed the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. It pays for prescriptions for seniors under Medicaid. But it provides no funding for this benefit. It blows a huge hole in future budgets.
But the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act is paid for. In fact, the act, if fully implemented, will draw down federal red ink. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it would save over one-hundred billion dollars between 2010 and 2019. Between 2020 and 2029, it would save over one-trillion dollars.
9. American auto-industry rescue.
And at comparatively little cost to taxpayers, Obama rescued the American automobile industry. This saved a huge number of jobs, both in the companies that directly were assisted, and in companies that supplied those companies. America would be gasping if Obama had not shown leadership in this.
Obama’s present opponent for the presidency opposed the government rescue. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times against it. But it worked. And America is better off for that.
10. Conclusion.
We often overlook the good that Barack Obama and his administration have done. My Democratic friends, it is easy to be disappointed with getting over the last three years a perceived half-a-loaf. Sure. But things could be far, far worse. And, in fact, Obama has done well.
Let’s work to give a competent president four more years.
Four more years is not assured. The race is close now, and this is before the Citizens-United-funded swift boating has begun in earnest. What we will soon see will make the original swift-boating seem like a toy ship in a sudsy bathtub.
We have a lot to lose. I’m giving. I hope you do, too.
1. Economics.
Europe doubled down on austerity as a way out of the on-going recession. Great Britain, under conservative Prime Minister Cameron, made itself a living laboratory for fiscal austerity. Great Britain u-turned into recession, and several European economies are now on the brink.
Contrast America. America, under Obama, spent money to prime the economy. Our economy improved. This meant people continued to work that would have lost their jobs. Many, many people.
We didn’t crash, which had been our trajectory and would have been our fate if we had followed Europe. The economy is slowing down, now. This coincides with the tapering off of the stimulus spending. But that’s the fault of Republicans in Congress, not Obama.
2. Health.
Babies born with serious illnesses were once un-insurable. Before the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare" to its detractors) parents of unhealthy babies had to watch their babies die; or (more likely) they had to take on a debt that drove them into bankruptcy. This deprived them of the small prosperity that they might have built for themselves in their young lives.
And who doesn’t know someone who has a pre-existing medical condition, if they don’t have one themselves? The Affordable Care Act makes insurance companies sell medical insurance to persons with pre-existing condition. This is the triumph of the Affordable Care Act.
And it is the reason for the insurance mandate that makes everyone have health insurance. Without the mandate, if anyone could get insurance, even with a pre-existing condition, people would wait until they got sick to buy insurance, knowing that they could not be turned down. Then insurance would be so expensive that it wouldn’t be insurance. The mandate keeps people from gaming the system to everybody's detriment.
So the insurance mandate is necessary, but it is unpopular. Without it, sick people would be un-insurable. Treatable illnesses would kill or bankrupt them. The Affordable Care Act compassionately ends that hard choice between insolvency and death.
3. Terrorism.
Osama bin Laden loathed America. He continued to scheme to murder Americans until the time of his death. Under the previous president, interest in finding him had fallen off. But under Obama, America actively sought the bloody-minded enabler of the terrifying crushing of three-thousand innocent American lives. Bin Laden doesn’t scheme any more.
The decision to send special forces into Abbottabad was hard. In America, among citizens of a certain age, the memories of the catastrophic Iranian hostage-rescue and Black Hawk Down are still green. And it was not clear that the occupant of the compound in Abbottabad was even bin Laden.
Defense Secretary Gates, a hold-over from the Bush administration, opposed the special-forces mission to take bin Laden. But Obama overruled his own defense secretary, and he ended the sinister schemes of an evil man.
America continues to incinerate our enemies with drone strikes, and at a much greater pace than under the former administration.
4. War.
Wars are costly, and when we go to war our brave young men and women, bless them, suffer and die. In Iraq, we lost almost 5,000 of our young people and a trillion dollars. In contrast, Obama removed a brutal dictator in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi, with zero loss of American lives, and at a cost of one-billion dollars. This was infinitely fewer deaths, and one one-thousandth of the cost, compared to Iraq.
5. Diplomacy.
Nations engage in diplomacy so that they don’t have to go to war. In contrast to the go-it-alone, screw-the-world attitude of the previous administration, the Obama administration has re-engaged with the world. America has engaged the world with a considerable skill last seen in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration. Our standing in the world rises.
6. Energy.
Under Obama, domestic crude-oil and natural-gas production have increased, and oil imports have decreased. There has been substantial government encouragement of alternate, sustainable energy. This is important, because the kingdom of King Oil is shrinking and will one day end.
7. Education.
Obama’s program Race to the Top encourages and funds improvement in education. Contrast this with the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind had an inspiring name, but it put burdens on local school districts and never helped them with those burdens.
8. Fiscal responsibility.
Compare two programs: one from the Bush administration, one from the Obama administration. The Bush administration pushed the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. It pays for prescriptions for seniors under Medicaid. But it provides no funding for this benefit. It blows a huge hole in future budgets.
But the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act is paid for. In fact, the act, if fully implemented, will draw down federal red ink. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it would save over one-hundred billion dollars between 2010 and 2019. Between 2020 and 2029, it would save over one-trillion dollars.
9. American auto-industry rescue.
And at comparatively little cost to taxpayers, Obama rescued the American automobile industry. This saved a huge number of jobs, both in the companies that directly were assisted, and in companies that supplied those companies. America would be gasping if Obama had not shown leadership in this.
Obama’s present opponent for the presidency opposed the government rescue. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times against it. But it worked. And America is better off for that.
10. Conclusion.
We often overlook the good that Barack Obama and his administration have done. My Democratic friends, it is easy to be disappointed with getting over the last three years a perceived half-a-loaf. Sure. But things could be far, far worse. And, in fact, Obama has done well.
