Two pieces came together for me this week that led to this post. I'm working on a new website for our church, Cambridge Drive Community Church, and a female friend of mine informed me that she and her husband are now attending one of the nearby megachurches with a typical evangelical theology.
I went to that megachurch's website to check it out and found the ubiquitous "We Believe" page. Included on that page was a statement that all non-believers are going to eternal punishment in hell. I have to say that multiple times someone has said to me about that church, "I go there... but I don't believe what they believe." I'm pretty sure that virtually nobody who attends there really believes what the statement of faith says they believe from the pastors and elders down to the newest members. I know that is true of my friend and her husband. Let me explain.
If one truly believes that all of their unsaved neighbors, friends, and family members are going to suffer eternal punishment, then their behavior better change. They literally better be out there doing everything they can possibly be doing, 24 hours a day, to get those folk saved. There is simply no activity more important than that. The church ought to have no activities that are not aimed either at direct evangelism or at training their members to evangelize. Anything else is a betrayal of the billions of people who are not saved. Telling your members how to have a better marriage is a waste of time when other folk (or some of them) are facing eternal punishment. Worrying about responsible financial stewardship is irresponsible when something so big is at stake. If they really believe what they say they believe, then that would define their sole agenda in ministry and in the life of their members. When your neighbor's house is burning down, you don't teach a lesson about how to have a better sex life, you dial 911. When your neighbor is facing eternal punishment... you get it.
Or of course, they could actually believe that and not care... but that is not my experience of the folk who attend that church who I have met. They are good people with compassion and commitment. They care about the people in their lives and they care about their community. They think they're supposed to believe their neighbors are going to hell so they pay lip service, but they really don't believe it or they would do something about it.
I guess there is a third possibility... they believe some people have done things that are so terrible that they deserve eternal punishment and they're willing to allow for some collateral damage. Some relatively good folk will end up burning forever so the really bad ones get their just deserts. This time they may say that is the case, but again, I don't really believe it. To make John Doe burn in hell forever just so Hitler can be punished too seems a bit extreme and again, out of character for the folk I know.
Now there is an alternative. I am a universalist. Simply put, I believe everyone gets saved. That is another discussion and it obviously raises some serious questions, but I will point to a short piece quoted from William Barclay's autobiography where he gives his reasons for being a "convinced universalist." Likewise, I hold those views based on both theology and scripture and believe they are the proper understanding of salvation.
We won't have a "We believe" page on our website, but if we did, it would say that we believe that God's love and grace ultimately overcome all and all people are welcomed into God's arms. They'd never say so, but I think that is what the folk at my local megachurch think too.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Bass?
I'm a guitar player. I started playing in 1964. It is a significant part of my self-identity. It is my avocation, my therapy, and my primary artistic expression. There have been times in my life when my guitar playing represented a significant portion of our income. I've played in lots of different bands in multiple styles from funk to pop to singer/songwriter to even a little jazz.
For about two years, I've been playing bass in the church band. In spite of the fact that a bass guitar is tuned like the four lowest strings of a guitar one octave lower (which makes it very easy for guitar player to find all of the right notes on a bass) playing guitar does not a bass player make. Lots of guitar players think that qualifies them as a bass player but in the end, they sound like a guitar player playing at the bass rather than a bass player. The bass line requires a different musical vocabulary and needs to be conceptualized in a completely different way than a guitar part.
I knew that going in and worked very hard to actually learn to be a bass player rather than just playing at bass. I think I've done a pretty good job at that. Playing bass is fun. The fact that we have a couple of great drummers to play with makes it even more fun. And having a good bottom end is really important for the church band. There are negatives though. I miss playing guitar. Playing bass has impacted my guitar technique in a negative way. And because I have limited time to spend on playing anything, putting time on the bass takes away time from guitar.
About two months ago that led me to place an ad on Craigslist for a bass player for the church band. That would allow me to move back to guitar. It is a volunteer position so we've had trouble finding someone. In the meantime I came across the 10 Commandments for Bass Players.
For about two years, I've been playing bass in the church band. In spite of the fact that a bass guitar is tuned like the four lowest strings of a guitar one octave lower (which makes it very easy for guitar player to find all of the right notes on a bass) playing guitar does not a bass player make. Lots of guitar players think that qualifies them as a bass player but in the end, they sound like a guitar player playing at the bass rather than a bass player. The bass line requires a different musical vocabulary and needs to be conceptualized in a completely different way than a guitar part.
I knew that going in and worked very hard to actually learn to be a bass player rather than just playing at bass. I think I've done a pretty good job at that. Playing bass is fun. The fact that we have a couple of great drummers to play with makes it even more fun. And having a good bottom end is really important for the church band. There are negatives though. I miss playing guitar. Playing bass has impacted my guitar technique in a negative way. And because I have limited time to spend on playing anything, putting time on the bass takes away time from guitar.
About two months ago that led me to place an ad on Craigslist for a bass player for the church band. That would allow me to move back to guitar. It is a volunteer position so we've had trouble finding someone. In the meantime I came across the 10 Commandments for Bass Players.
- Thou shalt not *%$* up the groove. *%$* up the notes if thou must but not the groove
- Thou shalt not lust after the guitar player's part. He keepeth the fun. Thou keepest the groove.
- Be thou not swayed by a drummer with crappy time, for thou art the keeper of the beat.
- Be thou not led into temptation before the gig. After is cool.
- Thou pushest thy luck with 5 strings. 6 is a mortal sin, for thou hast no business in the upper register.
- Thou shalt not thump with thy thumb nor honk with a pick when thy fingers are the way of truth.
- Thou shalt not fear whole notes for they can be the way and the light.
- Thou shalt leave the fancy #$@% to thy bandmates so they might wrestle with their own bad taste.
- Thou shalt change they strings once a decade whether they need it or not.
- Thou shalt tune thy bass before each and every gig even though it was in tune when last thou put it away.
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
retirement
The American Baptist Churches, USA was one of the first denominations to found a retirement plan for its clergy. In 1911 a number of Baptist leaders, including John D. Rockefeller contributed seed money to start a fund for the "better maintenance of the ministry" and the Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board was founded. When I was ordained in 1978, the clear expectation was that every congregation in the ABC would contribute the equivalent of 16% of the pastor's salary & housing to a fully funded retirement account, death benefits, and disability insurance. That meant that 13% of salary and housing went into a 403B account. My salary was paltry in those days but thanks to the wonders of compound interest and the general upward trend of the stock market, I have a fairly healthy retirement account these days. Last week, I received my annual report for that account along with a projection of what my retirement will look like in seven years. At the same time we received my wife's report, which while significantly smaller than mine for a variety of reasons, makes a nice addition to mine. I don't know what Social Security numbers are but after making a conservative guess, I felt quite confident about the future for my wife and me. We won't be rich, but we will be OK and could even afford to stay in our home with a Central Coast sized mortgage payment.
Then I thought about my children... and I worried. Neither of my adult children have begun retirement accounts and neither has a work situation that provides one. My daughter is saddled with significant educational debt that precludes the possibility of saving for retirement even if she was foresighted enough to plan that far ahead. My son's income is not adequate to provide for housing and food let alone for long term planning. Clearly demographics will not allow Social Security to provide adequate retirement income for them unless there are significant changes made. I worry for both of them and their families.
So... dreaming of changes... I'd like to see a restructuring of the way that college debt works, freeing an entire generation of those terrible burdens. At the very least, it should be treated the same way as other debt. At the very most, educational costs should be seen as a social investment in the future of our country. After all, historically we have provided for free the amount of education required to be a productive member of society. Today that includes either college or trade school following high school. A high school education is simply inadequate these days. Then, for social security... remove the cap. Social Security is not a retirement plan. An individual is not making contributions to an account from which they will draw. It is a tax that funds an important safety net that currently is applied in the most regressive way possible. And perhaps there should be a means test in receiving the benefits. Those with income or assets beyond a certain level do not receive Social Security benefits... Of course, there is the conservative solution for the problem - cut the benefits and push many seniors either into poverty or back into an anemic workforce which already penalizes those with the the least amount of skill or, as Dave Ramsey says, "economic value."
Then I thought about my children... and I worried. Neither of my adult children have begun retirement accounts and neither has a work situation that provides one. My daughter is saddled with significant educational debt that precludes the possibility of saving for retirement even if she was foresighted enough to plan that far ahead. My son's income is not adequate to provide for housing and food let alone for long term planning. Clearly demographics will not allow Social Security to provide adequate retirement income for them unless there are significant changes made. I worry for both of them and their families.
So... dreaming of changes... I'd like to see a restructuring of the way that college debt works, freeing an entire generation of those terrible burdens. At the very least, it should be treated the same way as other debt. At the very most, educational costs should be seen as a social investment in the future of our country. After all, historically we have provided for free the amount of education required to be a productive member of society. Today that includes either college or trade school following high school. A high school education is simply inadequate these days. Then, for social security... remove the cap. Social Security is not a retirement plan. An individual is not making contributions to an account from which they will draw. It is a tax that funds an important safety net that currently is applied in the most regressive way possible. And perhaps there should be a means test in receiving the benefits. Those with income or assets beyond a certain level do not receive Social Security benefits... Of course, there is the conservative solution for the problem - cut the benefits and push many seniors either into poverty or back into an anemic workforce which already penalizes those with the the least amount of skill or, as Dave Ramsey says, "economic value."
