The Word in Focus

adrift

Yesterday, tattered and naked, he had cursed the sun with a swollen tongue and cracked bleeding lips. Today, he could not speak, but rather lay helpless in the bilge of the skiff, his body as becalmed as the ocean that surrounded him, the sun sucking the last bit of life out of every cell. He had not eaten in a fortnight, but worse, the last of the sweet water was six days ago.

“Water, water everywhere, but nary a drop to drink.”

He’d heard tales of becalmed sailors losing their minds and gulping down sea water, precipitating a painful death.

He drifted in and out of consciousness, sometimes lucid, most of the time delirious, alternating between trying to remember who he was and how he got here and passively surrendering to the heat of the fiery orb in the cloudless sky above him that would not kill him quickly, but instead, demon-like, was determined to ever so slowly suck what little moisture remained from the emaciated shell of what had been a man.

Was it a dream? Would night never come again with its merciful coolness? Or, was night aligned, Apollo's coconspirator, whose mission it was to prolong the agony, to kill more slowly by bringing seasons of false hope?

Images. Dreams? Swirling colors. Nausea.

Heat, always heat.

“A woman. Well dressed. Cold. Married considerably above the wretched station of the working class, yet lower than royalty. Not a lady, but she wanted to be one, pretended to be one -- stabbing orders at overworked servants who privately despised her, and never made eye contact as they curtsied or bowed and called her ‘mum’.

“A Victorian home. Fine furniture, aged wines. Who was this woman whose image he kept seeing, whose face sucked away his soul even as the sun drew his strength into itself?

“Another woman, the antithesis of the first. Round and soft, with ample bosom, holding a young boy, whispering love and comfort, warm and safe.”

How is it that this person of no relation could be more maternal than his own natural mother? Which one was the mother -- the one who carried and birthed him, or the one who loved and nurtured him?

The little boy was often alone. It seemed to him that he was perpetually in the way of the cold woman. The warm round one always had kind words but worked incessantly -- washing, laundry, dusting, scrubbing -- singing all the while.

Sleep. Loss of consciousness. How long?

Heat. Torture from the heavens. Fading.

“Who’s picture is that above the mantle? Austere, proper, ship-captain’s uniform. Is that me? I am a ship captain. How did I get in this skiff? Mutiny? Choice? Shipwreck? Where is my crew?

“No, the painting is not of me, but looks like me. Who is that? Father. Absent noble. Legend. Appointed by the Queen.”

Adrift on a lake of fire. Alone, utterly alone.

“Another woman. Young, pretty. Personality like the round, soft, kind one. Smiling. A daughter in crinoline at her side. Who? Wife! Dearling. Annabel, our baby. Where are you?

“Hymns, homily, Eucharist. This is my Body. The Blood of Christ. Amen.

“Christ. God. Where are you? Why have you abandoned me to this torture? Am I being punished? A dying man cannot choose anything. Prayer evaporates in the heat. The sun has burned away divine communion.”

A soft rain soaked into his skin. Instinctively, his mouth opened and rivulets of fresh water resurrected his tongue and throat. Cat’s paws on the sea; now some small white caps. Redemptive breeze.

“Master Captain, you are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

Every cell sucked in the moisture. Hunger returned.

They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.

Then came the second miracle. An Ahi, some three feet long, flipped itself into the boat. Tuna don’t do that. There were no manners now as he ripped into the flesh and devoured the sushi in the rain.

“Sweet rain. May it never stop. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Showers of blessing.”

Memory revived. His absent father; his cold distant mother; his warm caring nanny; his wife Jenny and their daughter Annabel. England. Fog. Born to the sea. Appoint in her majesty’s navy as a junior officer. Ship after ship. Then a vessel of his own. Captain.

Mutiny. It had been a mutiny.

“Why? Was I too hard on the crew? We’d seen some action. Chased down a Spanish frigate and commandeered her for Her Majesty. Filled with gold and guns.”

Last bite of fish. More rain and breeze. Blessed rain; blessed wind.

“Is God who was absent in the heat and sun alive in the wind and rain?”

