For some reason I had an responsibility to read Psalm 26. The first line goes "Give me justice, O Lord, for I have lived my life without reproach." And the rest of the Psalm continues pretty much in that same vain. "I live in truth. I have not sat with sinners...I wash my hands in innocence....I love the beauty of the temple.... so don't sweep me away with the sinners." Deep down in this prayer to God is the understanding that being good is supposed to be rewarded. Good is rewarded. Bad is punished.
Barbara Brown Taylor is always saying that the Bible is really a conversation about God by people who care about God. So it is interesting to remember when Job got all his troubles and his wife told him to curse God and die, Job says something to the effect, "Hey, Are we just to accept good from God and not take the bad from God as well." Job seems rooted in the sovereignty of God. God is the boss. There is only one God and God is Lord of all history, so whatever comes comes within the providence and framework of God's creation. If we are going to enjoy the good we have to be willing to take the bad. It is that kind of world in Job's mind. Our character and conduct do not directly affect what comes to us. All Job really wants to do is to fight for his reputation, and when God comes to visit God does say that Job was the one who spoke the truth.
One also remembers that Jesus told the story of a man who sounded very much like the speaker of Psalm 26. The Pharisee goes up to the Temple to pray and sees another man, called the Publican, and thanks God that he is not like that Publican. The Pharisee proceeds to tell God all of his virtues and how wonderful he is. The Publican is reported to have only begged for forgiveness, and Jesus says the Publican got his wish.
All this discussion in the Bible about conduct and blessings or lack of blessings came back to me as I listened to the letter to the Pope from Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy asks for the prayers of the Pope and proceeds to tell the Pope all of the reasons why the Pope would want to pray for him: "I have done my best to champion the causes of the poor... I have worked to welcome the immigrant...I have opposed the death penalty...I am still working, while sick, on a comprehensive health care package...I have always been a faithful Catholic..."
Senator Kennedy's letter sounds like the Psalm, The Pharisee, and my own prayers. Somehow we cannot get away from that notion that if we are good we will get blessings and that evil will be punished. We are constantly talking about the outrage of when bad things happen to good people. It just frustrates us no end.
The one thing that I think the conversation about God by people who care agree upon is that the promise of God is that God will not abandon us. Job does not get answers he gets a visit. Jesus' good conduct got him crucified. Jesus does not give us answers, Jesus promises "Lo, I am with you always even to the close of the age." Elijah in the cave heard the voice, Be still and know that I am God. As we live in this world full of sorrow and woe, the message is that there is one with us who care about us, who has suffered as we suffer, and who will not desert us nor forsake us. It is good to know we have a friend.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Conflict
There seems to be a general consensus that the intensity of the "conflict" is heating up. There have been observations that we may be getting close to another civil war. The Speaker of the House begged for a reduction in the violent rhetoric because she knows that such language leads to violent actions. There are many who suggest that our conflict is more vicious, more aggressive, meaner, nastier than in previous generations.
Heaven knows that right now we have a lot to fight over. Maybe that is one of the reasons for thinking our conflicts are worse. Too many things have been put on the table to fight about: health care reform, immigration reform, financial regulations, bail outs, climate control, and the fighting of terrorists. Each of them is a major contentious issue which pits large portions of people against others.
There is an underlying common thread in all those issues: the struggle between those who believe we need to have "government" help us manage society and those who believe that we are better with less government intervention. I think that is a theological question because it is rooted in a theological concept of human life. Are we good people who will do good if given a chance or are we really like St. Paul sinners who seek to do good, but find that the evil that they do not want to do keeps showing up? Those who want to have less government believe we are all nice and kind people who will do good if left alone. Unlimited freedom will result in unlimited good (or so it sounds to me when I hear them telling their side). The other side believes that individuals and groups need protection from the abuse of power, wealth, and size because power, wealth and size tend to do harm if left unregulated. (Think sub prime meltdown rooted in greed.Think Ponzi schemes. Think airline corporations failure to maintain airplanes. Think tainted milk and sheet rock, think auto industry's opposition to increased gas mileage.)