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Justice?
We've been struggling with an interesting question in the Santa Ynez Valley that frankly, about which I don't quite know how to feel.
first some of the details...
Some time ago the Chumash people purchased a large tract of agricultural land (2.2 square miles) in the Santa Ynez Valley, near their reservation, and then proceeded to apply to annex the land to their reservation. There is no question that the Chumash people lived here before Europeans arrived and while I think their cultural understanding of ownership of the land was very different then, it doesn't seem too far off base to say that they were the owners until the Spaniards confiscated it.
Centuries passed and much has changed. The Santa Ynez Chumash band has a small reservation in a very expensive part of the country... and a casino. Annexing the land would move it into the Chumash Nation and remove it from the property tax rolls and from the zoning restrictions of the county.
The members of that small band own the casino and each individual member receives payments from it each year that today's local paper says are $600,000 annually. (I have heard smaller numbers from other sources the smallest being $100,000 per person, per year)
Building is highly regulated and controlled in this area for a variety of reasons, one being that water is a very precious and rare commodity. Infrastructure in the area of that land is limited and would struggle to support a significant influx of new residents.
The Chumash say they want to build homes for tribal members. Local residents fear a second casino. In any case, if the land is annexed, the Chumash can do whatever they please with no say from anyone else.
The Chumash could own the land without annexing it and go through the normal permitting process to build the homes they want, keeping them on county tax rolls, and their members could easily afford to purchase the homes. Indeed, many currently live off of the reservation. The tribe also owns businesses and hotels outside of the reservation.
The federal annexation law requires the tribe to have an "immediate need" or "necessity" for housing or economic development.
It does not look to me as if there is any real immediate need or necessity involved but it feels as if maybe there is room to reimburse the Chumash for all that was taken from them. On the other hand, they have benefited significantly by the development of the broader community and have incomes significantly above the rest of the community. Is it just to allow them to skirt laws that the rest of the community must observe while at the same time increasing stressors on the infrastructure and the environment without sharing any of the costs. I have to say that the thought of displacing the cattle feeding on those rolling hills and adding more houses, aimed at wealthy folk who can afford to live basically anywhere they want makes my heart ache.
And I am sure there are complexities I do not understand.
So what is just? What is right? What should I think about these possibilities a few miles down the road from me? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
first some of the details...
Some time ago the Chumash people purchased a large tract of agricultural land (2.2 square miles) in the Santa Ynez Valley, near their reservation, and then proceeded to apply to annex the land to their reservation. There is no question that the Chumash people lived here before Europeans arrived and while I think their cultural understanding of ownership of the land was very different then, it doesn't seem too far off base to say that they were the owners until the Spaniards confiscated it.
Centuries passed and much has changed. The Santa Ynez Chumash band has a small reservation in a very expensive part of the country... and a casino. Annexing the land would move it into the Chumash Nation and remove it from the property tax rolls and from the zoning restrictions of the county.
The members of that small band own the casino and each individual member receives payments from it each year that today's local paper says are $600,000 annually. (I have heard smaller numbers from other sources the smallest being $100,000 per person, per year)
Building is highly regulated and controlled in this area for a variety of reasons, one being that water is a very precious and rare commodity. Infrastructure in the area of that land is limited and would struggle to support a significant influx of new residents.
The Chumash say they want to build homes for tribal members. Local residents fear a second casino. In any case, if the land is annexed, the Chumash can do whatever they please with no say from anyone else.
The Chumash could own the land without annexing it and go through the normal permitting process to build the homes they want, keeping them on county tax rolls, and their members could easily afford to purchase the homes. Indeed, many currently live off of the reservation. The tribe also owns businesses and hotels outside of the reservation.
The federal annexation law requires the tribe to have an "immediate need" or "necessity" for housing or economic development.
It does not look to me as if there is any real immediate need or necessity involved but it feels as if maybe there is room to reimburse the Chumash for all that was taken from them. On the other hand, they have benefited significantly by the development of the broader community and have incomes significantly above the rest of the community. Is it just to allow them to skirt laws that the rest of the community must observe while at the same time increasing stressors on the infrastructure and the environment without sharing any of the costs. I have to say that the thought of displacing the cattle feeding on those rolling hills and adding more houses, aimed at wealthy folk who can afford to live basically anywhere they want makes my heart ache.
And I am sure there are complexities I do not understand.
So what is just? What is right? What should I think about these possibilities a few miles down the road from me? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Zealot
Wow... it's been more than a month since I've posted...
I finished reading Reza Aslan's book Zealot a few days ago. If you haven't heard of it, it is an attempt to place Jesus in an historical context and thus make him more understandable. I have to say I have very mixed feelings about the book.
The pros - If we believe in the Incarnation, we have to see that Jesus was not only a man but a man in a very specific time and place. We could argue over what that specificity has to do with God's self revelation, but in any case, we cannot divorce that revelation from that setting. We cannot understand Jesus without placing him in his context and we cannot understand incarnation without understanding contextualization. Aslan does a good job at explaining the social context in which Jesus found himself as well as the particular profusion of Judean self-styled messiahs, gathering followers and calling for the overthrow of Rome. A thorough understanding of the setting is critical for understanding Jesus and his teaching. Aslan helps make that possible. He does the same to a lesser degree for Paul.
The negatives - Aslan aknowledges that Jesus does not quite fit the common models of his day for the messiah but still tries to pigeon hole him into those models, dismissing any possibilities of Jesus bringing anything really unique to the discussion. He goes on to say essentially that Christianity as we know it is an invention of Paul that has very little to do with Jesus.
Additionally, Aslan picks and chooses his scholarship to fit his presuppositions. For example, he refers to Jesus' parables as incomprehensible when scholars going back to Jeremias' seminal 1947 book The Parables of Jesus, says that the parables were stories that used everyday experiences to reinforce a single message to the audience in a way they would understand.
And of course, he writes not as a person of faith but as a scholar looking for a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus whom he distinguishes from the Christ of faith. I think there is great value in this approach both for academia and for people of faith all the while knowing that for many Christians, such a differentiation is offensive.
So... my short review is that it is a worthwhile read but do not expect it to be a devotional book nor the best scholarship. It is however a fairly easy read that will help to enlighten the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
I finished reading Reza Aslan's book Zealot a few days ago. If you haven't heard of it, it is an attempt to place Jesus in an historical context and thus make him more understandable. I have to say I have very mixed feelings about the book.
The pros - If we believe in the Incarnation, we have to see that Jesus was not only a man but a man in a very specific time and place. We could argue over what that specificity has to do with God's self revelation, but in any case, we cannot divorce that revelation from that setting. We cannot understand Jesus without placing him in his context and we cannot understand incarnation without understanding contextualization. Aslan does a good job at explaining the social context in which Jesus found himself as well as the particular profusion of Judean self-styled messiahs, gathering followers and calling for the overthrow of Rome. A thorough understanding of the setting is critical for understanding Jesus and his teaching. Aslan helps make that possible. He does the same to a lesser degree for Paul.
The negatives - Aslan aknowledges that Jesus does not quite fit the common models of his day for the messiah but still tries to pigeon hole him into those models, dismissing any possibilities of Jesus bringing anything really unique to the discussion. He goes on to say essentially that Christianity as we know it is an invention of Paul that has very little to do with Jesus.
Additionally, Aslan picks and chooses his scholarship to fit his presuppositions. For example, he refers to Jesus' parables as incomprehensible when scholars going back to Jeremias' seminal 1947 book The Parables of Jesus, says that the parables were stories that used everyday experiences to reinforce a single message to the audience in a way they would understand.
And of course, he writes not as a person of faith but as a scholar looking for a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus whom he distinguishes from the Christ of faith. I think there is great value in this approach both for academia and for people of faith all the while knowing that for many Christians, such a differentiation is offensive.
So... my short review is that it is a worthwhile read but do not expect it to be a devotional book nor the best scholarship. It is however a fairly easy read that will help to enlighten the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
grandparenting
It's been a while since I've posted an entry here... life has been full.
In October our daughter, son-in-law, and grandson moved in with us. It has been a tricky adjustment. We have 5 adults, an infant, and 3 cats in our medium sized condo. There are the tensions and adjustments one would expect when a grown child and her family move back with the rents. Add the clutter that comes with a baby and you get the picture. All of that has been a more difficult adjustment for my spouse than for me, but it is what it is. I can only guess what my daughter and son-in-law are feeling about all of it.
Well, here's the good side. I get to see my grandson every day and directly experience the changes that most grandparents don't get to see. I tell him daily that he is "my favorite person in the whole world," and I mean it. He brings a sense of delight to my life that hasn't been there in a good while. When I hold him, I see the future. When he smiles I melt. Life is good.
I've thought a lot about the differences between parenting and grandparenting. Obviously there are some bits that are the same. We all want the very best for Corwin. We want him to be happy, healthy, and to find a path for his life that is full. Still there is a big difference. I'm not responsible. That makes my agenda for his life much less weighty. I can enjoy my time with him. If I change his diaper, it is because I want to, not because I have to. Indeed, changing his diaper is one of my favorite activities as we get to talk uninterrupted.
