We celebrated my parents' 60th anniversary today and I was with all five of my brothers (no sisters in my family) for the first time in some 35 years! As part of the hootenanny, my brother Dave and I (the two in the middle in this photo) composed a song for Mom and Dad - The Ballad of Bill and Mary, which can be heard on youtube here.
A grand time was had by all. Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who took part!
The Ballad of Bill and Mary
Happy 60th Anniversary!
by Dave and Dan Trabue
1. ‘Long about 60 years ago, a story began that just grows and grows
It’s an old love story that you hear every day
Boy meets girl, she’s a tiny little thing, Girl meets boy, he makes her heart sing
And they got married in the usual way
Chorus:
Bill and Mary, such a perfect life
He’s her lovin’ husband, she’s his ever-lovin’ wife…
2. Holding hands and riding bikes, give a little kiss, if they like
It’s an old love story that you hear every day
Then in 1900 and 51, they gave birth to their very first son
He’s a little buckaroo, and they call him “Dave”
3. Thirteen more years and five more boys, each one is a bundle of joy
It’s an old love story that you hear every day
Dennis, Doug, Dwight, Dan and Dale, raised them up right, kept them out of jail
Or at least most of the time, anyway
Chorus:
4. Playing with kids and going to camps, travelin’ all around in that dang microvan
It’s an old love story that you hear every day
Taking pictures and flying planes, raising kids and raising Cain
The good times they are here to stay
5. Take them to church and send them to school,
Take ‘em sledding in the winter when the weather turns cool
It’s an old love story that you hear every day
Doug and Dwight and Dan got lucky, they all ended up in Kentucky
And the rest all moved off, to Californi-ay
Chorus:
6. Now life just keeps getting sweeter all the time
The grandkids called, and they’re all doing fine
It’s an old love story that you hear every day
Their life’s been carrying on forever, and they love growing older together
It’s an old love story, but you don’t hear much about it these days
Chorus:
Bill and Mary, such a perfect life
He’s her lovin’ husband, she’s his ever-lovin’ wife…
======
Happy Anniversary, Mom and Dad.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Hallowe'en is coming...
Two Sundays ago, after church, I had some alone time and walked home via the Bohemian part of town and, on the way, I decided to stop in one of our urban cemeteries. I had my camera and thought I'd do some bird watching and grave watching. I noticed a few people also in the cemetery (two or three), and so I walked over to an area that was more deserted, so as not to disturb them.
Over near the the old brick wall that lines the cemetery, there are a bunch of trees scattered amongst the graves. In front of me, I noticed someone walking towards the old brick wall. I kept catching snatches of someone maybe 50' in front of me, but they were behind the trees, so I couldn't see clearly. I kept seeing glimpses of black.
Eventually, I saw him, this thin, young man all dressed in black, with wild, inky hair and pale skin. I realized it was a "goth" kid/young man. He didn't look at me, just kept walking straight towards the wall. He wasn't looking around at the cemetery, looking at the graves or anything you might normally do at a cemetery, just walking straight towards the wall. When he reached the wall, he turned to his right and started walking along the wall, back towards the street (although this was back a good ways from the street in a fairly abandoned-feeling part of the graveyard).
I kept sneaking glimpses of him because I didn't want to freak him out or anything/make him think I was watching him. But I WAS watching him because his behavior was so odd, he wasn't looking at the cemetery, but rather walked specifically and directly to the wall, then turned and walked on maybe 30 more feet.
Then, he stopped, bent over, brushed some leaves away and... DUG! into the ground a little bit with his hands. After a few minutes of this digging, he pulled something out of the ground. Something maybe six inches long that fit in his hand, like a cell phone or a knife (by now I was too far away to see clearly). I watched him brush it off a little bit on the stone at the bottom of the brick wall.
I had my camera out already for taking bird photos and so I sneaked a photo of him while he had his back turned to me. I've attached that photo (all right, I did the b/w coloring, and the spooky shadow look, but it's really the photo...).
