I recently learned that, in the 1940s, the FBI considered the old Christmas movie, It's a Wonderful Life a piece of communist propaganda.
Of course they did.
From a 1947 FBI memo...
With regard to the picture “It’s a Wonderful Life”, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a “scrooge-type” so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists...
In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters...
I love this movie and its message. It's one of my favorites. I thought this Christmas morning, I'd offer one of the wonderful quotes from that wonderful old movie that the FBI apparently found questionable...
[George Bailey, speaking to the bankers about the possible closing of his father's tiny savings and loans business:]
...Why, in the 25 years since he and his brother, Uncle Billy, started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry away to college, let alone me.
But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that?
Why... here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what?
Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000?
Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?
Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!
And on an unrelated note, last year at this time, we were celebrating our kids' first self-produced CD of songs. It was made on the cheap and with some sound problems, but it was a delightful Christmas gift to us.
This year, believe it or not, the band our kids is in (Beady) is celebrating the news that they have been signed to a local recording label!
How about that?
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
It's a Wonderful Life
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Gingrich Who Saved the Election
Words of wisdom from Newt Gingrich...
(CNN) - Asked how he plans to engage the gay community in his bid for president, Newt Gingrich on Tuesday told a voter he wouldn't be the right choice for those basing their decision on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"If that's the most important (issue) to you, then you should be for Obama," Gingrich told Scott Arnold, a man who identified himself as gay.
======
So, there you have it: IF you are gay, you SHOULD NOT VOTE for Gingrich, according to Gingrich (and, by extension, you shouldn't really vote for the GOP*).
IF you have friends, family and/or colleagues who are gay or lesbian, you shouldn't vote for Gingrich/GOP.
IF you are concerned about equal rights and justice, you should not vote for Gingrich or the GOP.
IF you believe in marriage and faithful, loving, healthy marriage commitments, you should not vote for Gingrich or the GOP.
It's not often I'll agree with a fella like Gingrich, but when he's right, he's right. I appreciate the honesty and would encourage everyone to listen to Gingrich at least on this point, where he is right on target.
=======
* CAVEAT: With the possible exception of Ron Paul who, IF he is consistent with his Libertarian leanings, is probably okay with marriage equity for all people.
There are a whole host of OTHER reasons not to vote for Ron Paul.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Christmas Memories...
This is one of my favorite photos of my beloved wife. Here's how I imagined this conversation went....
"Santa": Shuddup kids and lissen. This is how it's gonna work:
Yer not going to ask me for no presents, see? Yer just gonna sit there and smile and pretend I'm saying nice things.
My elf out there is gonna take our picture. Yer not gonna cry. If you do, there'll be hell to pay. And don't even THINK about wetting yer widdle pants while yer sitting on MY lap.
Just smile and act like everything's all right, then get off my lap and get outta here and you'll get to see your parents again.
Ya got that, ya snot-nosed brats?
Thursday, December 15, 2011
About Eight Years Too Late
The best way to end wars? Don't start them.
The angel went to Mary and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; God's kingdom will never end...”
And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for the Lord has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is God's name.
God's mercy extends to those who fear God,
from generation to generation.
God has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
God has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
God has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
God has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
God has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors...”
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace...
...And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth PEACE, goodwill toward all!'
Merry Christmas. Happy Holy Days.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Bible and Economics
Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.
Today, I'm looking at various passages in the 22nd and 23rd chapters of the book of Deuteronomy, having already explored the first 20 chapters earlier in the year.
You can see others in this series in the "Bible and Economics" link below (on the left).
If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its owner.
If they do not live near you or if you do not know who owns it, take it home with you and keep it until they come looking for it. Then give it back. Do the same if you find their donkey or cloak or anything else they have lost. Do not ignore it.
If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet...
There is just a simple teaching to remind people to be fair and responsible. "Finding" something that does not belong to you does not make it yours. In fact, you have an obligation to try to get it back to its owner.
Next, we see some rather unsavory divorce rules that were a product of their times...