OK, so let me brag on him a bit... Corwin loves music, or at least the music that he loves. He is very opinionated. He loves rhythmic music. When music he enjoys is playing he moves arms, legs, and head and sometimes sings along. When that song ends or when he hears music he doesn't like, he cries. The first time I noticed it, I had recorded the Saturday Night Live episode with Katy Perry and it was playing while I changed his diaper. He loved Roar and trying to get his diaper on was like trying to do origami with a fish as all of his limbs were moving. The song ended... and he roared. He likes faster Irish music and just about anything with a strong rhythm. One of his favorites is an old Harry Belafonte tune I sing to him sometimes - Zombie Jamboree (as a child, the Kingston Trio version was in heavy rotation at my house). There are those times when our tastes don't quite line up. We were watching The Voice this week (one of his favorite shows BTW) and the coaches did a song with Def Leppard. He loved it... me not so much. Given the way he moves all of his limbs, I won't be surprised if he becomes a drummer. Watch out Manu Katche, here he comes!
In October our daughter, son-in-law, and grandson moved in with us. It has been a tricky adjustment. We have 5 adults, an infant, and 3 cats in our medium sized condo. There are the tensions and adjustments one would expect when a grown child and her family move back with the rents. Add the clutter that comes with a baby and you get the picture. All of that has been a more difficult adjustment for my spouse than for me, but it is what it is. I can only guess what my daughter and son-in-law are feeling about all of it.Well, here's the good side. I get to see my grandson every day and directly experience the changes that most grandparents don't get to see. I tell him daily that he is "my favorite person in the whole world," and I mean it. He brings a sense of delight to my life that hasn't been there in a good while. When I hold him, I see the future. When he smiles I melt. Life is good.
I've thought a lot about the differences between parenting and grandparenting. Obviously there are some bits that are the same. We all want the very best for Corwin. We want him to be happy, healthy, and to find a path for his life that is full. Still there is a big difference. I'm not responsible. That makes my agenda for his life much less weighty. I can enjoy my time with him. If I change his diaper, it is because I want to, not because I have to. Indeed, changing his diaper is one of my favorite activities as we get to talk uninterrupted.
OK, so let me brag on him a bit... Corwin loves music, or at least the music that he loves. He is very opinionated. He loves rhythmic music. When music he enjoys is playing he moves arms, legs, and head and sometimes sings along. When that song ends or when he hears music he doesn't like, he cries. The first time I noticed it, I had recorded the Saturday Night Live episode with Katy Perry and it was playing while I changed his diaper. He loved Roar and trying to get his diaper on was like trying to do origami with a fish as all of his limbs were moving. The song ended... and he roared. He likes faster Irish music and just about anything with a strong rhythm. One of his favorites is an old Harry Belafonte tune I sing to him sometimes - Zombie Jamboree (as a child, the Kingston Trio version was in heavy rotation at my house). There are those times when our tastes don't quite line up. We were watching The Voice this week (one of his favorite shows BTW) and the coaches did a song with Def Leppard. He loved it... me not so much. Given the way he moves all of his limbs, I won't be surprised if he becomes a drummer. Watch out Manu Katche, here he comes!
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
unsolicited advice re: musicians' websites
OK... nobody asked for my opinion but that has never stopped me before. I'm speaking here as one who books a venue (Cambridge Drive Concerts), not a fan looking at musicians' websites. Some of the needs are very different so take that into account.
As a booker, when I go to an artist's website, there are a number of things I look for and I want to be able to find them relatively easily.
First, I want to be able to hear the artist's music. It is better yet if I can actually hear their live sound rather than a CD they're selling (which tells me next to nothing about what they sound like live) and even better yet if I can watch a quality video of a live performance.
Next I want a good, useable bio. If it includes recommendations or reviews, they are worth more to me if they are related to live performances than to a CD. And if you have quotes from venues that are similar to mine, even better yet. Te whole thing doesn't need to be press ready, but if it is, I appreciate that. One performer sent me a press kit with three different length bios... I loved it. I didn't end up using any of them verbatim but took pieces from two and put together something that fit our requirements and seemed to reflect the performer's personality.
I want to know where the musician is based. I hear lots of music on the web, have a feeling the person would be a good match for our venue, make a contact, only to discover they're based in Maine and never travel outside of New England. You wouldn't believe how many websites don't even give a clue as to where the musician is based. It would have been so much easier if somewhere the website might have said, "New England based" or "I spend 50% of my time driving cross country and perform everywhere." Maybe even a "I'm currently putting together a west coast tour for next fall..."
Last, I want to be able to find a good high rez photo to use for my press materials. I can't tell you how many artist's websites have zero useable photos for press releases. Yes, I can send an e-mail and ask for one and wait for it to be sent, but it is soooo much easier when I can just go to the website and download it. And of course, there are those times when I forget to ask until a day before the press release needs to go out and there just isn't time and I end up using something inadequate that I pulled off the web somewhere. As likely as not, that photo doesn't get included in the announcements in the media and maybe we lose a few audience members.
Once I've booked an act, I need a few other pieces. What do you need from me for sound, ie how many microphones, inputs, DI's? Do you have any food allergies or requirements? We like to feed folk. Any pet allergies if we're putting you up? Where are you coming from and going to? That helps with our plans. Send me a CD a few months before your date. It isn't just for me (although I've gotten a few of my favorite CD's from performers). I'll play it at shows as people arrive and during intermission and inform the audience... "You're listening to John Doe who is performing here next month." The high rez photo becomes more important here. I need one, one way or another and I have to have it more than a month out as press releases go out before the 1st of the prior month. And most important, give me your cell phone number and get mine as soon as we solidify a date. It isn't likely we'll need to call one another, but if you're stuck on the 101 outside of Ventura because of a mud slide an hour before our scheduled soundcheck, I need to know.
One more piece of advice. I love to get e-mails from performers looking for someplace to play and have connected with some wonderful folk that way. More often than not though, the sender has done no research and they are not the right artist for us. I get e-mails from hip hop artists, alternative rock bands, you name it... and it is a waste of time and bandwidth. Find out who we are and what we do before you make a contact. FWIW, I usually book about 6 months out and do the fall in a block and then the winter/spring in a block. We present once a month on the first Friday.
One of these days I'll give some more unsolicited advice about performing.
As a booker, when I go to an artist's website, there are a number of things I look for and I want to be able to find them relatively easily.
First, I want to be able to hear the artist's music. It is better yet if I can actually hear their live sound rather than a CD they're selling (which tells me next to nothing about what they sound like live) and even better yet if I can watch a quality video of a live performance.
Next I want a good, useable bio. If it includes recommendations or reviews, they are worth more to me if they are related to live performances than to a CD. And if you have quotes from venues that are similar to mine, even better yet. Te whole thing doesn't need to be press ready, but if it is, I appreciate that. One performer sent me a press kit with three different length bios... I loved it. I didn't end up using any of them verbatim but took pieces from two and put together something that fit our requirements and seemed to reflect the performer's personality.
I want to know where the musician is based. I hear lots of music on the web, have a feeling the person would be a good match for our venue, make a contact, only to discover they're based in Maine and never travel outside of New England. You wouldn't believe how many websites don't even give a clue as to where the musician is based. It would have been so much easier if somewhere the website might have said, "New England based" or "I spend 50% of my time driving cross country and perform everywhere." Maybe even a "I'm currently putting together a west coast tour for next fall..."
Last, I want to be able to find a good high rez photo to use for my press materials. I can't tell you how many artist's websites have zero useable photos for press releases. Yes, I can send an e-mail and ask for one and wait for it to be sent, but it is soooo much easier when I can just go to the website and download it. And of course, there are those times when I forget to ask until a day before the press release needs to go out and there just isn't time and I end up using something inadequate that I pulled off the web somewhere. As likely as not, that photo doesn't get included in the announcements in the media and maybe we lose a few audience members.
Once I've booked an act, I need a few other pieces. What do you need from me for sound, ie how many microphones, inputs, DI's? Do you have any food allergies or requirements? We like to feed folk. Any pet allergies if we're putting you up? Where are you coming from and going to? That helps with our plans. Send me a CD a few months before your date. It isn't just for me (although I've gotten a few of my favorite CD's from performers). I'll play it at shows as people arrive and during intermission and inform the audience... "You're listening to John Doe who is performing here next month." The high rez photo becomes more important here. I need one, one way or another and I have to have it more than a month out as press releases go out before the 1st of the prior month. And most important, give me your cell phone number and get mine as soon as we solidify a date. It isn't likely we'll need to call one another, but if you're stuck on the 101 outside of Ventura because of a mud slide an hour before our scheduled soundcheck, I need to know.
One more piece of advice. I love to get e-mails from performers looking for someplace to play and have connected with some wonderful folk that way. More often than not though, the sender has done no research and they are not the right artist for us. I get e-mails from hip hop artists, alternative rock bands, you name it... and it is a waste of time and bandwidth. Find out who we are and what we do before you make a contact. FWIW, I usually book about 6 months out and do the fall in a block and then the winter/spring in a block. We present once a month on the first Friday.