I wanted to ask him what he was doing, but didn't. Not long after I took the photo, he went beyond the trees you see in the photo and then was gone.
Freaky, yeah? If it had been at dusk, it might have been almost creepy, and it was almost creepy anyway.
What do you think? Some kind of treasure hunt/scavenger hunt game taking place? Some weird drug deal going down? Digging up a cursed Monkey Paw?
My best guess was a scavenger hunt, but what do you think?
As we approach that most "hallowed" time of the year, do have any creepy stories of your own?
Over near the the old brick wall that lines the cemetery, there are a bunch of trees scattered amongst the graves. In front of me, I noticed someone walking towards the old brick wall. I kept catching snatches of someone maybe 50' in front of me, but they were behind the trees, so I couldn't see clearly. I kept seeing glimpses of black.
Eventually, I saw him, this thin, young man all dressed in black, with wild, inky hair and pale skin. I realized it was a "goth" kid/young man. He didn't look at me, just kept walking straight towards the wall. He wasn't looking around at the cemetery, looking at the graves or anything you might normally do at a cemetery, just walking straight towards the wall. When he reached the wall, he turned to his right and started walking along the wall, back towards the street (although this was back a good ways from the street in a fairly abandoned-feeling part of the graveyard).
I kept sneaking glimpses of him because I didn't want to freak him out or anything/make him think I was watching him. But I WAS watching him because his behavior was so odd, he wasn't looking at the cemetery, but rather walked specifically and directly to the wall, then turned and walked on maybe 30 more feet.
Then, he stopped, bent over, brushed some leaves away and... DUG! into the ground a little bit with his hands. After a few minutes of this digging, he pulled something out of the ground. Something maybe six inches long that fit in his hand, like a cell phone or a knife (by now I was too far away to see clearly). I watched him brush it off a little bit on the stone at the bottom of the brick wall.
I had my camera out already for taking bird photos and so I sneaked a photo of him while he had his back turned to me. I've attached that photo (all right, I did the b/w coloring, and the spooky shadow look, but it's really the photo...).
I wanted to ask him what he was doing, but didn't. Not long after I took the photo, he went beyond the trees you see in the photo and then was gone.
Freaky, yeah? If it had been at dusk, it might have been almost creepy, and it was almost creepy anyway.
What do you think? Some kind of treasure hunt/scavenger hunt game taking place? Some weird drug deal going down? Digging up a cursed Monkey Paw?
My best guess was a scavenger hunt, but what do you think?
As we approach that most "hallowed" time of the year, do have any creepy stories of your own?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Really??? UPDATED
Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
?
I heard that on the alarm/radio this morning and thought it was just the talk show hosts cracking jokes. Then, I realized they were being serious and my first thought was, "For WHAT?"
As it turns out, Obama has actually won the Nobel Peace prize for being Not-Bush. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Obama won the Prize, according to the committee, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
The committee also said Obama has "created a new climate in international politics."
What's that mean? What's he done?
It seems like we're being rewarded for merely Not Being Bush. The US, with the election of Obama, has had a turn away from Cowboy Diplomacy to adult diplomacy, and that is something that the Nobel folks must have decided was important enough to encourage.
Weird.
I'd think it have been better to wait to see if Obama actually took some actions that more directly led to peace (of course, I AM glad that he has changed the tone of diplomacy and foreign affairs, but still...) than just to honor him for being Not Bush.
All the same, it will be amusing to watch the Obama Haters' collective heads exploding today. Might be painful, though, considering how far up their respective rumps most of those heads are...
=====
UPDATE: According to CNN:
Obama was selected not for substantive accomplishments, but for his "vision" and inspiring "hope" at the beginning of his presidency.
?
I heard that on the alarm/radio this morning and thought it was just the talk show hosts cracking jokes. Then, I realized they were being serious and my first thought was, "For WHAT?"
As it turns out, Obama has actually won the Nobel Peace prize for being Not-Bush. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Obama won the Prize, according to the committee, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
The committee also said Obama has "created a new climate in international politics."
