When I met with couples about to be married, one of the questions that always had to be asked was about children. Did they want them? How many did they want? Often there was a little debate about having them, but the larger question would be how many, and when. When would they want to start a family. I was always comforted when I heard them give me a plan. "We intend to work five years, save our money, buy a house, and in year seven begin to try to have a family." That was definite and precise. Those who said they would have them when they could afford them were confused and too vague. They would never get to the place where they would think they had enough money to have them.
I have the same concern about the plans for the path to citizenship for the immigrants in this country. Those who suggest that the path to citizenship has a clause that the citizenship will not become real until the "borders are secure" give me and others the "willies." They can always say that the borders are never secured enough. Now if the plans suggest that there will need to be so many new border guards, so much money in the border budget, or any other kind of precise definite number then it might work. I would rather see just a straight clean path to citizenship. It may be high and hard, but it ought to be straight forward and honest. I think it was Jesus who said your "Yes" ought to be "yes" and your "no's" no, and there is not even a need to swear because you are speaking truth. We need that in this plan.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Christmas, 2012
Gun downed children in their schools
Congress playing with the rules
Wall Street living off their greed
Christian name without the creed.
The unemployed still worry lots
The voters give okay to pot
The shoppers seek the desperate deals
And kitchens serve a Christmas meal.
Our games are full of blood and gore
The NRA just begs for more.
There is darkness deep within
That once was labelled human sin.
We need the child in the manager stall
Who came with grace to offer all..
rcb, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Violence And Change
It is obvious that the shooting in Newtown has lifted the issue of violence to a new level. I was among those whose first reaction to the news of the shooting was that we have to do something about guns. But I am pleased that the President has not made any statement about what we need to do. He has indicated that we as a people need to do something different. We should not tolerate having this kind of tragedy every year. We have to do something different, but he has not said what that should be. He has said we need to talk about it.
We need to talk about it because there are so many factors which are a part of these events. There is the mental health issue. How do we reach and treat those people who are different from the rest of us. The loner, the bullied, the gifted but different, those who do not have all of the talents and gifts of the main stream? Certainly that is a major part of these stories.
What part do all the violence and killing on T.V, movies, comics, video games play in the development of these events? Do these games give ideas to these people as they live out their pain and isolation? Do these movies and games prepare the person to know about body armor, about weapons, about how to get the most damage from the least effort. (I would have never even imagined using what they use to kill cattle in slaughter houses as a weapon until I saw the movie "No Country for Old Men.") Is there something we need to do about the amount of violence we pour into the culture?
Morgan Freeman has complained about the amount of publicity that we give these shooters. That part of what they seek is the recognition and fame that comes from the actions. They may have been ignored, pushed aside, bullied, but "look at me now. Now you won't forget me or ignore me. You will remember my name now." And the power and satisfaction that comes from the national attention. So maybe we should not give these events as much publicity as we do?
And of course, there is the whole gun issue. I think that we all recognize that we are not going to eliminate guns from our country. There is a second amendment in our constitution. But the right to bear arms does not necessarily, it seems to me, mean that we are entitled to every kind of gun there is available. We regulate the kind of drugs that are available. We regulate the kind of beer and alcohol that is made. Can we not regulate the kind of weapons that the public citizen can own? Can we not develop a national registration of weapons and background checks for all owners? The weapons used at Newtown were all legal and properly registered? What about automatic weapons? Could we not limit how many shots a weapon can fire in a certain time? Just some ideas. Australia and Great Britain have instituted gun limitations we need to talk with them about what they did.
I hope that any legislature introduced now is the product of this kind of discussion that may have been had after the previous events. But I hope that this Newtown tragedy does give us the energy and the determination to press to a conclusion and to make some significant changes. The old argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is a pretty empty argument. How many people would have died in Newtown if Adam had had to use an axe? or his hands, or a knife? Sure he may have gotten a couple but the size of the tragedy would have been much smaller. If we are serious about being a nation of Love and Justice, we need to make some changes.