One of these days I'll give some more unsolicited advice about performing.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
winners and losers in the ACA
No doubt you have heard reports of folk who have lost health insurance or had it increase in price because of the Affordable Care Act. I know that in some of those instances, the reporting has been less than 100% accurate. In some cases, such as with Trader Joe's, the employer discontinued their employee insurance because they calculated that their employees could get coverage through the exchanges for less than their portion of the coverage they were getting at work. Dropping them actually got them equivalent insurance for less money. In other instances, people with woefully inadequate insurance found themselves having to pay more but also receiving significantly better coverage. All that said, I know there are folk who have seen increases in the cost of their insurance and I've heard some reports for which I have no data to question, that the reason is Obamacare. And finally there are those young adults who "don't need" health insurance until of course, they do. For them, any cost is an increase.
My experience has been different. As I said in an earlier post, moving to the exchange will save significantly money for my employer. I had no idea how much. To recap, my insurance is ridiculously high for a number of reasons. Clergy are a high risk group to begin with. They tend not to take good care of themselves so heart disease, stroke, and diabetes are rampant. Clergy also tend to be older which just increases the risk pool. Finally, the health insurance we get through our denomination is an even higher risk pool as it tends to include only those who cannot get insurance elsewhere. Until the ACA, I was part of that group. I also happen to live in an area where healthcare and insurance are very expensive. We received word that for next year, our denominational healthcare plan would increase by 11.5% and the increase has nothing to do with the ACA. Additionally, the co-pays all increase as does the out of pocket limit and fewer medications are covered. Add the fact that I move into another age category and insurance for my spouse and I would cost $4251 a month. Simply, that is beyond what the church could possibly afford and minus housing allowance, is more than my salary. Looking at the exchange, it seems that a platinum plan in our area at our age would be under $1900 a month for a savings of about $2,350 a month or over a 55% savings. It is still a lot of money but the church can afford to keep me covered.
My son-in-law, daughter, and grandson will experience an even larger savings. My son has been without health insurance for 3 years because as a single male he was not eligible for any government help and could not begin to afford coverage on the open market. He will have insurance beginning January 1 and I will breathe much easier every time he plays basketball or flag football.
I guess there are losers in all of this. I still agree that the overall shape of the ACA is not the best we could have done. Given the current situation and the political climate in which we live, I am more thankful than I could say for the ACA.
My experience has been different. As I said in an earlier post, moving to the exchange will save significantly money for my employer. I had no idea how much. To recap, my insurance is ridiculously high for a number of reasons. Clergy are a high risk group to begin with. They tend not to take good care of themselves so heart disease, stroke, and diabetes are rampant. Clergy also tend to be older which just increases the risk pool. Finally, the health insurance we get through our denomination is an even higher risk pool as it tends to include only those who cannot get insurance elsewhere. Until the ACA, I was part of that group. I also happen to live in an area where healthcare and insurance are very expensive. We received word that for next year, our denominational healthcare plan would increase by 11.5% and the increase has nothing to do with the ACA. Additionally, the co-pays all increase as does the out of pocket limit and fewer medications are covered. Add the fact that I move into another age category and insurance for my spouse and I would cost $4251 a month. Simply, that is beyond what the church could possibly afford and minus housing allowance, is more than my salary. Looking at the exchange, it seems that a platinum plan in our area at our age would be under $1900 a month for a savings of about $2,350 a month or over a 55% savings. It is still a lot of money but the church can afford to keep me covered.
My son-in-law, daughter, and grandson will experience an even larger savings. My son has been without health insurance for 3 years because as a single male he was not eligible for any government help and could not begin to afford coverage on the open market. He will have insurance beginning January 1 and I will breathe much easier every time he plays basketball or flag football.
I guess there are losers in all of this. I still agree that the overall shape of the ACA is not the best we could have done. Given the current situation and the political climate in which we live, I am more thankful than I could say for the ACA.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Keeping the Feast
About a year ago, I received Keeping the Feast: Metaphors for the Meal by Milton Brasher-Cunningham in return for a promise to read and review it within 30 days. Well, it got into the pile and I never got to it. The other day I got an e-mail reminder (thanks Mike) and found the book and read it. Here's my review.
This book is about meals... primarily communion but it also reminds us of the sacredness of being at table with one another and the place that meals hold in building community and reinforcing "who we are and to whom we belong." It shares a few recipes (we're going to try them), some poems, and lots of metaphors illustrating the role of communion in our lives.
I like this book. A lot. I wanted to like it even more, but I read it too fast for that. It is a short book and easily read in two or three sittings, which is what I did. That was a mistake. It reads more like a series of free flowing discussions over the kitchen table rather than a linear argument or treatise on the theology of the Eucharist and each little bit requires some time to properly digest. The book made me think of the Slow Food movement, a reaction to fast food eating that envisions food as something we ingest quickly and without thought, as a means of getting a little quick physical nutrition as if eating is the same as refueling a car at the gas station. Slow Food says that eating together can be a time of meaning, of community, of re-membering and it can be sacred time that makes us whole rather than just full. I read Keeping the Feast like fast food and that was a mistake. I'll read it again... slowly, digesting each metaphor and wrestling with the challenges. (I love the idea of the Thursday Night Dinner).
The secondary theme of the sacredness of eating together will be most meaningful in my life. My wife and I do eat dinner together every evening but too often it is perfunctory as we grab something and park in front of the television. Recently my daughter, son-in-law, and grandson moved in with us which has changed our eating pattern and pushed us back to the table together. It takes more time and a lot more energy, but it might just be a wonderful opportunity for re-membering. I'm hopeful. I dare not implement a Thursday Night Dinner without permission but the idea holds a lot of attraction for me. At the very least, it will push me to open our door more than we do in our isolated American life.
So... I recommend this book. Read it slowly and take time to digest the ideas.
In the meantime, check out Milton Brasher-Cunningham's blogs - http://
This book is about meals... primarily communion but it also reminds us of the sacredness of being at table with one another and the place that meals hold in building community and reinforcing "who we are and to whom we belong." It shares a few recipes (we're going to try them), some poems, and lots of metaphors illustrating the role of communion in our lives.
I like this book. A lot. I wanted to like it even more, but I read it too fast for that. It is a short book and easily read in two or three sittings, which is what I did. That was a mistake. It reads more like a series of free flowing discussions over the kitchen table rather than a linear argument or treatise on the theology of the Eucharist and each little bit requires some time to properly digest. The book made me think of the Slow Food movement, a reaction to fast food eating that envisions food as something we ingest quickly and without thought, as a means of getting a little quick physical nutrition as if eating is the same as refueling a car at the gas station. Slow Food says that eating together can be a time of meaning, of community, of re-membering and it can be sacred time that makes us whole rather than just full. I read Keeping the Feast like fast food and that was a mistake. I'll read it again... slowly, digesting each metaphor and wrestling with the challenges. (I love the idea of the Thursday Night Dinner).
The secondary theme of the sacredness of eating together will be most meaningful in my life. My wife and I do eat dinner together every evening but too often it is perfunctory as we grab something and park in front of the television. Recently my daughter, son-in-law, and grandson moved in with us which has changed our eating pattern and pushed us back to the table together. It takes more time and a lot more energy, but it might just be a wonderful opportunity for re-membering. I'm hopeful. I dare not implement a Thursday Night Dinner without permission but the idea holds a lot of attraction for me. At the very least, it will push me to open our door more than we do in our isolated American life.
So... I recommend this book. Read it slowly and take time to digest the ideas.
In the meantime, check out Milton Brasher-Cunningham's blogs - http://
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Alternatives to Obamacare
I had an epiphany yesterday. Republicans in the House have voted to repeal the ACA 46 times and not once have they offered an alternative. The reason that they have not offered a reasonable alternative to Obamacare is because Obamacare was their idea. Yep. Back in 1974, the Nixon administration proposed an insurance program where all employers would provide insurance for all of their workers or face a fine. The poor would be added to an expanded Medicare and small businesses and low income folk would receive a government subsidy to help cover their insurance costs. It failed because Democrats wanted a public system rather than one based on private insurers. In 1989 the Heritage Foundation proposed a law with an individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance and that feature began showing up in Republican proposals for healthcare reform up until Newt Gingrich made it a centerpiece of his agenda when he was Speaker. All of this on the federal level. Then, of course, Romney established a very similar plan in Massachusetts on the state level. Obamacare is a Republican program. A Democratic program would have centered on a public option with a single payer. The ACA is not socialized medicine, it is a program based on the private sector.
There are other options to the ACA. I prefer a single payer, public program. I think that is the only way to address the myriads of problems in our healthcare delivery system. There was no way the Republicans would have voted for truly socialized healthcare and there were enough Dems who would have sided with them that it was an idea that was dead in the water regardless of whether or not it might have been the best idea. It never even made it to the table for discussion.
I have heard two other options mentioned by some.
Leave the system alone. That is fine if you are someone who has good insurance from your employer without a large employee contribution or never experience any illnesses or accidents that cause injuries. It leaves out the folk who have no insurance or are under-insured. It causes many people to forgo treatment until it is too late and sends others to the most expensive healthcare option of all, the emergency room. It leaves those out who have pre-existing conditions which preclude them from purchasing insurance (and there is no way to stop insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate). And regardless of what folk say, healthcare does not work like any other "free market" industry so in this option there is no way to slow the runaway price increases we've all experienced. Leaving it alone is not an option that I can see as making any sense at all.