The Christian confession of sin would suggest that most Christians would understand that the evil in each of us needs to be watched by the rest of us so that we can help each other. The evil in each of us does manage to show up just as much in government as it does in corporate America which is why each of us has to be involved in elections and in the debates on major issues. We all do have to watch all of us in government, but that is not the same as fighting for less government. Only demanding better government.
Jesus in the wilderness had conflict with Satan over whose world it really is? Satan claims it is his and that it can only be run and governed by his means. Jesus lived and believed that it is really God's world and it can only be truly governed and fulfilled by his means. It seems to me that is still the real conflict we are fighting, whose kingdom is it, and whose means do we use to fulfill and bless it.
Heaven knows that right now we have a lot to fight over. Maybe that is one of the reasons for thinking our conflicts are worse. Too many things have been put on the table to fight about: health care reform, immigration reform, financial regulations, bail outs, climate control, and the fighting of terrorists. Each of them is a major contentious issue which pits large portions of people against others.
There is an underlying common thread in all those issues: the struggle between those who believe we need to have "government" help us manage society and those who believe that we are better with less government intervention. I think that is a theological question because it is rooted in a theological concept of human life. Are we good people who will do good if given a chance or are we really like St. Paul sinners who seek to do good, but find that the evil that they do not want to do keeps showing up? Those who want to have less government believe we are all nice and kind people who will do good if left alone. Unlimited freedom will result in unlimited good (or so it sounds to me when I hear them telling their side). The other side believes that individuals and groups need protection from the abuse of power, wealth, and size because power, wealth and size tend to do harm if left unregulated. (Think sub prime meltdown rooted in greed.Think Ponzi schemes. Think airline corporations failure to maintain airplanes. Think tainted milk and sheet rock, think auto industry's opposition to increased gas mileage.)
The Christian confession of sin would suggest that most Christians would understand that the evil in each of us needs to be watched by the rest of us so that we can help each other. The evil in each of us does manage to show up just as much in government as it does in corporate America which is why each of us has to be involved in elections and in the debates on major issues. We all do have to watch all of us in government, but that is not the same as fighting for less government. Only demanding better government.
Jesus in the wilderness had conflict with Satan over whose world it really is? Satan claims it is his and that it can only be run and governed by his means. Jesus lived and believed that it is really God's world and it can only be truly governed and fulfilled by his means. It seems to me that is still the real conflict we are fighting, whose kingdom is it, and whose means do we use to fulfill and bless it.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Which is it? Divine Justice or bad thinking?
This one has all the ear marks of divine irony all over it. It is a simple story. For the last two do-it-yourself projects I have not had to buy a new tool. That is unusual for d-i-y projects. A project is always supposed to involve getting another tool. But I have done two major projects without a new tool. So the do-it-yourselfer gods "owed" me two tools.
I am now in the middle of a project for a new desk that involves major amounts of sanding. So I got out all of my sanding equipment. I discovered that I had about 20 sanding belts that measured 3" x 21". I looked at my sanders and I had a 3" x 24" machine and a 3"x18". But I did not have a 3" x 21" machine. I may have had one earlier, but I did not have one at the moment. So I think, "If I buy a new 3" x 21" machine I can have two different grades of sanding belts: one on the 3" x 24" and one on the 3" by 21". (The 3" x 18" is one of those cheap ones that I really rarely use.) So I go and buy a Rockwell 3" x 21" new belt sander.
The concept was great and worked wonderfully well for the first round of 60 grit on one and 80 grit on the other. When I started using the 3" x 21" belts that I had for the 120 and 150 grit, the belts began to break at the seam almost immediately. The glue had dried and they just came apart in less than 10 seconds on the machine. Now I have no belts that will work on the 3" x 21" belt sander I bought. I will now have to buy more belts for the 3" x 21" belt sander.