We need to talk about it because there are so many factors which are a part of these events. There is the mental health issue. How do we reach and treat those people who are different from the rest of us. The loner, the bullied, the gifted but different, those who do not have all of the talents and gifts of the main stream? Certainly that is a major part of these stories.
What part do all the violence and killing on T.V, movies, comics, video games play in the development of these events? Do these games give ideas to these people as they live out their pain and isolation? Do these movies and games prepare the person to know about body armor, about weapons, about how to get the most damage from the least effort. (I would have never even imagined using what they use to kill cattle in slaughter houses as a weapon until I saw the movie "No Country for Old Men.") Is there something we need to do about the amount of violence we pour into the culture?
Morgan Freeman has complained about the amount of publicity that we give these shooters. That part of what they seek is the recognition and fame that comes from the actions. They may have been ignored, pushed aside, bullied, but "look at me now. Now you won't forget me or ignore me. You will remember my name now." And the power and satisfaction that comes from the national attention. So maybe we should not give these events as much publicity as we do?
And of course, there is the whole gun issue. I think that we all recognize that we are not going to eliminate guns from our country. There is a second amendment in our constitution. But the right to bear arms does not necessarily, it seems to me, mean that we are entitled to every kind of gun there is available. We regulate the kind of drugs that are available. We regulate the kind of beer and alcohol that is made. Can we not regulate the kind of weapons that the public citizen can own? Can we not develop a national registration of weapons and background checks for all owners? The weapons used at Newtown were all legal and properly registered? What about automatic weapons? Could we not limit how many shots a weapon can fire in a certain time? Just some ideas. Australia and Great Britain have instituted gun limitations we need to talk with them about what they did.
I hope that any legislature introduced now is the product of this kind of discussion that may have been had after the previous events. But I hope that this Newtown tragedy does give us the energy and the determination to press to a conclusion and to make some significant changes. The old argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is a pretty empty argument. How many people would have died in Newtown if Adam had had to use an axe? or his hands, or a knife? Sure he may have gotten a couple but the size of the tragedy would have been much smaller. If we are serious about being a nation of Love and Justice, we need to make some changes.
Monday, December 17, 2012
christmas war
It appears that certain media outlets in order to keep the pot stirred up have begun to talk about the liberals' war on Christmas. When you say "Happy Holidays" you are fighting against Christmas. When you do not protest because the city council will no longer pay for the creation of a Nativity scene in the public park, you are waging war against Christmas. It is all a part of a great satanic plot to undermine the greatness of our country and lead the USA into the dumps. The malls that play "seasonal" music and not Christmas carols are part of the infantry that is fighting the war against Christmas.
The truth of the matter, as it seems to me, is that there is a great war against the mass of Christ and it is not the one that the media people are talking about. This is not a new war that has just begun in the last couple of years. This is the war that Santa Christmas is waging against the Christ child's birth. This is the push of the retail merchants to encourage more and more focus on the Santa of giving presents and buying stuff, and ignoring the religious dimensions of the season.
There has been, and it is a blessed thing that needed to be done, a push to dissolve the parasitic relationship between a kind of generic Christianity and the public policies. The promotion of the Christian faith in public schools, the opening of public meetings with Christian prayers, the honoring of Christian holidays with vacation days. There has been a slow recognition and movement towards the principles of separation of church and state. The state will not seek to destroy or limit any religion by taxation and oppression, nor will it promote one religion over the other by special privileges. Our country has become more and more religiously diverse and our eyes have been opened to how much of our public support has been totally given to the vague notion of the Christian faith.
So it is entirely appropriate that in this time of the year when several religions have special celebrations that the government not give one of those celebrations more attention than others. But that is not a war on Christmas. It frees Christians to focus more joyfully on the coming of the Christ child.
The real war on Christmas is the assault of the Santa Claus culture that continues to dominate the month of December. Who is this holiday really for? Santa or Jesus. Did you see the question asked by the Jewish child about whether or not Santa comes to Jewish children? The Santa culture is invading the Jewish traditions. The really powerful and effective war that is being waged against Christmas is the commercialization of Christmas to the extent that the ideal image now is Santa driving Mercedes Benz cars and coming to your home.