I've recently seen multiple folk advocating another option which I find sickening (excuse the pun). They are arguing that we do away with insurance completely. Healthcare would become like any other commodity on the market with individuals bargaining with physicians and hospitals when needed, health care going only to those who can afford it, and the "free" market running its course. In their minds, those who are healthy would not have to subsidize those who are not and those who are not in this scenario are always caricatured as irresponsible folk whose poor choices are causing their problems. While there are many who do not need regular doctor visits or medications and think they can go without insurance, one accident or unexpected illness changes everything in a heartbeat. Those folk argue that a free market would bring down costs, but never imagine the ridiculousness of sitting in the emergency room with a broken bone sticking through their flesh while arguing with the doctor about the costs or leaving to go 55 miles to another hospital that treats heart attacks more inexpensively. I presume they would argue that anyone arriving at the hospital must pay in advance or not receive treatment. Without that stricture, who would pay for those who receive treatment and never pay? Most of all, this kind of idea completely excludes any sense of community and the greater good for the entire community. I can't help but think of politicians in New York and Colorado who argued against government disaster funds until their communities were struck by Sandy and terrible floods and they saw the light that we really are all in this together. The only folk for whom this option works are the very, very, very few who never get sick or injured or the extremely wealthy.
Are there other options that I've missed? Realistic ones that preserve a sense of community? I agree the ACA is not the best option. I would even agree that it does not represent any sense of a compromise. In spite of the fact that it was passed by the Dems, it is a completely Republican idea that Democrats supported, expecting that Republicans would own the baby they birthed. They did not. And they offered no reasonable alternatives... because their proposal was already on the table.
There are other options to the ACA. I prefer a single payer, public program. I think that is the only way to address the myriads of problems in our healthcare delivery system. There was no way the Republicans would have voted for truly socialized healthcare and there were enough Dems who would have sided with them that it was an idea that was dead in the water regardless of whether or not it might have been the best idea. It never even made it to the table for discussion.
I have heard two other options mentioned by some.
Leave the system alone. That is fine if you are someone who has good insurance from your employer without a large employee contribution or never experience any illnesses or accidents that cause injuries. It leaves out the folk who have no insurance or are under-insured. It causes many people to forgo treatment until it is too late and sends others to the most expensive healthcare option of all, the emergency room. It leaves those out who have pre-existing conditions which preclude them from purchasing insurance (and there is no way to stop insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate). And regardless of what folk say, healthcare does not work like any other "free market" industry so in this option there is no way to slow the runaway price increases we've all experienced. Leaving it alone is not an option that I can see as making any sense at all.
I've recently seen multiple folk advocating another option which I find sickening (excuse the pun). They are arguing that we do away with insurance completely. Healthcare would become like any other commodity on the market with individuals bargaining with physicians and hospitals when needed, health care going only to those who can afford it, and the "free" market running its course. In their minds, those who are healthy would not have to subsidize those who are not and those who are not in this scenario are always caricatured as irresponsible folk whose poor choices are causing their problems. While there are many who do not need regular doctor visits or medications and think they can go without insurance, one accident or unexpected illness changes everything in a heartbeat. Those folk argue that a free market would bring down costs, but never imagine the ridiculousness of sitting in the emergency room with a broken bone sticking through their flesh while arguing with the doctor about the costs or leaving to go 55 miles to another hospital that treats heart attacks more inexpensively. I presume they would argue that anyone arriving at the hospital must pay in advance or not receive treatment. Without that stricture, who would pay for those who receive treatment and never pay? Most of all, this kind of idea completely excludes any sense of community and the greater good for the entire community. I can't help but think of politicians in New York and Colorado who argued against government disaster funds until their communities were struck by Sandy and terrible floods and they saw the light that we really are all in this together. The only folk for whom this option works are the very, very, very few who never get sick or injured or the extremely wealthy.
Are there other options that I've missed? Realistic ones that preserve a sense of community? I agree the ACA is not the best option. I would even agree that it does not represent any sense of a compromise. In spite of the fact that it was passed by the Dems, it is a completely Republican idea that Democrats supported, expecting that Republicans would own the baby they birthed. They did not. And they offered no reasonable alternatives... because their proposal was already on the table.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
In the Ghetto
Yesterday was the first real sit down meal for the blended Busby/Donkin families (although John was working so we weren't all here). It was a simple meal, sauteed asparagus and sloppy joes, but I decided to open a little higher grade wine. We have about 180 bottles in our "cellar" so I sat in front of them and looked at the labels and came across Ghetto Red from Joseph Blair winery. Yep... Ghetto Red.
It is a fun joke as the wine area in Lompoc, CA is called the Lompoc Wine Ghetto. It clearly is not the ghetto red I knew as a teenager growing up very near the ghetto in Wilkinsburg, PA. The ghetto red I knew was Tiger Rose or Bali High... I think it had some kind of grapes in it. The Ghetto Red we had was a very nice blend of Merlot and Petit Verdot. It really went well with the cloves in the sloppy joes.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
What the Republicans Are Doing
It has been interesting watching the media cover the ongoing political mess. Fox News has refused to call it a government "shut down," preferring instead a government "slimdown." As has been noted by some, words are important and the one who controls the language, controls the debate. On October 10 at a press conference, press secretary Carney used the word "ransom" which was rejected by the press corp as being too provocative. The Republicans have repeatedly slammed the president for "refusing to negotiate" while the president has refused to allow the economy to be held "hostage." All the while, the media has implied more or less equal blame for the mess we're facing.
At this point, it is important to clarify what has actually happened. A law was passed (the ACA). That law was judged constitutional by a very conservative SCOTUS. The electorate re-elected the president, running on the basis of that law and even a majority of voters in House races voted Democratic, all endorsing the law. Republicans, largely because of gerrymandered districts held the House majority. Some 41 times, the tried to repeal the ACA, failing every single time. It should be noted that laws get repealed and modified all of the time... through the legislative process or via the courts. Neither worked for the Republicans so they decided to do an end run, holding first the budget hostage and then the full faith and credit of the United States. Make no mistake, when the Republicans in the House were unable to repeal Obamacare via the normal means, they decided to threaten severe damage to the economy of the country and indeed the world. Give them what they want, what they could not get by normal means, or they would destroy everything.
Perhaps "ransom" is too provocative... but terrorism is an accurate description. Here's one definition I found for that word... other definitions were all similar. "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
At this point, it is important to clarify what has actually happened. A law was passed (the ACA). That law was judged constitutional by a very conservative SCOTUS. The electorate re-elected the president, running on the basis of that law and even a majority of voters in House races voted Democratic, all endorsing the law. Republicans, largely because of gerrymandered districts held the House majority. Some 41 times, the tried to repeal the ACA, failing every single time. It should be noted that laws get repealed and modified all of the time... through the legislative process or via the courts. Neither worked for the Republicans so they decided to do an end run, holding first the budget hostage and then the full faith and credit of the United States. Make no mistake, when the Republicans in the House were unable to repeal Obamacare via the normal means, they decided to threaten severe damage to the economy of the country and indeed the world. Give them what they want, what they could not get by normal means, or they would destroy everything.
Perhaps "ransom" is too provocative... but terrorism is an accurate description. Here's one definition I found for that word... other definitions were all similar. "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Welcome to Crazy Town
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or move to another country when I think about the current political mess in Washington. We have Tea Party folk willing to shut down the government because all of the normal ways of changing a law are out of their reach. So, to defund the ACA, which they are afraid will succeed, they are willing to directly hurt thousands of Americans and add one more drain on a still very fragile economy. Of course, they are willing to fund parts piecemeal - fund the WWII Memorial in DC but forget the EPA and the FDA... you get the picture. While FOX News calls it a government "slimdown," the reality is that it is being felt throughout the economy and is impacting the lives of all Americans, though clearly some much more than others.
And then comes the debt ceiling. I have to say that I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of the debt ceiling. I do understand that if it is not increased, that the US government cannot pay all of its bills. That would be devastating to the economy of the US and the world. I also understand that even the threat of a default ripples through the skittish economy as Wall Street reacts to the slightest insecurity in the financial system. The last time they threatened to breach the debt ceiling (2011), the Dow dropped 2000 points and the US credit rating was impacted. A 2000 point drop is a serious hit on investments, people's 401Ks, retirement plans, etc. and that is just the impact on the US market. Because much of the world's markets rely on US Treasury bills as the safest investment in the world, a hiccup there is felt everywhere. Already the worldwide market seems to be reacting to the possibility of a default.
Here's the scary part... there are Republicans who are saying that a default wouldn't be a big deal, They are irresponsible. Every economist is saying that at best it would be an economic catastrophe. At worst, it would plunge us into a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression look like a Tea Party (excuse the pun). Of course, these are the same folk who ignore the clear scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity, dismiss the clear scientific consensus that evolution is the way we got here, and even question whether children should be taught science and the humanities. Why would they listen to economists?
There is a worse group. They are seeing breaching the debt ceiling as the best strategy to destroy the government they hate. They believe it would be catastrophic but that would provide the easiest cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the FDA, public education, and virtually all of the other parts of government that help secure the common good. They want to destroy the US government as it exists. If the first group of Republicans are irresponsible, those in this group are treasonous.
I almost want to believe those folk are truly crazy. I feel sympathy for people with mental illness. I know it is not their fault and that they need treatment. If those Republicans are not crazy, the other options are not good. You could say they are stupid... or you could say they are very, very badly misled... or you could conclude they are evil. I like crazy better. Maybe with some thorazine they'd be OK. Why we've allowed the inmates to run the asylum is another question... addressed in the next paragraph.