Let’s work to give a competent president four more years.
Four more years is not assured. The race is close now, and this is before the Citizens-United-funded swift boating has begun in earnest. What we will soon see will make the original swift-boating seem like a toy ship in a sudsy bathtub.
We have a lot to lose. I’m giving. I hope you do, too.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Mercy and Abortion
I think that the far sides of the abortion debate both get it wrong. Here’s why.
1. Pro-abortion: a failure of mercy.
A womb is the sacred place where life is created. Abortion makes a womb a waiting-room next to the grave. (Though burial in any sacramental sense rarely if ever follows an abortion.) Through abortion, death enters this place for the creation of life.
And a mother who ends her pregnancy early isn’t merciful to her unborn, over whom she has care. (I wonder whether this is true of the unborn who have such illnesses that their lives would be only suffering.)
A New York Times guest-columnist recently defended abortion-rights. The writer supported her decision to end a long-ago pregnancy. The column was articulate and thoughtful and chilling. The writer explained that she did what she did because she "didn’t want" another child.
I was unsettled because she spoke of ending a pregnancy with a phrase that a person might use toward a brand or model of car. The column unsettled a friend of mine with whom I shared it, too. I wonder if it unsettled many who read it who are on both sides of the abortion debate. I recently saw a poll in which 48 percent of Democrats believe that abortion is not moral.
The hard cases are rape, incest, and severe disability. But in cases where the burden on the mother is greatest, the mercy also is greatest. A woman who chooses to bear a child when that child will be a burden, or a great burden, is a saint.
Calling the early-term unborn mere "tissue", or whatever term de-humanizes them, only emphasizes their helplessness. They are so helpless that they do not even yet resemble what they almost inevitably will become if allowed to prosper in the womb and pass through birth. I think that too much of the debate about abortion has been unproductive combat over labels. I will speak of that more when I speak of the anti-choice side.
2. Anti-choice: a failure of mercy.
The anti-choice partisans make no distinction between a person, like the New York Times guest-columnist, who simply didn’t want another child, and a woman who, by bringing an unborn to term, will suffer overwhelming financial burden, risk of death or infirmity, or profound shame.
And they judge. That’s something that Christians are commanded not to do. (Matthew 7; Luke 6; Romans 2.) I’m not saying that only observant Christians don’t judge (or aren’t supposed to). Members of other religions might or might not be faithful to this principle, just as Christians might or might not be faithful to it. But it’s a core part of the New Testament. (I admit that I might be judging here. (Romans 2).)
This urge to judge adds to wrangling over when "life" begins, and whether the unborn is "human". The debate could be about the strength or the mercy or the capacity for burden of the woman who considers an abortion. But there seems to be an eagerness to condemn. And the harshest label in the anti-choice dictionary is "murderer". So they choose that harsh label for a woman who chooses to end a pregnancy. Arguing that "life" begins at conception and that the unborn are "human" is a conduit to this condemnation.
I don’t doubt that the belief that abortion is murder is sincere. Buts it’s judgmental in the extreme and it doesn’t move us to a solution.
What I’m about to say might seem like a diversion, but it isn’t. Historians have considered why slavery in England was ended without the rancor with which it was ended in America. ("Rancor", of course, falls short of describing the up-to-the-bridle blood of the American conflict.) There were many reasons for the relative ease with which England ended slavery. One was the language of the anti-slavery partisans in England. They tended not to use language of moral condemnation against their opponents, unlike abolitionists in America. The American abolitionists harshly condemned the pro-slavery partisans in America, leading to bitterness, anger, resentment, and resistance. In contrast, in England, the anti-slavery partisans tended to be like Abraham Lincoln: they did not condemn the morals of those that took the position opposite of theirs. England’s slavery was ended by law. America’s was ended by war.
3. Conclusion.
This history provides a path to start to resolve a controversy that has embittered partisans on both sides. The harsh rhetoric hurts more than it helps, however much it thrills pride to condemn another.
And both sides need more mercy: pro-abortion partisans need more mercy toward the unborn; anti-choice partisans need more mercy toward travelers who must make a particular choice of direction in their passage between life and death.
1. Pro-abortion: a failure of mercy.
A womb is the sacred place where life is created. Abortion makes a womb a waiting-room next to the grave. (Though burial in any sacramental sense rarely if ever follows an abortion.) Through abortion, death enters this place for the creation of life.
And a mother who ends her pregnancy early isn’t merciful to her unborn, over whom she has care. (I wonder whether this is true of the unborn who have such illnesses that their lives would be only suffering.)
A New York Times guest-columnist recently defended abortion-rights. The writer supported her decision to end a long-ago pregnancy. The column was articulate and thoughtful and chilling. The writer explained that she did what she did because she "didn’t want" another child.
I was unsettled because she spoke of ending a pregnancy with a phrase that a person might use toward a brand or model of car. The column unsettled a friend of mine with whom I shared it, too. I wonder if it unsettled many who read it who are on both sides of the abortion debate. I recently saw a poll in which 48 percent of Democrats believe that abortion is not moral.
The hard cases are rape, incest, and severe disability. But in cases where the burden on the mother is greatest, the mercy also is greatest. A woman who chooses to bear a child when that child will be a burden, or a great burden, is a saint.
Calling the early-term unborn mere "tissue", or whatever term de-humanizes them, only emphasizes their helplessness. They are so helpless that they do not even yet resemble what they almost inevitably will become if allowed to prosper in the womb and pass through birth. I think that too much of the debate about abortion has been unproductive combat over labels. I will speak of that more when I speak of the anti-choice side.