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.
Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.”
Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives...
Divorce is covered a good bit in the Bible and, despite the huge difference in culture between now and then, perhaps we can see why: Women were owned. They did not have much in the way of liberty, as we count liberty today. They were not as free to just go out and get a job.
Because of that, there were protections built in for women in Israel's divorce laws. Otherwise, a man could marry, shame and kick out a woman and move on with no responsibility for the desperate economic circumstances that might leave her in.
Here is another (even more unsavory) rule in the same vein...
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Earlier, we saw that an ENGAGED woman who is raped, the rapist must be killed.. But an unengaged woman who is raped, well, the rapist just has to pay off the father for the economic damage done.
Unsavory as hell, but it touches on economic issues, so I'll post it here...
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them...
Slavery is never overtly condemned in the Bible, but you do have passages like this one that suggest at its immorality...
Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite...
And a ruling forbidding charging a fellow Israelite interest, but charging interest to foreigners is okay.
Do you reckon that Christian bankers today think they ought to live by that same principle? Do you?
The topics of marriage/divorce, slavery and interest are all touched on in the Bible and all have greater economic ramifications. Perhaps as part of this series, I'll group some of those passages together to see what we might learn from them as a whole.
Monday, December 5, 2011
NEWT!
How long until he self-destructs?
Each GOP Presidential candidate who has taken the lead has self-destructed. How long until Newt does?
The end of the year?
The end of the week?
The end of the day?
Place yer bets...
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Did I Say That?
I have been criticized by some of those who generally agree with me for the engaging I do with those who don't agree with me/us. I don't know if folk are understanding that I'm not engaging so much for their benefit as I am mine.
Thinking Big Ideas through with those with whom I agree doesn't challenge me as much as when someone is disagreeing with me and I have to consider the Other Side. And so, by engaging with those with whom I disagree, it helps me more fully understand my position and think through if it's the position I truly think right.
Beyond that, almost without fail, when discussing these issues through with those who are opposed to my position, I almost always get a better sense of why I think I'm right. And sometimes, these disagree-ers actually provide for me with better arguments/clarifications.
Case in point: This Sabbath and "rule" discussion I've been having in various places of late.
As you can see in my previous post, I note Jesus' comment/clarification that the Sabbath is made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. I think this is a key to helping us understand a right relationship with rules and community.
In noting this elsewhere, I suggested that the problem we all have at times is the sin of the Pharisees - to hold to and try to enforce rules but doing so without grace.
Along those lines, one commenter said...
One problem with Dan's use of Jesus "breaking" the Sabath. If you look at the commandment, it's pretty general. What Jesus was doing was trespassing on the Pharisee's interpretation of the commandment. In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, that was a later "clarification".
What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.
And of course, this is an extremely astute observation and one I agree with and think makes great sense.
The Pharisees were guilty of taking an Old Testament rule and enforcing not only the rule, but telling everyone else exactly what that rule meant for everyone.
Now, in the Pharisees defense, the OT rule about the Sabbath does seem fairly clear, if vague.
DO NOT WORK ON SATURDAY, the rule says. And follows up with the kicker, THOSE WHO DO SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH.
This was a seriously serious rule, right?
And "don't work," well, that's pretty clear. Working in the field to gather food, THAT WAS working for them.
And so, the Pharisees thought they were starting from a right point, by enforcing THEIR UNDERSTANDING of a rule THEY THOUGHT was abundantly clear. THEY THOUGHT "don't glean food" was an obviously reasonable extrapolation of "don't work."
The thing is, they were wrong, according to Jesus. THEIR INTERPRETATION of the rule lacked grace and it lacked in the understanding that the Sabbath was for humanity. (And I will repeat that what was being violated was not the rule, but THEIR EXTRAPOLATED INTERPRETATION, as my commenter rightly pointed out).
The Sabbath rule WAS FOR THEIR SAKE, not some rule to beat folk over the head, but to encourage the rest - the break from work - that we need so desparately.