What's that mean? What's he done?
It seems like we're being rewarded for merely Not Being Bush. The US, with the election of Obama, has had a turn away from Cowboy Diplomacy to adult diplomacy, and that is something that the Nobel folks must have decided was important enough to encourage.
Weird.
I'd think it have been better to wait to see if Obama actually took some actions that more directly led to peace (of course, I AM glad that he has changed the tone of diplomacy and foreign affairs, but still...) than just to honor him for being Not Bush.
All the same, it will be amusing to watch the Obama Haters' collective heads exploding today. Might be painful, though, considering how far up their respective rumps most of those heads are...
=====
UPDATE: According to CNN:
Obama was selected not for substantive accomplishments, but for his "vision" and inspiring "hope" at the beginning of his presidency.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman," the committee said, explaining its decision.
In comments at the White House on Friday, Obama said he did not view the award "as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action."Friday, October 2, 2009
Christian Essentials?
I've been watching with some interest over at Stan's place (birdsoftheair.blogspot ). Stan is one of those who have asked me to no longer comment there so I haven't, but he has posted a series in which he goes through what he considers to be Christian essential beliefs.
He begins with the notion that "saved by grace through faith in Jesus" is a line that distinguishes Christianity from other religions. So far, very good. From there, he listed some fairly typical (I guess) notions of Christian doctrines. In his words...
What doctrines did I list as essential? In what I consider a somewhat logical order:
1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
2. The Sinfulness of Man
3. The Atonement
4. The Trinity
5. The Resurrection of Christ
Stan added the caveat...
Now, I, again, need to make it clear. When I say "essential to Christianity", I do not mean that in order to become a Christian you need to believe all these things.
I am not saying that a person who does not have a clear understanding and agreement with, for instance, the mystery of the Trinity cannot be saved. These are not essential for salvation. They are essential for Christianity. They form the primary substance of Christianity. Without them, you have something that is not Christianity.
And I respond by thinking, "hmmm." I'm not sure if I agree. Oh, I believe in most of his essentials - although not the way that Stan wants me to believe (he has decided that I'm not a Christian because I don't believe correctly on some things - that is EVIDENCE of why I'm not a Christian, but it's not what makes me not a Christian, according to Stan). Of course, I don't believe in what he is calling "biblical inerrancy."
I'm no theologian, but I reckon my essentials would look more like this...
UPDATED: Dan's list of Christian essentials IF I WERE TO DO A LIST...
1. The Sin problem of humanity
2. The Love of God for this world and God's desire to save humanity
3. The Grace of God, by which we are saved
4. The Lordship of Jesus
5. The Fellowship/Community of Believers
The advantage to this set of beliefs (as opposed to Stan's) is that they are exceptionally directly biblical. That is, these aren't implied (like he thinks inerrancy is or like we both think the Trinity is, or as his version of Atonement is). My take on them comes pretty directly from Jesus' teachings.
Clearly, we have a sin problem (although Stan and I may look at that differently - more on that in another post). But then, from what I see in the Bible, there is a HUGE emphasis on the love of God for this fallen world. God wishes that we'd ALL be saved, this is what the Bible tells us God wants and this desire springs from God's love for us.
And so we are offered salvation by God's grace. This is what saves us, God's grace through faith in Jesus, as Stan agrees. What I found especially missing in Stan's list (and he apparently thinks it is implied) is any mention of the Lordship of Jesus. That is, we know Jesus' teachings and agree with God that our way is wrong, that Jesus' way is right, we repent of trying to go our sinful way and, by God's grace, live a life walking in the steps of Jesus, our Lord.
Stan may think it's implied, but I think it's important enough to note right up front. After all, someone could believe in Stan's essentials and not be saved at all.
I also think the communion of saints is an important essential, the love of the church for one another and the world.
Again, I'm no theologian, am I off on a wrong trail or does that sound solid? To me, my list is much more "Jesusy" than Stan's. These are teachings that come straight from Jesus the Christ.