Saying "Happy Holidays" is not a problem for me, but hearing "Santa Claus is coming to town!" fires another shot at the Christ child in a manger.
The truth of the matter, as it seems to me, is that there is a great war against the mass of Christ and it is not the one that the media people are talking about. This is not a new war that has just begun in the last couple of years. This is the war that Santa Christmas is waging against the Christ child's birth. This is the push of the retail merchants to encourage more and more focus on the Santa of giving presents and buying stuff, and ignoring the religious dimensions of the season.
There has been, and it is a blessed thing that needed to be done, a push to dissolve the parasitic relationship between a kind of generic Christianity and the public policies. The promotion of the Christian faith in public schools, the opening of public meetings with Christian prayers, the honoring of Christian holidays with vacation days. There has been a slow recognition and movement towards the principles of separation of church and state. The state will not seek to destroy or limit any religion by taxation and oppression, nor will it promote one religion over the other by special privileges. Our country has become more and more religiously diverse and our eyes have been opened to how much of our public support has been totally given to the vague notion of the Christian faith.
So it is entirely appropriate that in this time of the year when several religions have special celebrations that the government not give one of those celebrations more attention than others. But that is not a war on Christmas. It frees Christians to focus more joyfully on the coming of the Christ child.
The real war on Christmas is the assault of the Santa Claus culture that continues to dominate the month of December. Who is this holiday really for? Santa or Jesus. Did you see the question asked by the Jewish child about whether or not Santa comes to Jewish children? The Santa culture is invading the Jewish traditions. The really powerful and effective war that is being waged against Christmas is the commercialization of Christmas to the extent that the ideal image now is Santa driving Mercedes Benz cars and coming to your home.
Saying "Happy Holidays" is not a problem for me, but hearing "Santa Claus is coming to town!" fires another shot at the Christ child in a manger.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Not Willing to Pay the Price - a story
Monday nights I play racquetball with a group of different people. Last Monday I was with two others playing and on the first point I got tangled up with them and fell hard to the floor. But I won the point. The next play I got knocked hard to the floor again, but won the point. I did not win any more points. I had learned what was necessary to win a point, but decided it was not worth it.
That reminded me of our church softball team. We got into a league that was way over our level of skill but we had a good time. We lost every game but one. In that game it was very close and in a very close collision at home plate our player was safe and that was the winning run. The only problem was that our player broke his ankle in that collision. That was a game in the middle of the season and we did not win any more games. We had discover what it took to win, but we did not have enough members who were willing to pay the price in order to win. We joked about that a long time. We did not have enough members to pay the price and we did not have enough players to be able to lose one a game and still have a team.
Sometimes I think that we in our affluence society forget that there is a price to every victory, there is a cost for every success, and somebody has to pay. If we were to ever look at the big picture about who has to pay for the success, we might change the definitions of victory and success.
That reminded me of our church softball team. We got into a league that was way over our level of skill but we had a good time. We lost every game but one. In that game it was very close and in a very close collision at home plate our player was safe and that was the winning run. The only problem was that our player broke his ankle in that collision. That was a game in the middle of the season and we did not win any more games. We had discover what it took to win, but we did not have enough members who were willing to pay the price in order to win. We joked about that a long time. We did not have enough members to pay the price and we did not have enough players to be able to lose one a game and still have a team.
Sometimes I think that we in our affluence society forget that there is a price to every victory, there is a cost for every success, and somebody has to pay. If we were to ever look at the big picture about who has to pay for the success, we might change the definitions of victory and success.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
NO MORE FOLLOWERS
For most of us who have claimed the clues to the mysteries of life in the story of the Christian faith, we have rooted ourselves in the history of the Christian mission that moved from Paul’s trips to Greece and Rome to the spread of the Christian faith to Europe and then to the United States. We have developed a great treasury of intelligent, scholarly, wise books. We claim Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Erasmus, Barth, Tillich, and the list of theologians who have marked the way is long.