And so, this commenter was right, I'd say, and they agreed with my point, although I don't think they ever saw it that way.
The OT DOES say (to take a favorite issue for them), "Men shall not lie with men, kill 'em if they do..." That IS what it says. But what was the purpose of the rule? IT WAS FOR THEIR SAKE. The rule was to encourage healthy sexual practices and to discourage unhealthy (in the OT case, temple prostitution and orgies to honor a pagan god) sexual practices.
And so, the conservatives of today are RIGHT to note that the OT does have a verse that says, "men shall not lie with men," but these same conservatives err in THEIR EXTRAPOLATION of the rule given to a specific people thousands of years ago. "THIS VERSE OBVIOUSLY MEANS..." they opine (and, I'll note, it's "obvious" TO THEM, just as the "no gleaning" rule was "obvious TO THE PHARISEES) "...is that gay folk can't live in a marriage relationship that includes sex with other gay folk...").
JUST LIKE THE PHARISEES (as my commenter noted), they have taken a rule and EXTRAPOLATED OUT an EXTRA rule, and one that is lacking in grace and that lacks the understanding of the rule being FOR OUR SAKE.
If we're concerned about following God's rules for "our sake" (as Jesus noted in the Sabbath rule), then the concern is for HEALTHY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, not a woodenly literal adherence to a millenia-old rule. And it is self-evident to most folk that a committed faithful marriage relationship IS the way to have healthy sexual relationships.
And so, in the paraphrased words of my detractor...
In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against healthy marriage relationships - gay or straight, that has been a later "clarification".
What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.
So, I thank my conservative commenter for helping to clarify even better for me why my understanding is a biblically and logically and ethically solid understanding.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
...More Like Guidelines...
I've been in several conversations in several places of late that have had a common theme that I think may be boiled down to: What is the role of rules as found in the Bible.
It has been suggested to me that the bible is a Book of Rules. I objected to that characterization. In my estimation, it would be more apt to say that the Bible is a book of Grace, or a Book of Truth (with the Truth being ultimately about Love and Grace), or a Book of God's Love for humanity, something along those lines. But "a book of rules..."?
That seems, to me, to be missing the point.
Are there rules found in the Bible? Yes, of course there are. There are rules specifically given to the Israeli people thousands of years ago. There were rules of how to "do" church in the first century AD. There are rules that can be considered universal in nature and there are rules that are obviously to a specific time and place and people.
But to call the Bible a rule book seems to be wildly missing the point.
It seems to this reader that a large part of the Bible's story of God's grace is dealing specifically with this topic. In the Old Testament, we see people hewing to the rules of sacrifice and religion and God stops them, telling them bluntly, "I desire MERCY, not Sacrifice."
They missed the point.
We see Jesus doing this repeatedly with the Pharisees, those wonderfully moral and righteous men who seemed to repeatedly miss the point, holding fastidiously, harshly fast to rules (with demands that others also hold fast to their long list of rules), but being lacking in love and grace.
I have oft-repeated what I learned growing up about understanding the Bible: We ought to interpret the whole Bible through the lens of Jesus' teachings. One of the pivotal snippets of teaching that I find in Jesus' teaching is this simple line...
The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
I find this to be a pivotal, KEY teaching to understanding our relationship to rules, whether found in the Bible or elsewhere.
Consider the Sabbath rule, as found in Exodus 34...
“These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day [Saturday] shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.”
Or, as directly quoted from Exodus 20 (ie, the Ten Commandments...)
“Remember the Sabbath day [Saturday] by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns..."
The rule is fairly clear and unequivocal. On SIX DAYS, we should do all our work. But on the SEVENTH DAY (Saturday), we should rest. We should NOT work on Saturday, nor should our family or people who work for us.
Clear. Easy enough to understand (although, reasonably one might question "what constitutes 'Work'?" - still, pretty clear). Straightforward.
But Jesus' helped CLARIFY the "command" for us...
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath."