Stan's list sounds vaguely more Pauline (well, except for the inerrancy stuff, which Paul doesn't talk about that I see, or the Trinity stuff, but the rest of it...)
Thoughts?
He begins with the notion that "saved by grace through faith in Jesus" is a line that distinguishes Christianity from other religions. So far, very good. From there, he listed some fairly typical (I guess) notions of Christian doctrines. In his words...
What doctrines did I list as essential? In what I consider a somewhat logical order:
1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
2. The Sinfulness of Man
3. The Atonement
4. The Trinity
5. The Resurrection of Christ
Stan added the caveat...
Now, I, again, need to make it clear. When I say "essential to Christianity", I do not mean that in order to become a Christian you need to believe all these things.
I am not saying that a person who does not have a clear understanding and agreement with, for instance, the mystery of the Trinity cannot be saved. These are not essential for salvation. They are essential for Christianity. They form the primary substance of Christianity. Without them, you have something that is not Christianity.
And I respond by thinking, "hmmm." I'm not sure if I agree. Oh, I believe in most of his essentials - although not the way that Stan wants me to believe (he has decided that I'm not a Christian because I don't believe correctly on some things - that is EVIDENCE of why I'm not a Christian, but it's not what makes me not a Christian, according to Stan). Of course, I don't believe in what he is calling "biblical inerrancy."
I'm no theologian, but I reckon my essentials would look more like this...
UPDATED: Dan's list of Christian essentials IF I WERE TO DO A LIST...
1. The Sin problem of humanity
2. The Love of God for this world and God's desire to save humanity
3. The Grace of God, by which we are saved
4. The Lordship of Jesus
5. The Fellowship/Community of Believers
The advantage to this set of beliefs (as opposed to Stan's) is that they are exceptionally directly biblical. That is, these aren't implied (like he thinks inerrancy is or like we both think the Trinity is, or as his version of Atonement is). My take on them comes pretty directly from Jesus' teachings.
Clearly, we have a sin problem (although Stan and I may look at that differently - more on that in another post). But then, from what I see in the Bible, there is a HUGE emphasis on the love of God for this fallen world. God wishes that we'd ALL be saved, this is what the Bible tells us God wants and this desire springs from God's love for us.
And so we are offered salvation by God's grace. This is what saves us, God's grace through faith in Jesus, as Stan agrees. What I found especially missing in Stan's list (and he apparently thinks it is implied) is any mention of the Lordship of Jesus. That is, we know Jesus' teachings and agree with God that our way is wrong, that Jesus' way is right, we repent of trying to go our sinful way and, by God's grace, live a life walking in the steps of Jesus, our Lord.
Stan may think it's implied, but I think it's important enough to note right up front. After all, someone could believe in Stan's essentials and not be saved at all.
I also think the communion of saints is an important essential, the love of the church for one another and the world.
Again, I'm no theologian, am I off on a wrong trail or does that sound solid? To me, my list is much more "Jesusy" than Stan's. These are teachings that come straight from Jesus the Christ.
Stan's list sounds vaguely more Pauline (well, except for the inerrancy stuff, which Paul doesn't talk about that I see, or the Trinity stuff, but the rest of it...)
Thoughts?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
This Aggression Will Not Stand, Man...
Gov't nuttiness in the news, along with its self-correction...
IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.
Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers...
Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family...
On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.
story
Of course, this is an example of gov't over-reach and I would not be surprised to hear about it on conservative blogs here soon. The thing is, I would imagine nearly everyone agrees that it's too much gov't intervention and it is a result of a well-intentioned but poorly-written law. It sounds that law is even now being rewritten.
That is, the problem has corrected itself. As it should. Our republic has, once again, worked itself out, as it does tend to do, given time. So, no need to start stocking up on more bullets and guns - we're not going commie just yet...
IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.
Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers...
Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family...