Was this Divine justice for the greed that I had that talked myself into needing a new machine that I really did not need. The 3" x 24" would have done the job. I was just going to have to change belts more often. A little extra work. Cosmic irony? Another example of Murphy's laws? Or maybe just bad thinking on my part? Rationalization? Does God get involved at this level? Or has God set up the cosmic irony thing to take care of these kinds of petty sins? Did I get my just deserves? Lots of people seemed to believe that God works at this level and yet do not see it at the larger level.
Or maybe this project is divine justice in that it has gotten me a new tool, and it has made me buy a whole bunch of new belts as well. I guess maybe the do-it-yourself gods will say they are even. That is two things: the sander and the belts. Is that Divine grace? One way or the other it sure made me think about it.
I am now in the middle of a project for a new desk that involves major amounts of sanding. So I got out all of my sanding equipment. I discovered that I had about 20 sanding belts that measured 3" x 21". I looked at my sanders and I had a 3" x 24" machine and a 3"x18". But I did not have a 3" x 21" machine. I may have had one earlier, but I did not have one at the moment. So I think, "If I buy a new 3" x 21" machine I can have two different grades of sanding belts: one on the 3" x 24" and one on the 3" by 21". (The 3" x 18" is one of those cheap ones that I really rarely use.) So I go and buy a Rockwell 3" x 21" new belt sander.
The concept was great and worked wonderfully well for the first round of 60 grit on one and 80 grit on the other. When I started using the 3" x 21" belts that I had for the 120 and 150 grit, the belts began to break at the seam almost immediately. The glue had dried and they just came apart in less than 10 seconds on the machine. Now I have no belts that will work on the 3" x 21" belt sander I bought. I will now have to buy more belts for the 3" x 21" belt sander.
Was this Divine justice for the greed that I had that talked myself into needing a new machine that I really did not need. The 3" x 24" would have done the job. I was just going to have to change belts more often. A little extra work. Cosmic irony? Another example of Murphy's laws? Or maybe just bad thinking on my part? Rationalization? Does God get involved at this level? Or has God set up the cosmic irony thing to take care of these kinds of petty sins? Did I get my just deserves? Lots of people seemed to believe that God works at this level and yet do not see it at the larger level.
Or maybe this project is divine justice in that it has gotten me a new tool, and it has made me buy a whole bunch of new belts as well. I guess maybe the do-it-yourself gods will say they are even. That is two things: the sander and the belts. Is that Divine grace? One way or the other it sure made me think about it.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Some Random Thoughts on Health Care
Maybe it is because everybody else is doing it, but I thought I would reflect upon the medical health care I have. I have good health care because I have socialized medicine. I have medicare. But I also have a supplement which is expensive and I have to buy insurance for my wife and that is expensive.
But that private health care does not give me and my doctor solo responsibility for my health care nor my wife's health care. The first major problem for us is the health care's constant pressure to use generic drugs when they do not work for my wife. Betty, my wife, has constantly complained that she and her doctor talk about her problems. The doctor gives her a prescription for a drug and the health care program demands that she try the generic. It does not work or has side-effects which are not acceptable. There is then a major fight wiht the insurance company for her to be able to use the original drug and to have the insurance company cover it.
The second way in which my health care is not a decision made by my doctor and me is that there is this long list of pre-approval procedures. Again the insurance company refused to pay on first submission a procedure that the doctor ordered for Betty because we had not gotten prior approval. Why should the doctor's orders have to be checked with the insurance company? The insurance company is interfering with my health care decisions which ought to be between me and my doctor.
The third way in which my health care is already controlled by forces outside of the doctor-patient relationship is that there are some procedures and operations that they will not cover. I am not talking about cosmetic or vanity procedures. There are major health treatment programs that the insurance companies consider wasteful and therefore they will not cover.
The fourth way that my health care does not allow me complete freedom of choice in my health care is that they tell me that there are certain doctors who are "in network" (which means they will accept the insurance's pay schedules) and others who are "out of network". If I go to a doctor of my choice who is out of network, then I have to pay more of the costs for that treatment. So that the idea that I now have absolute freedom to choose my doctor is a myth.