2. Anti-choice: a failure of mercy.
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens that they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." (Luke 11 (NIV).)That, in 33 words, is how I perceive anti-choice partisans. They tend to be conservative. That usually means that when a child is born, their protectiveness dissolves. They surrender the child to the Darwinist, every-family-to-itself philosophy that largely prevails in modern conservative thought, unlike liberal thought, which believes that government should provide a social safety-net. I’m not defending or denying the rightness of the social-safety net. I’m just pointing out the change of attitude of the anti-choice partisans before and after a birth. It makes the anti-choice partisans like the experts in the law that Jesus spoke of.
The anti-choice partisans make no distinction between a person, like the New York Times guest-columnist, who simply didn’t want another child, and a woman who, by bringing an unborn to term, will suffer overwhelming financial burden, risk of death or infirmity, or profound shame.
And they judge. That’s something that Christians are commanded not to do. (Matthew 7; Luke 6; Romans 2.) I’m not saying that only observant Christians don’t judge (or aren’t supposed to). Members of other religions might or might not be faithful to this principle, just as Christians might or might not be faithful to it. But it’s a core part of the New Testament. (I admit that I might be judging here. (Romans 2).)
This urge to judge adds to wrangling over when "life" begins, and whether the unborn is "human". The debate could be about the strength or the mercy or the capacity for burden of the woman who considers an abortion. But there seems to be an eagerness to condemn. And the harshest label in the anti-choice dictionary is "murderer". So they choose that harsh label for a woman who chooses to end a pregnancy. Arguing that "life" begins at conception and that the unborn are "human" is a conduit to this condemnation.
I don’t doubt that the belief that abortion is murder is sincere. Buts it’s judgmental in the extreme and it doesn’t move us to a solution.
What I’m about to say might seem like a diversion, but it isn’t. Historians have considered why slavery in England was ended without the rancor with which it was ended in America. ("Rancor", of course, falls short of describing the up-to-the-bridle blood of the American conflict.) There were many reasons for the relative ease with which England ended slavery. One was the language of the anti-slavery partisans in England. They tended not to use language of moral condemnation against their opponents, unlike abolitionists in America. The American abolitionists harshly condemned the pro-slavery partisans in America, leading to bitterness, anger, resentment, and resistance. In contrast, in England, the anti-slavery partisans tended to be like Abraham Lincoln: they did not condemn the morals of those that took the position opposite of theirs. England’s slavery was ended by law. America’s was ended by war.
3. Conclusion.
This history provides a path to start to resolve a controversy that has embittered partisans on both sides. The harsh rhetoric hurts more than it helps, however much it thrills pride to condemn another.
And both sides need more mercy: pro-abortion partisans need more mercy toward the unborn; anti-choice partisans need more mercy toward travelers who must make a particular choice of direction in their passage between life and death.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Hope, Duty, and Love
God’s people give back to him. There seem to be three reasons we do so.
Some people give to God to get a blessing. And there is biblical support for this.
Other people give to God out of duty. The Bible commands it; they do it.
Other people give out of gratitude and love. God has blessed them; they bless God back.
1. Giving with hope, duty, and love.
I cannot judge other Christians from any moral high ground; in fact, it would be a sin for me to judge them. I will say that I have given for all three reasons. I have given too often for the first reason; not enough for the third. If God gives me more time on the Earth, I hope to give more out of gratitude, and less out of hope of gain.
And maybe, if God continues to bless me on Earth, I will learn to give back for all three reasons: hope, duty, and love, remembering that among "faith, hope, and love", "the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13.)
2. Praying with hope, duty, and love.
Everything believers do with God has something to do with hope, duty, and love. And none of these should be despised. When I pray, I pray because God commands it (duty). I remember to thank God and honor him with praise (love). I pray for his mercy, because I have some knowledge of my own wrongfulness and inadequacy (hope).
These three reasons to pray – hope, duty, love – seem to be a continuum from selfishness to unselfishness. And yet, in this, God meets us where we are. We are selfish. And we are needy. So the Bible encourages us to pray for wisdom. (James 1:15.) What is a prayer for wisdom but a prayer for ourselves? But it is a prayer to have something that makes us more godly, something that leads to prayers of love. In this circle, we pray for ourselves, and we get so that we might give to God.
3. Not despising the prayer of hope and need.
Jesus once contrasted the prayers of two men. One man prayed a prayer of thanksgiving. The other man prayed a prayer of hope and need. Jesus favored the prayer of hope and need over the prayer of thanksgiving.
The story is familiar to those who travel the Bible. A Pharisee and a publican (the keeper of an ill house) came to the temple to pray. (Some translations have the second man to be a tax collector – a despised man in those times.) The Pharisee was a man of spiritual accomplishment. He thanked God that he was not an evildoer, or even like the publican who also came to the temple to pray.
But the publican was ashamed. He beat his chest. He could not look up. He prayed, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." Just as God honored the sacrifice of Abel, but not that of Cain, so God honored the prayer of the heart-broken publican, but not the prayer of the spiritually-accomplished Pharisee. (Luke 18:10-14.)
4. Restraint in the prayer of hope and need.
But the prayer of hope and need must be bridled. It’s one thing to pray for wisdom or love or faith to rise in your heart. It’s another thing to pray for a Mercedes Benz. Why would God want to answer a prayer that makes you love the world and not himself? Love of God leads to salvation, which is what the one-who-takes-pleasure-in-the-death-of-no-sinner yearns for all. (Ezekiel 18:23.) Love of the world, the deceitfulness of riches, lead to death.
If a child asks for a fish, no parent will give him a snake. If he asks for an egg, no parent will give him a scorpion. The Gospel of Luke assures that God is like that. (Luke 11:11-13.) James 4:3 says, "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (NIV) This is a good thing. If you ask for a scorpion, or a snake, or the riches of the world, you are better off if the answer is No.