On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.
story
Of course, this is an example of gov't over-reach and I would not be surprised to hear about it on conservative blogs here soon. The thing is, I would imagine nearly everyone agrees that it's too much gov't intervention and it is a result of a well-intentioned but poorly-written law. It sounds that law is even now being rewritten.
That is, the problem has corrected itself. As it should. Our republic has, once again, worked itself out, as it does tend to do, given time. So, no need to start stocking up on more bullets and guns - we're not going commie just yet...
Monday, September 28, 2009
A Problem with Biblical Inerrancy
I think one of the problems with biblical inerrancy is the degree to which it has tended to build black and white thinking in some people and, along with that, the almost god-like nature some assign to the Bible.
A recent series of conversations with one of my more conservative brothers resulted in someone making this conclusion, and I quote...
"Without reliable words from God, we are free to make what we want of our religion. I have come to the conclusion that I believe so much in authority and reliability of Scripture, that if I were to learn that it was false, I would cease to be a Christian, and even further, cease to be a moral person because there would be no reason for morality except to get what I would want from others and not have others treat me the way I don't want to be treated."
IF they learned that there were lines in the Bible that they thought were true and factual and it turned out to be false, not only would they lose their faith in God, but they would cease to be a moral person!
Is that not a horribly incredible statement to make? Does that not suggest a deification of the Bible? Oh, to be certain, I don't think this person at all intends to make a god of the Bible, but if he "were to learn that it were false, [he] would cease to be a Christian...," that rather sounds like his faith is in the Bible and not God.
I would suggest that perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably means that if he were to learn that ALL of it were false (God created the world = not true, Jesus was NOT a real person, we are NOT to love our enemies, we are NOT to love our families and communities, etc, etc), surely this must be what he means.
And I hope so, for that might be a reasonable position.
But I fear that it may not be so. I fear this because I've met others who've said similar things. I have a dear friend from my childhood who is a devoted and wonderful conservative Christian, and he once told me that if he learned that the Creation story is not fairly literal, he would probably lose his faith. "How could I believe ANY of it is true if the creation story is not literally and factually true?" is a common sentiment I have heard.
I fear that this concrete, black/white, absolutist sort of thinking probably DOES lead people to lose their faith, when it becomes clear at some point for some of them that some of the stories and facts in the Bible probably aren't intended to be literally true.
This would be a shame, I think. We have no real biblical, moral or logical reason to presume inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible does not TELL us to take each story as literally factually true and we can learn from metaphorical stories just as well as we can from factual stories about the nature of God.
You think?
A recent series of conversations with one of my more conservative brothers resulted in someone making this conclusion, and I quote...
"Without reliable words from God, we are free to make what we want of our religion. I have come to the conclusion that I believe so much in authority and reliability of Scripture, that if I were to learn that it was false, I would cease to be a Christian, and even further, cease to be a moral person because there would be no reason for morality except to get what I would want from others and not have others treat me the way I don't want to be treated."
IF they learned that there were lines in the Bible that they thought were true and factual and it turned out to be false, not only would they lose their faith in God, but they would cease to be a moral person!
Is that not a horribly incredible statement to make? Does that not suggest a deification of the Bible? Oh, to be certain, I don't think this person at all intends to make a god of the Bible, but if he "were to learn that it were false, [he] would cease to be a Christian...," that rather sounds like his faith is in the Bible and not God.
I would suggest that perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably means that if he were to learn that ALL of it were false (God created the world = not true, Jesus was NOT a real person, we are NOT to love our enemies, we are NOT to love our families and communities, etc, etc), surely this must be what he means.
And I hope so, for that might be a reasonable position.
But I fear that it may not be so. I fear this because I've met others who've said similar things. I have a dear friend from my childhood who is a devoted and wonderful conservative Christian, and he once told me that if he learned that the Creation story is not fairly literal, he would probably lose his faith. "How could I believe ANY of it is true if the creation story is not literally and factually true?" is a common sentiment I have heard.
I fear that this concrete, black/white, absolutist sort of thinking probably DOES lead people to lose their faith, when it becomes clear at some point for some of them that some of the stories and facts in the Bible probably aren't intended to be literally true.