From the moment that ships set sail in exploration of the “new world” there has been the idea that Christians should be involved in taking the Christian message to those who had not heard it. The story of that Christian missionary work has not always been a good story. The methods and approaches of missionaries to the natives was often condescending and paternalistic, but Christians from Europe, and later from the North America believed that they were the ones with the answers. They were the teachers and givers.
Now the Christian faith is in decline in Europe and is pretty much stagnant in the United States. The great churches in Europe are mostly empty, and the number of people respond “None” when asked about a religious commitment in the United States is growing. “Spiritual but not religious” is a very common response to surveys about religious interest.
At the same time, the Christian faith is very much alive and vibrant in the southern continents and in the Far East. Latin America, Africa, India, and China have very dynamic Christian communities. Their numbers are growing. They now hold the majority of Christian people in the world. The mission countries are now sending missionaries to the United States and Europe.
The great challenge for Christians in Europe and the United States is to accept the leadership and guidance of the very people they have taught. The disciples are now more than the teachers. Now the teachers have to come to accept the guidance and decisions of the students.
The Christians of the Western Tradition who have thought for so long that they are the leaders now discover that the followers are not necessarily behind them. There is still an arrogance that we in the western tradition do not need to be told what to do by those in the southern and eastern part of the world. The Anglican Church held a conference and the bishops and leaders developed a request that the Episcopal Church in the United States not ordain any more homosexuals or gays for a while. Of course, the Episcopal church in the United States did not believe they should be limited by those Christians in Latin America, Africa and Asia. They went ahead.
Christians in Europe and the United States are no longer the head telling the rest of the body what to do and how to do it. There are no more followers behind us. The Christian witness will be guided and shaped by others. We will need to learn from them.
This is also a small example of what is happening in the larger political, economic, and social realities in the world.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
What would be the Difference?
A scholar from Harvard has delivered a paper at a conference in Rome announcing that she has been examining a papyrus piece of five lines of text that has the statement that Jesus says, "My wife"... I have no idea how authentic this piece is. The Scholar claims she and others have been very careful and they believe that it is a 2nd century a.d. papyrus. So maybe 100 to 150 years after his death, we have a piece of writing that is supposed to quote Jesus saying something about a wife.
How would that change our understanding of the Christian message? As I ponder the implications of that papyrus, I kept trying to find a place where the fact that Jesus was married would make any difference.
We already know that Jesus had dealings and conversations with women, and that he treated women with respect and integrity that was not always offered to them. The four gospels have a number of stories where Jesus is very supportive of women. So it would not be surprising that women would respond to him.
But what difference would a married Jesus make? Think about the Christian apostles creed. Is there anything there that would have to change if he were married? He could still be "born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried. Descended into Hell, and on the third day He arose from the dead and ascending into heaven and sits on the right hand of God from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. " All of those affirmations could still be affirmed about a married Jesus.
Certainly some traditions would find a lot of their justifications for many of their rituals and rubric disappearing if Jesus was married. The whole celibate thing for priest might take a serious hit if Jesus had been married. Would it make Jesus more human to be married and less special in the minds of people? Or would it increase his identification with humanity and make he more real for us?
How would that change our understanding of the Christian message? As I ponder the implications of that papyrus, I kept trying to find a place where the fact that Jesus was married would make any difference.
We already know that Jesus had dealings and conversations with women, and that he treated women with respect and integrity that was not always offered to them. The four gospels have a number of stories where Jesus is very supportive of women. So it would not be surprising that women would respond to him.
But what difference would a married Jesus make? Think about the Christian apostles creed. Is there anything there that would have to change if he were married? He could still be "born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried. Descended into Hell, and on the third day He arose from the dead and ascending into heaven and sits on the right hand of God from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. " All of those affirmations could still be affirmed about a married Jesus.
Certainly some traditions would find a lot of their justifications for many of their rituals and rubric disappearing if Jesus was married. The whole celibate thing for priest might take a serious hit if Jesus had been married. Would it make Jesus more human to be married and less special in the minds of people? Or would it increase his identification with humanity and make he more real for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)