But we can and should pray for our needs to be met. "Give us this day our daily bread" is famously part of the Lord’s prayer, which Jesus taught his disciples when one of them asked him to teach them to pray. (Luke 11:3.) And there is wisdom in the prayer of Proverbs 30:8-9: "[G]ive me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." (NIV.)
5. Praying Psalms 143 & 145.
Psalm 143 is a prayer of hope and need. Psalm 145 is a prayer of love. In the past two weeks, I have been moved to learn both of them. Psalm 143 I learned in a day or two. I can pray it from memory now, though I chose not to learn the last line. I studied Psalm 145 over two days, and I am still learning it. When I pray it, I pray the parts that I know.
I was moved to learn these psalms when I retreated to the San Gorgonio mountains. And when I did not know what to pray, I could pray these in my heart and with my lips. Also, they are better prayers than my own.
I wish I had practiced learning psalms earlier. I regret that I despaired of God’s mercy for more than a decade, and that in this time I neglected God. This was sin. I am grateful to God that he has quickened me in recent times.
So today, as I pray, maybe I am both the publican and the Pharisee.
Some people give to God to get a blessing. And there is biblical support for this.
Other people give to God out of duty. The Bible commands it; they do it.
Other people give out of gratitude and love. God has blessed them; they bless God back.
1. Giving with hope, duty, and love.
I cannot judge other Christians from any moral high ground; in fact, it would be a sin for me to judge them. I will say that I have given for all three reasons. I have given too often for the first reason; not enough for the third. If God gives me more time on the Earth, I hope to give more out of gratitude, and less out of hope of gain.
And maybe, if God continues to bless me on Earth, I will learn to give back for all three reasons: hope, duty, and love, remembering that among "faith, hope, and love", "the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13.)
2. Praying with hope, duty, and love.
Everything believers do with God has something to do with hope, duty, and love. And none of these should be despised. When I pray, I pray because God commands it (duty). I remember to thank God and honor him with praise (love). I pray for his mercy, because I have some knowledge of my own wrongfulness and inadequacy (hope).
These three reasons to pray – hope, duty, love – seem to be a continuum from selfishness to unselfishness. And yet, in this, God meets us where we are. We are selfish. And we are needy. So the Bible encourages us to pray for wisdom. (James 1:15.) What is a prayer for wisdom but a prayer for ourselves? But it is a prayer to have something that makes us more godly, something that leads to prayers of love. In this circle, we pray for ourselves, and we get so that we might give to God.
3. Not despising the prayer of hope and need.
Jesus once contrasted the prayers of two men. One man prayed a prayer of thanksgiving. The other man prayed a prayer of hope and need. Jesus favored the prayer of hope and need over the prayer of thanksgiving.
The story is familiar to those who travel the Bible. A Pharisee and a publican (the keeper of an ill house) came to the temple to pray. (Some translations have the second man to be a tax collector – a despised man in those times.) The Pharisee was a man of spiritual accomplishment. He thanked God that he was not an evildoer, or even like the publican who also came to the temple to pray.
But the publican was ashamed. He beat his chest. He could not look up. He prayed, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." Just as God honored the sacrifice of Abel, but not that of Cain, so God honored the prayer of the heart-broken publican, but not the prayer of the spiritually-accomplished Pharisee. (Luke 18:10-14.)
4. Restraint in the prayer of hope and need.
But the prayer of hope and need must be bridled. It’s one thing to pray for wisdom or love or faith to rise in your heart. It’s another thing to pray for a Mercedes Benz. Why would God want to answer a prayer that makes you love the world and not himself? Love of God leads to salvation, which is what the one-who-takes-pleasure-in-the-death-of-no-sinner yearns for all. (Ezekiel 18:23.) Love of the world, the deceitfulness of riches, lead to death.
If a child asks for a fish, no parent will give him a snake. If he asks for an egg, no parent will give him a scorpion. The Gospel of Luke assures that God is like that. (Luke 11:11-13.) James 4:3 says, "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (NIV) This is a good thing. If you ask for a scorpion, or a snake, or the riches of the world, you are better off if the answer is No.
But we can and should pray for our needs to be met. "Give us this day our daily bread" is famously part of the Lord’s prayer, which Jesus taught his disciples when one of them asked him to teach them to pray. (Luke 11:3.) And there is wisdom in the prayer of Proverbs 30:8-9: "[G]ive me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." (NIV.)
5. Praying Psalms 143 & 145.
Psalm 143 is a prayer of hope and need. Psalm 145 is a prayer of love. In the past two weeks, I have been moved to learn both of them. Psalm 143 I learned in a day or two. I can pray it from memory now, though I chose not to learn the last line. I studied Psalm 145 over two days, and I am still learning it. When I pray it, I pray the parts that I know.
I was moved to learn these psalms when I retreated to the San Gorgonio mountains. And when I did not know what to pray, I could pray these in my heart and with my lips. Also, they are better prayers than my own.
I wish I had practiced learning psalms earlier. I regret that I despaired of God’s mercy for more than a decade, and that in this time I neglected God. This was sin. I am grateful to God that he has quickened me in recent times.
So today, as I pray, maybe I am both the publican and the Pharisee.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
House Burning
Civil War historian James M. McPherson write about similarities in North and South in language, religion, law, and political systems:
I don’t think each side is equally to blame in this; but I won’t dwell on that. Your might appoint blame in an opposite way from me. I will say that blame is shared.
And rather than dwell on an endless cycle of accusation and counter-accusation, I propose that we stop and ask: is this what we want?
1. The direction of America.
When did America become so Darwinian? When did we cease to yield to each other for the common good? When did we cease to be a people who disagreed, and come to be enemies? When did each victory and defeat become a booyah moment for one side and, for the other, an occasion for fresh accusations of cheating and fraud?
I wonder if some people will not recognize America in this description. I wonder if some people will say, "But of course we flail [the other side]! They’re political stenches!"