This would be a shame, I think. We have no real biblical, moral or logical reason to presume inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible does not TELL us to take each story as literally factually true and we can learn from metaphorical stories just as well as we can from factual stories about the nature of God.
You think?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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 thought I'd begin with the Psalms. This is a little tricky because I believe that much of the prayers for God's help found within the Psalms imply - some more than others - that the oppression they are feeling is due to economic injustice. Psalms like Psalm 17...
My ravenous enemies press upon me; they close their hearts, they fill their mouths with proud roaring.
Their steps even now encircle me; they watch closely, keeping low to the ground,
Like lions eager for prey, like young lions lurking in ambush.
Rise, O LORD, confront and cast them down; rescue me so from the wicked.
Slay them with your sword; with your hand, LORD, slay them; snatch them from the world in their prime. Their bellies are being filled with your friends; their children are satisfied too, for they share what is left with their young.
I am just--let me see your face; when I awake, let me be filled with your presence.
~Psalm 17:10-15
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the whole "bellies are being filled..." sort of language seems to echo other passages that talk about the wealthy unjustly filling their bellies while the poor starve (see Ezekiel 7 and Ezekiel 16, for instance).
That being said, I'll stick primarily with passages that are overtly about poverty or wealth, rather than those which might imply it. From the first ten chapters of Psalms, we find these...
Many say, "May we see better times! LORD, show us the light of your face!" Selah
But you have given my heart more joy than they have when grain and wine abound.
In peace I shall both lie down and sleep, for you alone, LORD, make me secure.
~Psalm 4:7-9
=====
It is God who governs the world with justice, who judges the peoples with fairness. The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, stronghold in times of trouble.
~Psalm 9:8-9
=====
Why, LORD, do you stand at a distance and pay no heed to these troubled times?
Arrogant scoundrels pursue the poor; they trap them by their cunning schemes.
The wicked even boast of their greed; these robbers curse and scorn the LORD.
In their insolence the wicked boast: "God doesn't care, doesn't even exist."
Yet their affairs always succeed; they ignore your judgment on high; they sneer at all who oppose them.
They say in their hearts, "We will never fall; never will we see misfortune."
Their mouths are full of oaths, violence, and lies; discord and evil are under their tongues.
They wait in ambush near towns; their eyes watch for the helpless. to murder the innocent in secret.
They lurk in ambush like lions in a thicket, hide there to trap the poor, snare them and close the net.
The helpless are crushed, laid low; they fall into the power of the wicked,
Who say in their hearts, "God pays no attention, shows no concern, never bothers to look."
Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm! Do not forget the poor!
Why should the wicked scorn God, say in their hearts, "God doesn't care"?
But you do see; you do observe this misery and sorrow; you take the matter in hand. To you the helpless can entrust their cause; you are the defender of orphans.
Break the arms of the wicked and depraved; make them account for their crimes; let none of them survive.
The LORD is king forever; the nations have vanished from God's land.
You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers.
You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again.
~Psalm 10
Today, I thought I'd begin with the Psalms. This is a little tricky because I believe that much of the prayers for God's help found within the Psalms imply - some more than others - that the oppression they are feeling is due to economic injustice. Psalms like Psalm 17...
My ravenous enemies press upon me; they close their hearts, they fill their mouths with proud roaring.
Their steps even now encircle me; they watch closely, keeping low to the ground,
Like lions eager for prey, like young lions lurking in ambush.
Rise, O LORD, confront and cast them down; rescue me so from the wicked.
Slay them with your sword; with your hand, LORD, slay them; snatch them from the world in their prime. Their bellies are being filled with your friends; their children are satisfied too, for they share what is left with their young.
I am just--let me see your face; when I awake, let me be filled with your presence.
~Psalm 17:10-15
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the whole "bellies are being filled..." sort of language seems to echo other passages that talk about the wealthy unjustly filling their bellies while the poor starve (see Ezekiel 7 and Ezekiel 16, for instance).