There is a third group of Republicans, possibly the most despicable of all. They are the more moderate Republicans who see the other two and are afraid to stand against either. They are afraid they will be Tea Partied in the next primary and will lose their power and position so they acquiesce to the crazies and allow them to set the agenda and chart the course even though they know it is insane. They are motivated by self-preservation and lust for power, not by the best interests of their constituents or for the nation as a whole. They are not crazy. They are despicable.
I have said before that I believe in a two party system. Actually, I think we need more viable parties to represent a broader spectrum of views at the tables of power. I think decisions are best made when reasonable people of a variety of understandings struggle together to make compromises that work. I see nobody acting reasonably on the Republican side. Literally, nobody. I think they all need to be voted out of office so that another coalition of folk who truly represent conservative values and understandings can come to the table and wrestle responsibly. Let the far right come to the table as well... but do not allow the tail to wag the dog any longer. (FWIW, I'd like to see the Democrats split into multiple parties so that the true liberals get a voice at the table as well.)
And then comes the debt ceiling. I have to say that I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of the debt ceiling. I do understand that if it is not increased, that the US government cannot pay all of its bills. That would be devastating to the economy of the US and the world. I also understand that even the threat of a default ripples through the skittish economy as Wall Street reacts to the slightest insecurity in the financial system. The last time they threatened to breach the debt ceiling (2011), the Dow dropped 2000 points and the US credit rating was impacted. A 2000 point drop is a serious hit on investments, people's 401Ks, retirement plans, etc. and that is just the impact on the US market. Because much of the world's markets rely on US Treasury bills as the safest investment in the world, a hiccup there is felt everywhere. Already the worldwide market seems to be reacting to the possibility of a default.
Here's the scary part... there are Republicans who are saying that a default wouldn't be a big deal, They are irresponsible. Every economist is saying that at best it would be an economic catastrophe. At worst, it would plunge us into a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression look like a Tea Party (excuse the pun). Of course, these are the same folk who ignore the clear scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity, dismiss the clear scientific consensus that evolution is the way we got here, and even question whether children should be taught science and the humanities. Why would they listen to economists?
There is a worse group. They are seeing breaching the debt ceiling as the best strategy to destroy the government they hate. They believe it would be catastrophic but that would provide the easiest cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the FDA, public education, and virtually all of the other parts of government that help secure the common good. They want to destroy the US government as it exists. If the first group of Republicans are irresponsible, those in this group are treasonous.
I almost want to believe those folk are truly crazy. I feel sympathy for people with mental illness. I know it is not their fault and that they need treatment. If those Republicans are not crazy, the other options are not good. You could say they are stupid... or you could say they are very, very badly misled... or you could conclude they are evil. I like crazy better. Maybe with some thorazine they'd be OK. Why we've allowed the inmates to run the asylum is another question... addressed in the next paragraph.
There is a third group of Republicans, possibly the most despicable of all. They are the more moderate Republicans who see the other two and are afraid to stand against either. They are afraid they will be Tea Partied in the next primary and will lose their power and position so they acquiesce to the crazies and allow them to set the agenda and chart the course even though they know it is insane. They are motivated by self-preservation and lust for power, not by the best interests of their constituents or for the nation as a whole. They are not crazy. They are despicable.
I have said before that I believe in a two party system. Actually, I think we need more viable parties to represent a broader spectrum of views at the tables of power. I think decisions are best made when reasonable people of a variety of understandings struggle together to make compromises that work. I see nobody acting reasonably on the Republican side. Literally, nobody. I think they all need to be voted out of office so that another coalition of folk who truly represent conservative values and understandings can come to the table and wrestle responsibly. Let the far right come to the table as well... but do not allow the tail to wag the dog any longer. (FWIW, I'd like to see the Democrats split into multiple parties so that the true liberals get a voice at the table as well.)
Saturday, September 21, 2013
budget blues
Budgets are moral documents. Jesus put it this way - "where your treasure is, there is your heart." The converse is the same, where your heart is, there is where you put your money. I am appalled at the budget passed by the US House this week, cutting aid to millions of poor folk and defunding the ACA which provides health insurance for millions more. And these actions by those who call themselves pro family and pro life. They are neither. If this budget shows us where their hearts are, it is clearly on the side of the rich and powerful at the expense of those on the margins. As an American, and even more importantly as a person of faith and a follower of Jesus who always stood with those on the margins, I am disgusted by these actions. This bill is immoral and clearly at odds with anything taught by any religious tradition.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, my representative voted against this travesty. So, I cannot vote against a representative who so offends anything I value or that I think represents my faith or my understanding of what we stand for a as a nation. I will give to candidates running against those incumbents who so voted and I will call again and again for those who are my friends and acquaintances to put those people out of office. Their immoral visions do not represent any version of America I hold dear.
If you live in a district served by someone who voted for this immoral document, write, call, or email them, telling them that you cannot support a candidate who votes against the needs of the poorest and neediest. Then vote them out. If you vote for them, then you have forfeited your right to call yourself moral and certainly cannot claim to follow any religious tradition that is worth embracing.
Sojourners published a list of the representatives who voted for this immoral budget both by state and by last name.
Here they are ordered by last name. VOTE THEM OUT!
Unfortunately, or fortunately, my representative voted against this travesty. So, I cannot vote against a representative who so offends anything I value or that I think represents my faith or my understanding of what we stand for a as a nation. I will give to candidates running against those incumbents who so voted and I will call again and again for those who are my friends and acquaintances to put those people out of office. Their immoral visions do not represent any version of America I hold dear.
If you live in a district served by someone who voted for this immoral document, write, call, or email them, telling them that you cannot support a candidate who votes against the needs of the poorest and neediest. Then vote them out. If you vote for them, then you have forfeited your right to call yourself moral and certainly cannot claim to follow any religious tradition that is worth embracing.
Sojourners published a list of the representatives who voted for this immoral budget both by state and by last name.
Here they are ordered by last name. VOTE THEM OUT!
Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
Rodney Alexander (R-La.)
Justin Amash (R-Mich.)
Mark Amodei (R-Nev.)
Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.)
Lou Barletta (R-Pa.)
Andy Barr (R-Ky.)
Joe Barton (R-Texas)
Dan Benishek (R-Mich.)
Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich)
Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.)
Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Marsha Blackburn (T-Tenn.)
John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Charles Boustany (R-La.)
Kevin Brady (R-Texas)
Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.)
Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
Susan W. Brooks (R-Indiana)
Paul Broun (R-Ga.)
Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)
Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.)
Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas)
Ken Calvert (R-Calif.)
Dave Camp (R-Mich.)
John Campbell (R-Calif.)
Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
John Carter (R-Texas)
William Cassidy (R-La.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Mike Coffman (R-Colo.)
Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
Doug Collins (R-Ga.)
Chris Collins (R-N.Y.)
Michael K. Conaway (R-Texas)
Paul Cook (R-Calif.)
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
Rick Crawford (R-Ark.)
Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.)
John Culberson (R-Texas)
Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
Jeff Denham (R-Calif.)
Charles W. Dent (R-Pa.)
Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.)
Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.)
Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.)
Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.)
Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.)
Blake Farenthold (R-Texas)
Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.)
Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.)
John Fleming (R-La.)
Bill Flores (R-Texas)
Randy J. Forbes (R-Va.)
Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)
Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)
Scott Garrett (R-N.J.)
Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.)
Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio)
Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)
Kay Granger (R-Texas)
Tom Graves (R-Ga.)
Sam Graves (R-Mo.)
Tim Griffin (R-Ark.)
Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)
Brett S. Guthrie (R-Ky.)
Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas)
Gregg Harper (R-Miss.)
Andy Harris (R-Md.)
Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)
Joe Heck (R-Nev.)
Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
George Holding (R-N.C.)
Richard Hudson (R-N.C.)
Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.)
Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.)
Randy Hultgren (R-Ill)
Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.)
Robert Hurt (R-Va.)
Darrell Issa (R-Calif)
Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.)
Bill Johnson (R-Ohio)
Sam Johnson (R-Texas)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
David Joyce (R-Ohio)
Mike Kelly (R-Pa.)
Steve King (R-Iowa)
Jack Kingston (R-Ga.)
Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)
John Kline (R-Minn.)
Raul R. Labrador (R-Idaho)
Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.)
Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)
Leonard Lance (R.-N.J.)
James Lankford (R-Okla.)
Tom Latham (R-Iowa)
Robert E. Latta (R-Ohio)
Billy Long (R-Mo.)
Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)
Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)
Tom Marino (R-Pa.)
Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
Michael T. McCaul (R-Texas)
Tom McClintock (R-Calif.)
Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.)
Buck McKeon (R-Calif.)
David McKinley (R-W.Va.)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Mark Meadows (R-N.C.)
Luke Messer (R-Ind.)
John Mica (R-Fla.)
Jeff Miller (R-Fla.)
Candice Miller (R-Mich.)
Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)
Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.)
Tim Murphy (R-Pa.)
Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
Richard Nugent (R-Fla.)
Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.)
Pete Olson (R-Texas)
Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.)
Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.)
Steve Pearce (R-N.M.)
Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Thomas Petri (R-Wis.)
Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.)
Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.)
Ted Poe (R-Texas)
Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.)
Bill Posey (R-Fla.)
Tom Price (R-Ga.)
Trey Radel (R-Fla.)