My socialized medicine, Medicare, has not given me the same restrictions as my private insurance. The argument that a public option program would limit and restrict my choices is one of those lies that is meant to make me believe that my current system is free choice and it certainly isn't.
Those are ways that the current system already has other powers between my doctor and my health care. From the hospital's and the doctor's perspective I can not understand why we have all this pretense about the surgery costing $10,000 (an example) but the insurance companies have worked a deal where they will only allow half of that and they pay 80% of the amount they allow. What kind of game is that?
There are a number of problems which I have never had to face. I have never had to change jobs and worry about what that change did to my insurance. I have never had to apply for new insurance with a "previous condition." I have had friends who had to decide whether to get a cancer treatment done at a hospital which was forty-five minutes away, and have that treatment covered as a hospital visit; or get the medicine from a drug store and give it to himself and have it covered as a prescription. The difference in each treatment was about $1,000.00
There are a few basic facts for me: 1) Our current health care system is not working. We pay more per person than any industrialized country for health care. The costs are rising faster than the cost of living. The health care is not that much better (and depressingly low in some categories) than those other countries. 2)We have known and talked about the need for health care reform for more than 60 years. How long does it take us to solve a problem? 3)We need to return the medical practice to the doctors, not the insurance companies. 4) We need to find a way to hold medical people accountable for major mistakes without the risks of multi-million dollar law suits. 5)We need to find a way to cover all people with a basic medical policy. Now it is the time. We need to get it done.
But that private health care does not give me and my doctor solo responsibility for my health care nor my wife's health care. The first major problem for us is the health care's constant pressure to use generic drugs when they do not work for my wife. Betty, my wife, has constantly complained that she and her doctor talk about her problems. The doctor gives her a prescription for a drug and the health care program demands that she try the generic. It does not work or has side-effects which are not acceptable. There is then a major fight wiht the insurance company for her to be able to use the original drug and to have the insurance company cover it.
The second way in which my health care is not a decision made by my doctor and me is that there is this long list of pre-approval procedures. Again the insurance company refused to pay on first submission a procedure that the doctor ordered for Betty because we had not gotten prior approval. Why should the doctor's orders have to be checked with the insurance company? The insurance company is interfering with my health care decisions which ought to be between me and my doctor.
The third way in which my health care is already controlled by forces outside of the doctor-patient relationship is that there are some procedures and operations that they will not cover. I am not talking about cosmetic or vanity procedures. There are major health treatment programs that the insurance companies consider wasteful and therefore they will not cover.
The fourth way that my health care does not allow me complete freedom of choice in my health care is that they tell me that there are certain doctors who are "in network" (which means they will accept the insurance's pay schedules) and others who are "out of network". If I go to a doctor of my choice who is out of network, then I have to pay more of the costs for that treatment. So that the idea that I now have absolute freedom to choose my doctor is a myth.
My socialized medicine, Medicare, has not given me the same restrictions as my private insurance. The argument that a public option program would limit and restrict my choices is one of those lies that is meant to make me believe that my current system is free choice and it certainly isn't.
Those are ways that the current system already has other powers between my doctor and my health care. From the hospital's and the doctor's perspective I can not understand why we have all this pretense about the surgery costing $10,000 (an example) but the insurance companies have worked a deal where they will only allow half of that and they pay 80% of the amount they allow. What kind of game is that?