That being said, I'll stick primarily with passages that are overtly about poverty or wealth, rather than those which might imply it. From the first ten chapters of Psalms, we find these...
Many say, "May we see better times! LORD, show us the light of your face!" Selah
But you have given my heart more joy than they have when grain and wine abound.
In peace I shall both lie down and sleep, for you alone, LORD, make me secure.
~Psalm 4:7-9
=====
It is God who governs the world with justice, who judges the peoples with fairness. The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, stronghold in times of trouble.
~Psalm 9:8-9
=====
Why, LORD, do you stand at a distance and pay no heed to these troubled times?
Arrogant scoundrels pursue the poor; they trap them by their cunning schemes.
The wicked even boast of their greed; these robbers curse and scorn the LORD.
In their insolence the wicked boast: "God doesn't care, doesn't even exist."
Yet their affairs always succeed; they ignore your judgment on high; they sneer at all who oppose them.
They say in their hearts, "We will never fall; never will we see misfortune."
Their mouths are full of oaths, violence, and lies; discord and evil are under their tongues.
They wait in ambush near towns; their eyes watch for the helpless. to murder the innocent in secret.
They lurk in ambush like lions in a thicket, hide there to trap the poor, snare them and close the net.
The helpless are crushed, laid low; they fall into the power of the wicked,
Who say in their hearts, "God pays no attention, shows no concern, never bothers to look."
Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm! Do not forget the poor!
Why should the wicked scorn God, say in their hearts, "God doesn't care"?
But you do see; you do observe this misery and sorrow; you take the matter in hand. To you the helpless can entrust their cause; you are the defender of orphans.
Break the arms of the wicked and depraved; make them account for their crimes; let none of them survive.
The LORD is king forever; the nations have vanished from God's land.
You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers.
You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again.
~Psalm 10
Friday, September 18, 2009
Joke of the Day
Ironic humor is ruling this month.
You all are familiar, I'm sure, with Jimmy Carter's comments about the vitriolic level of dissent in the health care debate (Carter suggested NOT that most Americans were racists, but rather suggested that the level of bile and anger in this "debate" is at least partially due to racism - a point that would be as hard to prove as it would be to disprove, it seems to me, but not entirely without merit).
What you may have missed was that Elliot Abrams last week criticized Carter for some of his recent comments about the Middle East peace process.
The ironic humor in this criticism is that this is the SAME Elliot Abrams who defended so much terrorism in Latin America in the 1980s. Abrams was Reagan's man in El Salvador, suggesting that no terroristic behavior was happening by the US-supported Salvadoran army, when that was simply not the fact.
Later, Abrams played a role in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which the Reagan administration provided support for the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua. Abrams was convicted for a relatively minor charge of lying to Congress and promptly pardoned by Bush I. Later, this SAME Abrams was chosen by Bush II to promote Democracy!
woo hoo, ha, ha, sniff, sniff, bawl...
THIS Abrams now is criticizing Carter, suggesting Carter is siding with the terrorists in Palestine. Well, I guess he would know a bit about siding with terrorists.
[More about Abrams can be found here
You all are familiar, I'm sure, with Jimmy Carter's comments about the vitriolic level of dissent in the health care debate (Carter suggested NOT that most Americans were racists, but rather suggested that the level of bile and anger in this "debate" is at least partially due to racism - a point that would be as hard to prove as it would be to disprove, it seems to me, but not entirely without merit).
What you may have missed was that Elliot Abrams last week criticized Carter for some of his recent comments about the Middle East peace process.
The ironic humor in this criticism is that this is the SAME Elliot Abrams who defended so much terrorism in Latin America in the 1980s. Abrams was Reagan's man in El Salvador, suggesting that no terroristic behavior was happening by the US-supported Salvadoran army, when that was simply not the fact.