And so North and South felt about each other before the shooting started that ended with 600,000 deaths.
I’m not predicting a new Civil War. Geographically, conservatives and liberals are too enmeshed to plausibly divide. But American conservatives and liberals might be united in one thing and one thing only: together, we might dive into the pit of mutually-assured destruction.
It might not be the sudden self-destruction of a nuclear blast. But it might be. One side or the other might commit some act such as willful refusal to honor national debt already incurred. (By, for example, refusing to raise the debt ceiling.) And, if the timing is right, that could create an economic crisis that could greatly degrade America's economic power.
But if the mutually-assured destruction does not come suddenly like a nuclear blast, it could come slowly, like the nuclear-winter aftermath of such an blast. Just like plants will cease to receive light and make oxygen in a nuclear winter, political stalemate could starve politics of the cooperation that it needs to move forward in any direction.
2. The danger of paralysis.
When I was a young prosecutor, I learned to make decisions quickly. I realized that things happen in trial that you couldn’t predict or prepare for. And as a trial lawyer, I couldn’t walk out the back door of the courtroom and take the elevator to the cafeteria to sip coffee and think of the next step. I had to make an instant decision. I have often been in that position.
And sometimes I made the right decision. Sometimes I made the wrong decision. Sometimes my instant solution was good, sometimes it was bad. But in 50 out of 50 cases, the decision that I made was better than standing in the courtroom and doing nothing.
Look at Europe. When the recent economic crisis hit, Europe united in a solution. That solution was austerity. Now, a few years later, all of the richest countries of Europe except Germany have realized that austerity has made things worse. They are calling for a united pro-growth program, maybe similar to America’s stimulus, which has saved America from the steep downturn that Europe has suffered. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/world/world-leaders-at-us-meeting-urge-growth-not-austerity.html?hp
But the point isn’t to gloat that America’s response was better than Europe’s. The point is that Europe made a choice; now that it has realized that it was the wrong choice, Europe is seriously considering reversing course.
America has to keep that option. We have a political system where one side prevails or the other one does. The prevailing party moves forward with its solutions. If those sulutions turn out to be wrong, then the other side gets its chance at the next go-round. If we can’t follow this time-tested, time-honored democratic model, then we become like homeowners who let their house burn rather that quench the fire by the other homeowners’ plan.
But increasingly, we see political immobility. Increasingly we see a system of politics where one party sabotages the other rather than allow the other party to have success or move forward. And, given our interdependence, that’s like one faction in a submerged submarine sabotaging the engines. Sabotage is suicide.
If politics keeps going where it has been going, we will become a nation of political suicide bombers. In every way.
3. Solutions.
We tend to think our positions are right. But before we speak out, we might ask: is this helpful? Does this build up America? Not every thought needs to be expressed.
We tend to feel dismayed or angry or frustrated with the other side. When we do, we might ask: do I hate [name of other political party] more than I love America? We can’t love America and hate a huge part of it. If we love only part of it, let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s say, "God bless [name of our own political party]", because "God bless America" is ashes in our mouth.
Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill were famous adversaries, but they were also good and honorable friends. Their mutual opposition and mutual respect are a model for Republicans and Democrats today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011703299.html
Nor is the nastiness of politics today good or useful. When I was a new prosecutor, I was told: hit hard blows, but fair ones. Politics should be like that.
Common ground exists among us. Sometimes it’s common religion – in the broad sense. Christians share faith in Jesus Christ. Christians and Jews share faith in the God of Abraham and in much common scripture. Muslims share a faith in the God of Abraham.
Sometimes it’s as simple as a willed goodwill. Sometimes it’s just that we’re all Americans. Common ground should be cultivated.
The beneficiaries of hatred and stalemate in American politics won’t be one party or the other. Certainly, it won’t be the American people. It will be China. It will be Russia. It will be radical Islam. It won’t be us.
Onward.
The same similarities prevailed between England and her North American colonies in 1776, but they did not prevent the development of a separate nationalism in the latter. It is not language or law alone that is important, but the uses to which either is put. In the United States of the 1850s, Northerners and Southerners spoke the same language, to be sure, but they were increasingly using this language to revile each other. Language became an instrument of division, not unity. [Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1996).]To me, these sentences indict America in 2012. Like North and South in the 1850s, American conservatives and liberals in the early 21st century speak and write to strip skin from each other. Common ground is elusive, if it is sought, which often it is not. Conversation too often is quest to dominate and destroy.
I don’t think each side is equally to blame in this; but I won’t dwell on that. Your might appoint blame in an opposite way from me. I will say that blame is shared.
And rather than dwell on an endless cycle of accusation and counter-accusation, I propose that we stop and ask: is this what we want?
1. The direction of America.
When did America become so Darwinian? When did we cease to yield to each other for the common good? When did we cease to be a people who disagreed, and come to be enemies? When did each victory and defeat become a booyah moment for one side and, for the other, an occasion for fresh accusations of cheating and fraud?
I wonder if some people will not recognize America in this description. I wonder if some people will say, "But of course we flail [the other side]! They’re political stenches!"
And so North and South felt about each other before the shooting started that ended with 600,000 deaths.
I’m not predicting a new Civil War. Geographically, conservatives and liberals are too enmeshed to plausibly divide. But American conservatives and liberals might be united in one thing and one thing only: together, we might dive into the pit of mutually-assured destruction.
It might not be the sudden self-destruction of a nuclear blast. But it might be. One side or the other might commit some act such as willful refusal to honor national debt already incurred. (By, for example, refusing to raise the debt ceiling.) And, if the timing is right, that could create an economic crisis that could greatly degrade America's economic power.