We travel down the path of Pharisees when we hang fastidiously to a rule without considering the context. When we condemn others for a "sin" but we're only considering the rule in a woodenly literal way and we're not considering that rule through the eyes of love, mercy and grace, we run the risk of condemning as sin, what is NOT sin.
Jesus' followers were guilty of transgressing a sin, IF we took that law woodenly literal. But that would have been missing the point. The Sabbath was made FOR US. The rules are there FOR US. for OUR sake. TO HELP.
In one of these conversations I've had lately, someone accused me of treating these COMMANDS, "more like guidelines..." (cleverly invoking the Pirates of the Caribbean running gag... "You're pirates. Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway..."). He intended it as a slight, but yeah, maybe I DO treat them more like guidelines.
Certainly that seems to be the message of Jesus on the Sabbath rule. "You're condemning them for doing something good - eating. That 'thou shalt not work on the sabbath...' that's more like a guideline. The POINT is, that the rule is there FOR YOU, for YOUR GOOD."
THE Rule, as repeatedly summarized in the Bible (and indeed, by our own hearts) is Love God, Love your Neighbor, do Good, embrace Grace. THAT is THE HARD AND FAST RULE that we are to hold to.
The "rules" (lowercase "rule"), they're more like guidelines. They are there for our benefit, to help guide us in the paths of Love and Grace.
Yes, prostitution is not good for the oppressed prostitute or the needy/oppressive john. That is the guideline. BUT, in the Bible, we see the story of Tamar, who USED prostitution to take a stand against Injustice and for Good, for Love, for Grace. Thus, she "broke" the "rule"/guideline in an effort to hold close to THE Rule - Love, Grace.
We see this in David and the disciples "working on the Sabbath." Breaking the "rule" to hold fast to the "RULE."
We see this in Jesus healing on the Sabbath, breaking the "rule" to hold fast to the "RULE."
We see the pharisees MISSING the point in their heaping of rules upon rules on the shoulders of their followers, but missing out on grace.
We see the Israelis missing the point in their adherance to giving sacrifice, but their lacking in mercy.
The "rules" are there FOR OUR SAKE, to help us walk in the RULE of Grace, of Love, of Mercy and Justice.
And, for that reason, it seems to me that we too often have made the Bible into a mere rulebook and missed the point of the Story: Living into Grace.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Theology for the Social Gospel
When I was a much younger man, I was fairly strongly influenced by a work of fiction called, In His Steps, by Charles Sheldon. It's a book published in 1897 and influenced by the Social Gospel Movement of the day. While many are unfamiliar directly with the book, they are aware of it secondarily through the WWJD phenomena. The now-rather-trite bracelets, etc, of the last few years that supposedly serve as a reminder, "What Would Jesus Do?" gets the catchphrase from Sheldon's book.
The story in the book tells of how a preacher and some in his well-to-do church were influenced by the radical notion of not taking any action without first asking, "What Would Jesus Do in this situation?" and then acting accordingly.
Although I did not know it at the time, Sheldon was influenced by prominent "social gospel" theologian, Walter Rauschenbusch. The book was his way of furthering that message.
And what was the message of the Social Gospel (much maligned in some circles today)? According to Merriam Webster, simply this:
the application of Christian principles to social problems
Other common definitions fall along these lines...
The Social Gospel was an early 20th century Protestant Christian movement which placed its emphasis on the application of Christian principles to society's problems.
Not so radical, one would think. And yet, apparently it is revolutionary, at least some might say.
I say all that by way of introducing some of Rauschenbusch's own words on the topic, from his A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917)...
The social gospel is the old message of salvation, but enlarged and intensified. The individualistic gospel has taught us to see the sinfulness of every human heart and has inspired us with faith in the willingness and power of God to save every soul that comes to him. But it has not given us an adequate understanding of the sinfulness of the social order and its share in the
sins of all individuals within it. It has not evoked faith in the will and power of God to redeem the permanent institutions of human society from their inherited guilt of oppression and extortion.