Later, Abrams played a role in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which the Reagan administration provided support for the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua. Abrams was convicted for a relatively minor charge of lying to Congress and promptly pardoned by Bush I. Later, this SAME Abrams was chosen by Bush II to promote Democracy!
woo hoo, ha, ha, sniff, sniff, bawl...
THIS Abrams now is criticizing Carter, suggesting Carter is siding with the terrorists in Palestine. Well, I guess he would know a bit about siding with terrorists.
[More about Abrams can be found here
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Joke of the Day
A former aide to George W Bush (Bush speechwriter, Matt Latimer) has just released a book, which includes this hilarious snippet...
'Bush came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming. "This is a dangerous world and this cat (Obama) isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you".'
That's George W Bush suggesting that Barack Obama has no clue and is not remotely qualified to be president. Isn't that rather like Chuckles the clown questioning Einstein on the intricacies of nuclear physics (or, as Bush would say, "all that nucyular science mumbo jumbo...")
Funny stuff. But doubtlessly true. Who, after all, IS qualified for that kind of job?
On a more enlightening note, you may wish to visit my Jeff Street church blog to see a recent wonderful sermon from my pastor, in which she points out how vital it is to be a part of, and community with, "the least of these." Vital for OUR sake, as much as theirs.
'Bush came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming. "This is a dangerous world and this cat (Obama) isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you".'
That's George W Bush suggesting that Barack Obama has no clue and is not remotely qualified to be president. Isn't that rather like Chuckles the clown questioning Einstein on the intricacies of nuclear physics (or, as Bush would say, "all that nucyular science mumbo jumbo...")
Funny stuff. But doubtlessly true. Who, after all, IS qualified for that kind of job?
On a more enlightening note, you may wish to visit my Jeff Street church blog to see a recent wonderful sermon from my pastor, in which she points out how vital it is to be a part of, and community with, "the least of these." Vital for OUR sake, as much as theirs.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Senor Don Gato
Now, I know that thanks to the wonders of the internets, a fella can find out just about anything at all. But I was wondering if folk around here might assist me, instead.
I found myself this morning singing a snippet of song and my daughter asked about it and when I described it to her, she said she'd never heard of it.
As a child in elementary school, one of the songs we sang was "Senor Don Gato." It was the tragic love story of Senor Don Gato, who was a cat.
The first verse, as I recall it, went...
Oh, Senor Don Gato was a cat
On a high red roof, Don Gato sat
He went there to read a letter, meow meow meow
Where the reading light was better, meow meow meow
It was the end of poor Don Gato...
And that's all I remember of the actual. That, and it was sung in a minor key.
The story line, as I recall it, was that Don Gato went to read the letter and, as it turns out, it was from his lover. It was a Dear Juan letter! He was dumped by his lover and in his heartache or surprise or shock or something, Don Gato falls from the roof to his death on the streets below.
My daughter called that a horrifyingly morbid song for schoolchildren to be singing.
How about it? Was this a song specific to my particular school/area? OR, were schoolchildren across the nation being taught illicit love stories that end in the tragic death of beloved kittens?
Anyone?
I found myself this morning singing a snippet of song and my daughter asked about it and when I described it to her, she said she'd never heard of it.
As a child in elementary school, one of the songs we sang was "Senor Don Gato." It was the tragic love story of Senor Don Gato, who was a cat.
The first verse, as I recall it, went...
Oh, Senor Don Gato was a cat
On a high red roof, Don Gato sat
He went there to read a letter, meow meow meow
Where the reading light was better, meow meow meow
It was the end of poor Don Gato...
And that's all I remember of the actual. That, and it was sung in a minor key.
The story line, as I recall it, was that Don Gato went to read the letter and, as it turns out, it was from his lover. It was a Dear Juan letter! He was dumped by his lover and in his heartache or surprise or shock or something, Don Gato falls from the roof to his death on the streets below.
My daughter called that a horrifyingly morbid song for schoolchildren to be singing.
How about it? Was this a song specific to my particular school/area? OR, were schoolchildren across the nation being taught illicit love stories that end in the tragic death of beloved kittens?
Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)