But if the mutually-assured destruction does not come suddenly like a nuclear blast, it could come slowly, like the nuclear-winter aftermath of such an blast. Just like plants will cease to receive light and make oxygen in a nuclear winter, political stalemate could starve politics of the cooperation that it needs to move forward in any direction.
2. The danger of paralysis.
When I was a young prosecutor, I learned to make decisions quickly. I realized that things happen in trial that you couldn’t predict or prepare for. And as a trial lawyer, I couldn’t walk out the back door of the courtroom and take the elevator to the cafeteria to sip coffee and think of the next step. I had to make an instant decision. I have often been in that position.
And sometimes I made the right decision. Sometimes I made the wrong decision. Sometimes my instant solution was good, sometimes it was bad. But in 50 out of 50 cases, the decision that I made was better than standing in the courtroom and doing nothing.
Look at Europe. When the recent economic crisis hit, Europe united in a solution. That solution was austerity. Now, a few years later, all of the richest countries of Europe except Germany have realized that austerity has made things worse. They are calling for a united pro-growth program, maybe similar to America’s stimulus, which has saved America from the steep downturn that Europe has suffered. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/world/world-leaders-at-us-meeting-urge-growth-not-austerity.html?hp
But the point isn’t to gloat that America’s response was better than Europe’s. The point is that Europe made a choice; now that it has realized that it was the wrong choice, Europe is seriously considering reversing course.
America has to keep that option. We have a political system where one side prevails or the other one does. The prevailing party moves forward with its solutions. If those sulutions turn out to be wrong, then the other side gets its chance at the next go-round. If we can’t follow this time-tested, time-honored democratic model, then we become like homeowners who let their house burn rather that quench the fire by the other homeowners’ plan.
But increasingly, we see political immobility. Increasingly we see a system of politics where one party sabotages the other rather than allow the other party to have success or move forward. And, given our interdependence, that’s like one faction in a submerged submarine sabotaging the engines. Sabotage is suicide.
If politics keeps going where it has been going, we will become a nation of political suicide bombers. In every way.
3. Solutions.
We tend to think our positions are right. But before we speak out, we might ask: is this helpful? Does this build up America? Not every thought needs to be expressed.
We tend to feel dismayed or angry or frustrated with the other side. When we do, we might ask: do I hate [name of other political party] more than I love America? We can’t love America and hate a huge part of it. If we love only part of it, let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s say, "God bless [name of our own political party]", because "God bless America" is ashes in our mouth.
Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill were famous adversaries, but they were also good and honorable friends. Their mutual opposition and mutual respect are a model for Republicans and Democrats today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011703299.html
Nor is the nastiness of politics today good or useful. When I was a new prosecutor, I was told: hit hard blows, but fair ones. Politics should be like that.
Common ground exists among us. Sometimes it’s common religion – in the broad sense. Christians share faith in Jesus Christ. Christians and Jews share faith in the God of Abraham and in much common scripture. Muslims share a faith in the God of Abraham.
Sometimes it’s as simple as a willed goodwill. Sometimes it’s just that we’re all Americans. Common ground should be cultivated.
The beneficiaries of hatred and stalemate in American politics won’t be one party or the other. Certainly, it won’t be the American people. It will be China. It will be Russia. It will be radical Islam. It won’t be us.
Onward.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Prayers for Mitt Romney
I’m a sinner. I mean that sincerely. I won’t elaborate.
But a few days ago, I had a worthy thought. I decided to pray for a man I oppose: Mitt Romney. He’s a sinner, like me. It’s right that I pray for him.
I also pray for Barack Obama. What I said about Romney and me is also true of Obama.
I pray for Obama more than I pray for Romney. But I pray for both of them. And I pray for their families.
This is for my friends who are believers: will you join me in praying for these two men and their families? Maybe you already do. And, whoever wins in November, will you continue to pray for the winner (and the loser)?
No person has the wisdom and the knowledge and the humility that it takes to preside over America. Whoever occupies the White House needs our prayers.
1. The "why".
And maybe the prayers that we don’t want to pray are more fragrant to God than the prayers that we are eager to pray. Who knows? In praying for our enemies, maybe we are helping ourselves.
In this, we would follow a man greater than any of us, who suffered more from authorities than any of us ever will. Five times he was flogged with forty lashes less one. His back from neck to waist must have been all scar tissue. He was also beaten and imprisoned (often). But his is what he told his disciple Timothy (1 Tim 2:1-32 (NRSV)):
2. Suggestions for prayer.
I suggest praying for leaders the things that we ourselves need: wisdom, humility, strength. Especially wisdom. Wisdom is keenly needed.
Many remember that that was the quality that Solomon prayed for himself. God came to Solomon and told him to ask for what God should give to him. Solomon said:
How can we possibly do wrong by praying for wisdom for somebody? And godliness? Even for our enemies? (To be clear: I don’t think Romney is my "enemy". But I oppose him in this election.)
3. Imprecatory prayers (curses).
There is deep wisdom in the Hebrew Bible. I acknowledge that, and I admit that there are prayers of harm in it ("imprecatory" prayers). King David, for example, was pursued by his usurping son. He prayed that his son’s wise counselor would be confounded. He prayed: "O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness." (2 Samuel 15:31.)
If I’ve moved anyone to pray like that, I’ve done more harm than good. I will only say that if we want mercy from God, we should show mercy to others. Who among us doesn’t need mercy from God? A prayer of hatred is a somber thing, and nobody should undertake it with giddy pleasure. But that’s between every person who so prays and God.
4. Praying for ourselves and each other.
In praying for wisdom for our leaders, we might remember to pray for wisdom for ourselves and for each other. And for a spirit willing to submit to that wisdom.
The other thing that lately I have prayed for myself is humility. Pride, I now know, has been my lifelong adversary. And vanity. And conceit. They always tug at me.