Tom Reed (R-N.Y.)
David G. Reichert (R-Wash.)
Jim Renacci (R-Ohio)
Reid Ribble (R-Wis.)
Tom Rice (R-S.C.)
Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
Martha Roby (R-Ala.)
Phil Roe (R-Tenn.)
Mike Rogers (R-Ala.)
Harold Rogers (R-Ky.)
Mike Rogers (R-Mich.)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
Todd Rokita (R-Ind.)
Tom Rooney (R-Fla.)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.)
Dennis Ross (R-Fla.)
Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.)
Ed Royce (R-Calif.)
Jon Runyan (R-N.J.)
Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.)
Mark Sanford (R-S.C.)
Steve Scalise (R-La.)
Aaron Schock (R-Ill.)
David Schweikert (R-Ariz.)
Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
James F. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
John Shimkus (R-Ill.)
Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)
Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)
Jason Smith (R-Mo.)
Adrian Smith (R-Neb.)
Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Steve Southerland (R-Fla.)
Chris Stewart (R-Utah)
Steve Stivers (R-Ohio)
Steve Stockman (R-Texas)
Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)
Lee Terry (R-Neb.)
Glenn W. Thompson (R-Pa.)
Mac Thornberry (R-Texas)
Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio)
Scott Tipton (R-Colo.)
Michael Turner (R-Ohio)
Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
Ann Wagner (R-Mo.)
Tim Walberg (R-Mich.)
Greg Walden (R-Ore.)
Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.)
Randy Weber (R-Texas)
Daniel Webster (R-Fla.)
Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio)
Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.)
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.)
Roger Williams (R-Texas)
Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)
Robert J. Wittman (R-Va.)
Steve Womack (R-Ark.)
Robert Woodall (R-Ark.)
Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.)
Ted Yoho (R-Fla.)
C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.)
Todd Young (R-Ind.)
Monday, September 16, 2013
two weeks
Two weeks ago, Corwin Alexander Busby mad his debut into the world. A week ago, I met him for the first time and have gotten to spend the last week with him, my daughter, and my son-in-law. Someone recently told me that the love between a grandparent and a grandchild is the purest form of love. I don't know whether that is accurate or not but I understand the idea. As a grandparent I approach the child with only one agenda... to enjoy his presence. And I do... how I do...
I told Corwin that he is my favorite person in the entire world. He responded by filling his diaper... "How do you like me now?" I was excited! I got to change his diaper again. I am truly and absolutely in love.
I don't have many photos of him awake... it seems that most of the time he is not sleeping, he is eating... so, here is one.
I told Corwin that he is my favorite person in the entire world. He responded by filling his diaper... "How do you like me now?" I was excited! I got to change his diaper again. I am truly and absolutely in love.
I don't have many photos of him awake... it seems that most of the time he is not sleeping, he is eating... so, here is one.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Syria
I hear the drumbeat and we are marching ever closer to war again. Like the last time, it is based on limited information, has no realistic goal, and has virtually no chance of ending in a positive way. Simply, it feels to me like we are planning to throw missiles that will kill hundreds of innocent people and accomplish little because our leaders cannot imagine something else to do in the face of horrendous atrocities. Or maybe they can imagine other paths but those paths are just too difficult. Throwing missiles is easy. It feels good. It feeds the myth of redemptive violence that is so central to our culture. The problem is that redemptive violence is a myth in the non-technical sense of the word. Violence does not solve the problem and only causes more suffering and pain for the innocent.
I refuse to believe that violence is the only path available or that it is the most effective path. There are diplomatic paths. Russia and China must be engaged. They must be convinced that cutting off arms to the Assad regime is in the best interest of the entire world. We must not stop pushing them until they agree. If it takes years or decades, so be it. The US must begin building positive relationships with Muslims throughout the middle east. If we spent 1/2 the resources we put into military interventions into schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, we would have an entire region that loved us. We don't have to teach the children in a way that is offensive to rather conservative Islamists. We could teach them in a way that presents a possibility for making the world a better place other than through suicide bombing. We could work with Assad's allies to isolate him. Convince them that this war is not in their best interest either. It isn't. We could "smother" those in Syria who reflect some of the values we'd like to see reinforced with food, medical supplies, other resources... heck we could even give those things to our "enemies" and work to turn them into friends. Instead of threatening bombs and military interventions, we could work to actually make peace. I'm sure there are other tactics as well. Yes... they're all difficult but we haven't really tried them and to the degree we have, we haven't exhausted them. Will they work? Who knows. We haven't tried. Does military intervention work? Look at Iraq and Afghanistan and answer that one for me.
There is an aphorism that says "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail." The only tool we have is military. We need a bigger tool box. We need leaders who can imagine other possibilities. We need a national commitment to philosophize and strategize other ways to solve problems. We need to be proactive to make the world a better place rather than reactive "police" who go in to punish wrong-doers. I am astounded at the number of colleges and other institutions in the US devoted to training military leaders and working to make war more effectively... There is nothing like that devoted to peacemaking and no university level programs sponsored by our government aimed at peace studies. Indeed, I could only find 10 colleges in the country that even offer a major in Peace Studies. There are more military high schools - 21 that I could find - than that. And they all get funding from the federal government to train boys to make war. Why not train a few to make peace?
As a nation we have serious work to do... or we could take the easy way out, spend huge amounts of money while starving our own domestic needs, kill many more innocent people, make more enemies, and accomplish little to nothing of positive value. Yeah... that sounds like a good idea.
I refuse to believe that violence is the only path available or that it is the most effective path. There are diplomatic paths. Russia and China must be engaged. They must be convinced that cutting off arms to the Assad regime is in the best interest of the entire world. We must not stop pushing them until they agree. If it takes years or decades, so be it. The US must begin building positive relationships with Muslims throughout the middle east. If we spent 1/2 the resources we put into military interventions into schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, we would have an entire region that loved us. We don't have to teach the children in a way that is offensive to rather conservative Islamists. We could teach them in a way that presents a possibility for making the world a better place other than through suicide bombing. We could work with Assad's allies to isolate him. Convince them that this war is not in their best interest either. It isn't. We could "smother" those in Syria who reflect some of the values we'd like to see reinforced with food, medical supplies, other resources... heck we could even give those things to our "enemies" and work to turn them into friends. Instead of threatening bombs and military interventions, we could work to actually make peace. I'm sure there are other tactics as well. Yes... they're all difficult but we haven't really tried them and to the degree we have, we haven't exhausted them. Will they work? Who knows. We haven't tried. Does military intervention work? Look at Iraq and Afghanistan and answer that one for me.
There is an aphorism that says "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail." The only tool we have is military. We need a bigger tool box. We need leaders who can imagine other possibilities. We need a national commitment to philosophize and strategize other ways to solve problems. We need to be proactive to make the world a better place rather than reactive "police" who go in to punish wrong-doers. I am astounded at the number of colleges and other institutions in the US devoted to training military leaders and working to make war more effectively... There is nothing like that devoted to peacemaking and no university level programs sponsored by our government aimed at peace studies. Indeed, I could only find 10 colleges in the country that even offer a major in Peace Studies. There are more military high schools - 21 that I could find - than that. And they all get funding from the federal government to train boys to make war. Why not train a few to make peace?
As a nation we have serious work to do... or we could take the easy way out, spend huge amounts of money while starving our own domestic needs, kill many more innocent people, make more enemies, and accomplish little to nothing of positive value. Yeah... that sounds like a good idea.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
It is Not My World
Most of the time life moves along like a river - smoothly, quietly, consistently. While you can never stick your foot in the same river twice, in large degree, just looking you'd never know that. One day blends into the next. Time goes by like an ever flowing stream. The artificial breaks of months and years are just that. Every now and then, though, something happens that is a big marker, separating one chapter of life from the previous one and it is obvious that nothing will ever be the same again.
Getting married is one of those jarring changes for many people. It wasn't so for me. I'm not sure whether that had to do with my lack of maturity or what, but I didn't feel as if things were particularly different afterwards. The birth of my daughter and the adoption of my son were big deals. In both cases, I knew that the world had changed. When I was diagnosed with familial hyperlipidemia was another and I first really faced my own mortality. In 2006 both of my parents died (two weeks apart). That was a huge one as I realized that I was then in the oldest generation of my family. I wasn't the son, I was the old man.
Yesterday another huge one happened. At 7:15pm in Berkeley, CA, Corwin Alexander Busby arrived in the world. We knew he was coming. For 9 months, we've been getting ready both physically and emotionally. His mother and father, Alexis and Christian have been full of dreams and anxieties. I've been thinking about that day for months and realized that he brought with him a message of critical import. The world is not mine. Yes, I knew that some day I would die and that there would be people who followed after me who would never even hear my name let alone forget it. Still, seeing yet another new generation begin reminded me in a life changing way that I am only visiting here for a short while. Indeed the only thing that I leave behind are the relationships that have formed people who will form people who will form people for who knows how many generations.
It is sobering. It is wonderful. It is exciting. It reminds me of what is real and important. I can't wait to get that little boy in my arms and embrace a future that I will not live to see but which will go on none the less.