Both our sense of sin and our faith in salvation have fallen short of the realities under its teaching. The social gospel seeks to bring men under repentance for their collective sins and to create a more sensitive and more modern conscience. It calls on us for the faith of the old prophets who believed in the salvation of nations...
Theology is not superior to the gospel. It exists to aid the preaching of salvation. Its business is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear, so adequate and mighty, that all who preach or teach the gospel, both ministers and laymen, can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message. When the progress of humanity creates new tasks, such as world-wide missions, or new problems, such as the social problem, theology must connect these with the old fundamentals of our faith and make them Christian tasks and problems...
On the other hand the idea of the redemption of the social organism is nothing alien. It is simply a proper part of the Christian faith in redemption from sin and evil. As soon as the desire for salvation becomes strong and intelligent enough to look beyond the personal sins of the individual, and to discern how our personality in its intake and output is connected with social groups to which we belong, the problem of social redemption is before us and we can never again forget it. It lies like a larger concentric circle around a smaller one. It is related to our intimate personal salvation like astronomy to physics. Only spiritual and intellectual immaturity have kept us from seeing it clearly before. The social gospel is not an alien element in theology...
Neither is it novel. The social gospel is, in fact, the oldest gospel of all. It is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Its substance is the Hebrew faith which Jesus himself held. If the prophets ever talked about the “plan of redemption,” they meant the social redemption of the nation.
So long as John the Baptist and Jesus were proclaiming the gospel, the Kingdom of God was its central word, and the ethical teaching of both, which was their practical commentary and definition of the Kingdom idea, looked toward a higher social order in which new ethical standards would become practicable. To the first generation of disciples the hope of the Lord’s return meant the hope of a Christian social order on earth under the personal rule of Jesus Christ, and they would have been amazed if they had learned that this hope was to be motioned out of theology and other ideas substituted...
The doctrine of the Kingdom of God was left undeveloped by individualistic theology and finally mislaid by it almost completely, because it did not support nor fit in with that scheme of doctrine. In the older handbooks of theology it is scarcely mentioned, except in the chapters on eschatology; in none of them does it dominate the table of contents.
What a spectacle, that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology, like a stranger with whom the other doctrines would not associate, and who was finally ejected because he had no wedding garment!
In the same way the distinctive ethics of Jesus, which is part and parcel of his Kingdom doctrine, was long the hidden treasure of the suppressed democratic sects. Now, as soon as the social gospel began once more to be preached in our own time, the doctrine of the Kingdom was immediately loved and proclaimed afresh, and the ethical principles of Jesus are once more taught without reservation as the only alternative for the greedy ethics of capitalism and militarism. These antipathies and affinities are a strong proof that the social gospel is neither alien nor novel, but is a revival of the earliest doctrines of Christianity, of its radical ethical spirit, and of its revolutionary consciousness.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Ol' Axeman Jesse
On the top of the mountain
there is a clearing
and from that clearing,
you can see as far as you'd like
but only when the leaves are gone
and the summer is ended.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Laughlin Boy
but he would not fire a rifle so he sat in a cold jail cell
so he sat in a cold jail cell
he was pierced and he was beaten forty stripes he gladly bore
but he would not serve the devil in that awful civil war
in that awful civil war
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
twelve grey soldiers stood before him and they aimed their rifles true
he prayed lord, oh please forgive them for they know not what they do
for they know not what they do
those young soldiers would not fire they defied the general's plan
so the army changed his sentence who could murder such a man?
who could murder such a man?
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
they hauled him far away to richmond far away from his kids and wife
there, pneumonia wracked his body that good man soon lost his life
that good man soon lost his life
now his wife is sadly weeping seven children wonder why
lord it seems that truth and honor sure can come at an awful price
sure can come at an awful price
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
listen to me children, well i wouldn't tell a lie
oh, have you heard many a story told by old and young with joy
about the faithful deed of daring that was done by the laughlin boy
that was done by the laughlin boy