So I try to think of the men that Jesus spoke of: one prayed thanks that he wasn’t like the sinner next to him. The sinner next to him prayed for mercy. The story is worth quoting:
5. Closing prayers.
God bless Mitt Romney with wisdom and godliness and a humble spirit. God bless him and protect him and also his family.
God bless Barack Obama with wisdom and godliness and a humble spirit. God bless him and protect him and also his family.
But a few days ago, I had a worthy thought. I decided to pray for a man I oppose: Mitt Romney. He’s a sinner, like me. It’s right that I pray for him.
I also pray for Barack Obama. What I said about Romney and me is also true of Obama.
I pray for Obama more than I pray for Romney. But I pray for both of them. And I pray for their families.
This is for my friends who are believers: will you join me in praying for these two men and their families? Maybe you already do. And, whoever wins in November, will you continue to pray for the winner (and the loser)?
No person has the wisdom and the knowledge and the humility that it takes to preside over America. Whoever occupies the White House needs our prayers.
1. The "why".
And maybe the prayers that we don’t want to pray are more fragrant to God than the prayers that we are eager to pray. Who knows? In praying for our enemies, maybe we are helping ourselves.
In this, we would follow a man greater than any of us, who suffered more from authorities than any of us ever will. Five times he was flogged with forty lashes less one. His back from neck to waist must have been all scar tissue. He was also beaten and imprisoned (often). But his is what he told his disciple Timothy (1 Tim 2:1-32 (NRSV)):
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.This, of course, was the apostle Paul.
2. Suggestions for prayer.
I suggest praying for leaders the things that we ourselves need: wisdom, humility, strength. Especially wisdom. Wisdom is keenly needed.
Many remember that that was the quality that Solomon prayed for himself. God came to Solomon and told him to ask for what God should give to him. Solomon said:
Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great? (2 Chron 1:10 (KJV).)God gave him that, and more.
How can we possibly do wrong by praying for wisdom for somebody? And godliness? Even for our enemies? (To be clear: I don’t think Romney is my "enemy". But I oppose him in this election.)
3. Imprecatory prayers (curses).
There is deep wisdom in the Hebrew Bible. I acknowledge that, and I admit that there are prayers of harm in it ("imprecatory" prayers). King David, for example, was pursued by his usurping son. He prayed that his son’s wise counselor would be confounded. He prayed: "O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness." (2 Samuel 15:31.)
If I’ve moved anyone to pray like that, I’ve done more harm than good. I will only say that if we want mercy from God, we should show mercy to others. Who among us doesn’t need mercy from God? A prayer of hatred is a somber thing, and nobody should undertake it with giddy pleasure. But that’s between every person who so prays and God.
4. Praying for ourselves and each other.
In praying for wisdom for our leaders, we might remember to pray for wisdom for ourselves and for each other. And for a spirit willing to submit to that wisdom.
The other thing that lately I have prayed for myself is humility. Pride, I now know, has been my lifelong adversary. And vanity. And conceit. They always tug at me.
So I try to think of the men that Jesus spoke of: one prayed thanks that he wasn’t like the sinner next to him. The sinner next to him prayed for mercy. The story is worth quoting:
And [Jesus] spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. [Luke 18:9-14 (KJV).]God save you and me from pride. God grant us the gift of a broken spirit.
5. Closing prayers.
God bless Mitt Romney with wisdom and godliness and a humble spirit. God bless him and protect him and also his family.
God bless Barack Obama with wisdom and godliness and a humble spirit. God bless him and protect him and also his family.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
The Ten Percent: God, Us, and Giving
This isn’t about the one percent or the ninety-nine percent. It’s about the ten percent.
That’s the ten percent that we owe to God.
It’s kind of old-fashioned, that idea. I had a short discussion about it with someone who felt that God did not care if he gave part of his income to God. He felt that his work itself was his offering to the almighty.
That idea, or some form of it, is common.
1. Roads that lead to tithing.
Popular strands of theology support the tithe. Churches that preach the prosperity gospel appeal to the self-interest of their church members. They say that God rewards gifts to the church with prosperity.
Then there’s simple command: Jesus said to do it. (Luke 11:24.)
2. David’s way.
Neither of those ideas should be shunted aside. But King David speaks across the millennia. His words repose in my mind.
David was a giant. His psalms express his love of God. So does his life.
Of course, when he sinned, he sinned big. He had many wives, but he embraced Bathsheba. At the time, Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, David’s servant and a mighty warrior. Bathsheba got David’s child, and David tried to offload credit for the conception onto Uriah, before the child was born. David recalled Uriah from the battlefield and encouraged him to refresh himself with his wife. Uriah wouldn’t do that while his fellow warriors suffered the privations of war. So David told his general, Joab, to make sure that Uriah died in battle. Joab did so; then David married Bathsheba.
But when God rebuked David, David humbled himself before God. That was David’s way.
David could start out wrong-headed, but his endpoint always was humility before God. David wanted to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. He had it put on an oxcart for the journey – the holy, holy ark on a frickin’ oxcart. The oxcart stuttered; one of the men with it reflexedly put his hand on the ark to steady it. He died at that moment. David was furious at God.
But, because he was David, he realized that God was right and he was wrong. He repented. He arranged for the ark to make the rest of the journey on the shoulders of men, accompanied by music and celebration.
But: back to tithing. David wanted to build a house of God. God wouldn’t let him, because he had shed blood in wars. God said that, instead, David’s son Solomon would build God’s house.
But David prepared the way for Solomon to build the house of God. He donated huge amounts of gold and silver and jewels and costly building materials to the project. And he called on the Israelites to do the same. They did.
3. David’s words.
And here’s what David said about the dedication of that wealth to the house of the God of nations:
There’s a lot to comment on in that. Like, do you see how Jesus took language from verse 1 Chronicles 29:11 into the Lord’s Prayer?