Getting married is one of those jarring changes for many people. It wasn't so for me. I'm not sure whether that had to do with my lack of maturity or what, but I didn't feel as if things were particularly different afterwards. The birth of my daughter and the adoption of my son were big deals. In both cases, I knew that the world had changed. When I was diagnosed with familial hyperlipidemia was another and I first really faced my own mortality. In 2006 both of my parents died (two weeks apart). That was a huge one as I realized that I was then in the oldest generation of my family. I wasn't the son, I was the old man.
Yesterday another huge one happened. At 7:15pm in Berkeley, CA, Corwin Alexander Busby arrived in the world. We knew he was coming. For 9 months, we've been getting ready both physically and emotionally. His mother and father, Alexis and Christian have been full of dreams and anxieties. I've been thinking about that day for months and realized that he brought with him a message of critical import. The world is not mine. Yes, I knew that some day I would die and that there would be people who followed after me who would never even hear my name let alone forget it. Still, seeing yet another new generation begin reminded me in a life changing way that I am only visiting here for a short while. Indeed the only thing that I leave behind are the relationships that have formed people who will form people who will form people for who knows how many generations.
It is sobering. It is wonderful. It is exciting. It reminds me of what is real and important. I can't wait to get that little boy in my arms and embrace a future that I will not live to see but which will go on none the less.
Monday, August 26, 2013
The Wrath of God
You may have heard that the Presbyterian Church USA is releasing a new hymnal and that the committee decided not to use the popular hymn written by the Gettys and Stuart Townsend - In Christ Alone. The popular story is that the song was rejected from the hymnal because of the lines Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied...
I expect there is more to the story than the simple explanation, but in any case, it has generated a lot of discussion even in the secular press. A piece by Timothy George - No Squishy Love - went viral which does a very good job of sharing the kind of theology behind the song. It and No Squishy Love Part 2 are worth reading to get a good understanding of that viewpoint.
Two disclaimers before I wade in... we sing this song along with a number of other songs written by the Gettys. I like their sense of melody and in general I appreciate the depth of their lyrics. At the same time, they are too Calvinist for me and a lot more conservative than I am or my church is.
I'm sure there are those who would give a much more reasoned and sophisticated theological treatment of the issue, but let me share two simple reasons why I cannot accept the simplified view of a wrathful God requiring death.
My first reason is a personal one. As a parent, there is nothing that my children could do that would ever cause me to reject them. Certainly they could do things that would break my heart, including turning away from me, but I would always be there waiting with open arms. If they were doing terrible things I would certainly want that to change, and wouldn't hesitate to let them know my displeasure but I would never turn away, never forsake, never stop loving. I cannot imagine a God who is less loving than I am. I understand those who portray a God who requires the death of his son as monstrous and abusive. I simply do not understand holiness or justice in those terms.
Then there is a theological reason... Colossians 1 is crucial in my understanding of who God is.
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
Jesus is the image of the invisible God and in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. You want to understand God? Look at Jesus. You want to understand how God acts? Watch what Jesus does. Jesus does not require retribution, he gives himself. Jesus does not judge, he forgives. Jesus does not turn sinners away, he reaches out to them, embraces them, and offers them forgiveness and new life. If, as Paul says, Jesus really is the image of God, then God does exactly the same thing.
There are lots of different understandings of what happens on the cross, but I cannot agree that God's anger requires someone to die in order that God's wrath be satisfied.
I expect there is more to the story than the simple explanation, but in any case, it has generated a lot of discussion even in the secular press. A piece by Timothy George - No Squishy Love - went viral which does a very good job of sharing the kind of theology behind the song. It and No Squishy Love Part 2 are worth reading to get a good understanding of that viewpoint.
Two disclaimers before I wade in... we sing this song along with a number of other songs written by the Gettys. I like their sense of melody and in general I appreciate the depth of their lyrics. At the same time, they are too Calvinist for me and a lot more conservative than I am or my church is.
I'm sure there are those who would give a much more reasoned and sophisticated theological treatment of the issue, but let me share two simple reasons why I cannot accept the simplified view of a wrathful God requiring death.
My first reason is a personal one. As a parent, there is nothing that my children could do that would ever cause me to reject them. Certainly they could do things that would break my heart, including turning away from me, but I would always be there waiting with open arms. If they were doing terrible things I would certainly want that to change, and wouldn't hesitate to let them know my displeasure but I would never turn away, never forsake, never stop loving. I cannot imagine a God who is less loving than I am. I understand those who portray a God who requires the death of his son as monstrous and abusive. I simply do not understand holiness or justice in those terms.
Then there is a theological reason... Colossians 1 is crucial in my understanding of who God is.
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
Jesus is the image of the invisible God and in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. You want to understand God? Look at Jesus. You want to understand how God acts? Watch what Jesus does. Jesus does not require retribution, he gives himself. Jesus does not judge, he forgives. Jesus does not turn sinners away, he reaches out to them, embraces them, and offers them forgiveness and new life. If, as Paul says, Jesus really is the image of God, then God does exactly the same thing.
There are lots of different understandings of what happens on the cross, but I cannot agree that God's anger requires someone to die in order that God's wrath be satisfied.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Men and Boys - The Way Way Back
There have been scores of studies that talk about the need for positive adult male influence in the development of boys. My own experience points to the accuracy of those studies. I can point to a number of adult men who were critical in my development, without whom, I would have become a very different man. I am so thankful for them... especially two that I will name publicly - Charlie Appel and Earl Creps. There were others and of course, my father played a significant role although father/son dynamics being what they are, it wasn't until I was an adult that I began to appreciate George Donkin.
Yesterday, Cheryl and I saw a wonderful film that highlights both the positives and negatives of those relationships between adult men and teenage boys The Way Way Back. The relationship between Duncan and Owen is critical in both of their lives and both come out as better people in significant ways because of the ways they touched one another. I highly, highly recommend this film and invite any adult readers to think about the teens in your life and the ways that you can be a positive influence in their lives. Know that it will impact them in ways you cannot imagine and will likely change your life too.
Yesterday, Cheryl and I saw a wonderful film that highlights both the positives and negatives of those relationships between adult men and teenage boys The Way Way Back. The relationship between Duncan and Owen is critical in both of their lives and both come out as better people in significant ways because of the ways they touched one another. I highly, highly recommend this film and invite any adult readers to think about the teens in your life and the ways that you can be a positive influence in their lives. Know that it will impact them in ways you cannot imagine and will likely change your life too.
Monday, August 12, 2013
not a smart move, Israel...
Israel has announced that it is going ahead with construction of just under 1200 new homes in occupied areas. Not a smart move, Israel. Here's why.
1. The vast majority of the world sees these settlements as violations of international law. OK, obviously Israel doesn't care, but there just may come a time when they'll want the positive feelings of the rest of the world.
2. Every new settlement makes a 2 state solution more difficult and too many more will make a 2 state solution impossible. Those Israeli settlers aren't going to want to leave their homes should Israel decide to give that land to a Palestinian state (really unlikely) and they certainly aren't going to want to or be welcome as citizens of a Palestinian state. You can't have a 2nd state that looks like Swiss cheese - filled with little holes of Israeli sovereign land. Every acre of settlement is an acre of ground that could have been a part of that 2nd state and for the above reasons never can. Every acre removed from consideration makes the 2nd state less tenable for the Palestinians.
3. The status quo is not tenable. Israel is essentially maintaining an apartheid system right now. There is no good end for that. It does not promote safety for the Israelis or justice for the Palestinians.
4. Moving the Palestinians to Jordan or some other Arab country obviously is not a tenable solution... it hasn't worked yet.
5. A single state destroys Israel. If they continue to maintain the current apartheid system, they continue to lose any moral authority and their national soul dies. If they allow the Palestinians to become full citizens, they maintain moral authority but lose their identity as a Jewish state as very quickly the Jewish citizens would become a minority. In either case, the ideals and visions that led to the founding of Israel disappear.
I don't see any easy way for Israel to turn back the clock and dismantle settlements already there... but they can stop pushing forward. If they do not, they make the possibility of peace less and less likely.
1. The vast majority of the world sees these settlements as violations of international law. OK, obviously Israel doesn't care, but there just may come a time when they'll want the positive feelings of the rest of the world.
2. Every new settlement makes a 2 state solution more difficult and too many more will make a 2 state solution impossible. Those Israeli settlers aren't going to want to leave their homes should Israel decide to give that land to a Palestinian state (really unlikely) and they certainly aren't going to want to or be welcome as citizens of a Palestinian state. You can't have a 2nd state that looks like Swiss cheese - filled with little holes of Israeli sovereign land. Every acre of settlement is an acre of ground that could have been a part of that 2nd state and for the above reasons never can. Every acre removed from consideration makes the 2nd state less tenable for the Palestinians.
3. The status quo is not tenable. Israel is essentially maintaining an apartheid system right now. There is no good end for that. It does not promote safety for the Israelis or justice for the Palestinians.
4. Moving the Palestinians to Jordan or some other Arab country obviously is not a tenable solution... it hasn't worked yet.
5. A single state destroys Israel. If they continue to maintain the current apartheid system, they continue to lose any moral authority and their national soul dies. If they allow the Palestinians to become full citizens, they maintain moral authority but lose their identity as a Jewish state as very quickly the Jewish citizens would become a minority. In either case, the ideals and visions that led to the founding of Israel disappear.
I don't see any easy way for Israel to turn back the clock and dismantle settlements already there... but they can stop pushing forward. If they do not, they make the possibility of peace less and less likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