There are a number of problems which I have never had to face. I have never had to change jobs and worry about what that change did to my insurance. I have never had to apply for new insurance with a "previous condition." I have had friends who had to decide whether to get a cancer treatment done at a hospital which was forty-five minutes away, and have that treatment covered as a hospital visit; or get the medicine from a drug store and give it to himself and have it covered as a prescription. The difference in each treatment was about $1,000.00
There are a few basic facts for me: 1) Our current health care system is not working. We pay more per person than any industrialized country for health care. The costs are rising faster than the cost of living. The health care is not that much better (and depressingly low in some categories) than those other countries. 2)We have known and talked about the need for health care reform for more than 60 years. How long does it take us to solve a problem? 3)We need to return the medical practice to the doctors, not the insurance companies. 4) We need to find a way to hold medical people accountable for major mistakes without the risks of multi-million dollar law suits. 5)We need to find a way to cover all people with a basic medical policy. Now it is the time. We need to get it done.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Not read much
Vacations are wonderful things. They give one a great change of pace. They give great joy in providing a different routine, and they give one the great joy and comfort of returning to the familiar and the old routine. So it has been good to go, and it is good to be home.
My guess would be that most Presbyterian ministers and maybe lots of other ministers know that Martin Luther did not have much respect or appreciation for the book of the Bible called James. He called it an "epistle of straw" because it did talk much about Jesus. It has a lot of advice about living and doing the Christian faith, and not much about salvation by faith alone. Maybe that is the reason that the book of James is not read or preached very much.
Or maybe it is because in this day and in this culture nobody wants to hear what James has to say because James has a great deal to say about civil speech. James says that Christian people ought to be "quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger." In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus also says something about anger being the same as Murder and that when that anger causes one to call another human being a "fool" you are liable for the hell of fire.
Christians will not engage in angry, hurtful or destructive speech. No wonder we do not want to hear James preached. I am not one who knows how to judge our generation with other generations. I know that Thomas Nash and others in previous generations had some pretty hot and vicious speech. I know that during the Civil Rights and the War in Vietnam the speech and the protests were loud and confrontational. But it also seems to me that there is a level of harshness, a new level of viciousness, a new arrogance of the right of free speech that does not want to listen. The "over the top language;" the ability to make incredible accusations anonymously on the Internet; the ease with which people now talk while plays, concerts, and other presentations are being presented; the language and words that are now so commonly used, all seem to be at the worst level possible.
The praise for Ted Kennedy seemed to have as one major component the fact that he could engage in civil debate about issues. He could engage those on the other side of issues in a constructive and polite debate. One concludes that he was praised for this gift because so few seem to have it now.
James is that book that talks about bridling one's tongue. That in response to the gift of grace to us one of the great gifts of grace we can give to others is the gift of listening to them and then responding to them in a controlled and civil way. No wonder nobody wants to listen to James now.
My guess would be that most Presbyterian ministers and maybe lots of other ministers know that Martin Luther did not have much respect or appreciation for the book of the Bible called James. He called it an "epistle of straw" because it did talk much about Jesus. It has a lot of advice about living and doing the Christian faith, and not much about salvation by faith alone. Maybe that is the reason that the book of James is not read or preached very much.
Or maybe it is because in this day and in this culture nobody wants to hear what James has to say because James has a great deal to say about civil speech. James says that Christian people ought to be "quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger." In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus also says something about anger being the same as Murder and that when that anger causes one to call another human being a "fool" you are liable for the hell of fire.
Christians will not engage in angry, hurtful or destructive speech. No wonder we do not want to hear James preached. I am not one who knows how to judge our generation with other generations. I know that Thomas Nash and others in previous generations had some pretty hot and vicious speech. I know that during the Civil Rights and the War in Vietnam the speech and the protests were loud and confrontational. But it also seems to me that there is a level of harshness, a new level of viciousness, a new arrogance of the right of free speech that does not want to listen. The "over the top language;" the ability to make incredible accusations anonymously on the Internet; the ease with which people now talk while plays, concerts, and other presentations are being presented; the language and words that are now so commonly used, all seem to be at the worst level possible.
The praise for Ted Kennedy seemed to have as one major component the fact that he could engage in civil debate about issues. He could engage those on the other side of issues in a constructive and polite debate. One concludes that he was praised for this gift because so few seem to have it now.
James is that book that talks about bridling one's tongue. That in response to the gift of grace to us one of the great gifts of grace we can give to others is the gift of listening to them and then responding to them in a controlled and civil way. No wonder nobody wants to listen to James now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)