But maybe a woman without a name should put King David into perspective. I’m speaking of a widow mentioned in the gospels of Mark and Luke.
Jesus was in the temple.
This nameless widow is like the King Melchisedek, from the Hebrew Bible, also mentioned in the New Testament letter to the Hebrews. The letter to the Hebrews says that Melchisedek was "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life . . ." (Hebrews 7:3.) Like King Melchisedek, no-one knows the earthly origin of this poor widow, nor her earthly fate. She came from nowhere and no-one on earth knows what happened to her.
This talk of Melchisedek seems obscure, and I thought about deleting it. Except for two things. The writer of Hebrews compares Melchisedek to Christ, noting that Melchisedek was "King of Salem, which is, King of peace . . .." (Hebrews 7:2.) Also, Abraham, coming from the slaughter of kings, was blessed by this king, and Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils. So as I wrote this, I discovered a tie-in to tithing that I did not remember when I started writing.
5. The last word.
It’s tempting to give King David the last word, because his love of God was such that I can only pray for. Or, if not David, then it’s tempting to finish with the nameless poor widow who was, in her way, greater than David. Or with Melchisedek, who stands for Christ.
Maybe it’s bad manners, but I’ll take last word myself. The world is needy. It needs what the church offers, however imperfectly the church offers it. It is a privilege, in the name of God, to give to the healing of a hurting world.
That’s the ten percent that we owe to God.
It’s kind of old-fashioned, that idea. I had a short discussion about it with someone who felt that God did not care if he gave part of his income to God. He felt that his work itself was his offering to the almighty.
That idea, or some form of it, is common.
1. Roads that lead to tithing.
Popular strands of theology support the tithe. Churches that preach the prosperity gospel appeal to the self-interest of their church members. They say that God rewards gifts to the church with prosperity.
Then there’s simple command: Jesus said to do it. (Luke 11:24.)
2. David’s way.
Neither of those ideas should be shunted aside. But King David speaks across the millennia. His words repose in my mind.
David was a giant. His psalms express his love of God. So does his life.
Of course, when he sinned, he sinned big. He had many wives, but he embraced Bathsheba. At the time, Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, David’s servant and a mighty warrior. Bathsheba got David’s child, and David tried to offload credit for the conception onto Uriah, before the child was born. David recalled Uriah from the battlefield and encouraged him to refresh himself with his wife. Uriah wouldn’t do that while his fellow warriors suffered the privations of war. So David told his general, Joab, to make sure that Uriah died in battle. Joab did so; then David married Bathsheba.
But when God rebuked David, David humbled himself before God. That was David’s way.
David could start out wrong-headed, but his endpoint always was humility before God. David wanted to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. He had it put on an oxcart for the journey – the holy, holy ark on a frickin’ oxcart. The oxcart stuttered; one of the men with it reflexedly put his hand on the ark to steady it. He died at that moment. David was furious at God.
But, because he was David, he realized that God was right and he was wrong. He repented. He arranged for the ark to make the rest of the journey on the shoulders of men, accompanied by music and celebration.
But: back to tithing. David wanted to build a house of God. God wouldn’t let him, because he had shed blood in wars. God said that, instead, David’s son Solomon would build God’s house.
But David prepared the way for Solomon to build the house of God. He donated huge amounts of gold and silver and jewels and costly building materials to the project. And he called on the Israelites to do the same. They did.
3. David’s words.
And here’s what David said about the dedication of that wealth to the house of the God of nations:
Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.
Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.
Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength to all.
Now therefore, our God, we thank the, and praise thy glorious name.
But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? For all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.
For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.
O LORD our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own.
I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart, I have willingly offered all these things: and now I have seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee.
O LORD of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee. [1 Chronicles 29:10-18.]4. A woman without a name.
There’s a lot to comment on in that. Like, do you see how Jesus took language from verse 1 Chronicles 29:11 into the Lord’s Prayer?
But maybe a woman without a name should put King David into perspective. I’m speaking of a widow mentioned in the gospels of Mark and Luke.
Jesus was in the temple.
And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
And he also saw a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
And he said, Of a truth I say unto you: that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had. [Luke 21:1-4.]The Bible has an economy of narrative: it says much with little. Maybe that’s so that we can fill the gaps with our wondering. Like, did this woman know, as she cast in her two mites, that she, with her tiny gift, would stand higher than King David in the sight of God? And what was she thinking? Did she know that she could not live on what she had, so she gave all she had to God, her last refuge? Did God move on her heart, in that place, in that moment, to do something in the sight of Jesus, to become a parable and a blessing across the millennia?
This nameless widow is like the King Melchisedek, from the Hebrew Bible, also mentioned in the New Testament letter to the Hebrews. The letter to the Hebrews says that Melchisedek was "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life . . ." (Hebrews 7:3.) Like King Melchisedek, no-one knows the earthly origin of this poor widow, nor her earthly fate. She came from nowhere and no-one on earth knows what happened to her.
This talk of Melchisedek seems obscure, and I thought about deleting it. Except for two things. The writer of Hebrews compares Melchisedek to Christ, noting that Melchisedek was "King of Salem, which is, King of peace . . .." (Hebrews 7:2.) Also, Abraham, coming from the slaughter of kings, was blessed by this king, and Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils. So as I wrote this, I discovered a tie-in to tithing that I did not remember when I started writing.
5. The last word.
It’s tempting to give King David the last word, because his love of God was such that I can only pray for. Or, if not David, then it’s tempting to finish with the nameless poor widow who was, in her way, greater than David. Or with Melchisedek, who stands for Christ.
Maybe it’s bad manners, but I’ll take last word myself. The world is needy. It needs what the church offers, however imperfectly the church offers it. It is a privilege, in the name of God, to give to the healing of a hurting world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)