“Ah, the whipping! No wonder they mutinied. Bloody cat-in-nine-tails. Drum roll. Make them all watch. What the hell was I thinking? Knocked unconscious. Woke up in this skiff. No oars. No sail. Just water. Then the wind went away and the torture began. Had every drop of the sailor’s blood been answered by a drop of moisture from my body? Does God exact justice? An eye for an eye.

“Does God cause mutinies? Does God torture people? Jesus said forgiveness; no more tooth for a tooth.

“What kind of God have I been taught to believe in? Absent but revered like my father? Cold and concerned with appearances like my mother? Just? A wielder of a bloody cat-in-nine-tails? Grapes of wrath?

“God is love. ‘For God so loved the world.’ ‘I came not to condemn the world but to save it.’ The sun burnt the memory of what the lashed sailor had done out of my mind. Forgiveness. I forgive. Mercy. Grace. Maybe “judgement” is simply the natural consequences of our choices.”

He fashioned a hook from the remnants of a button and braided threads from what had been his pants to fish with. He would survive for a while unless the wind stopped again, or sharks destroyed his boat, or a rogue wave swallowed him, or a storm sent him to a watery grave, or pirates found him.

Hell

Bible-believing theologians have historically presented five arguments about hell.

The literal view, held by some evangelical and nearly all fundamentalist believers, sees hell as a literal, physical place that looks much like a huge lake made of fire, in which all people who reject Jesus will be physically tortured for all eternity. Most fundamentalists would even go a step further and say that only those who purposely and cognitively accept Christ will avoid hell.

The metaphorical view also sees hell as eternal conscious suffering, but speculates that the suffering may be more mental than physical. This view is a milder modification of the first.

The theory of Purgatory is actually not a view of hell at all, but instead postulates the existence of an in-between place that is neither heaven nor hell, where people will suffer until they are purified and therefore fit for heaven. This view is accepted by about 70% of Christendom, including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican believers.

The universalist view that there is no eternal hell, and that God will eventually use His persuasive powers to convince everyone to come to him and be saved. Most mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic preachers and theologians, and an increasing number of Reformed Calvinists who speculate that God has elected everyone and will, either in time or in eternity, irresistibly draw them to himself, hold this view. Most Christians, historically and contemporarily, hold this view in combination with some concept of Purgatory.

The conditional view is also called “the destructionist view” by its detractors, asserts that those who reject Christ will be annihilated at the final judgment (perhaps after some sort of punishment). This view is increasing in popularity among evangelical believers, and was held by many in the first three centuries of Christendom.

It seems somewhat arrogant and uncharitable to seize on one concept of hell as “right” and dismiss fellow believers with differing opinions as heretics. Too many good Christian people are wounded by friendly fire while the world looks on aghast. Devout, honest people attempting to be true to the scriptures hold each of these views. Dialogue is good, but attacks only sow discord among brethren.Someone wisely pointed out that whenever we think we have all the answers and therefore are no longer teachable and humble enough to realize that no matter how sure we are, we may be wrong, we are on spiritual thin ice.

We all assume we are just looking at what the Bible says, but the truth is that none of us can look at any text except through the eyes of our own culture, background and biases. The key to right interpretation is humility (admitting I may be wrong), teachableness (admitting I have something to learn from others), and recognition of my own societal biases.

Regarding Hell, the church laid very little emphasis on it for roughly the first thousand years of Christianity. Instead, the message was celebratory, hopeful, joyous, full of forgiveness, and grace -- it was kingdom come!

Then came the Middle Ages with its plagues, brutality, wars, and oppression. Death and suffering were everywhere, and the church (mainly the Roman Catholic Church of Western Europe) began to emphasize eternal suffering.

Godly, good and wise people today differ on their view of Hell, alternatively understanding it to be eternal torture, annihilation, banishment from God, loneliness of our own making, suffering in this life, or temporary redemptive suffering in the next life.

While the Bible certainly talks about Hell, Hades, and Sheol, our postmodern, post-Christendom (not post-Christian) world is much more open to messages of hope and joy than damnation and sorrow. Few people are frightened into the kingdom by threats.

“Rejoice, for the Kingdom of God is in your midst!” is a message more likely to find open ears than “You are going to hell” (something no human could know anyway).

We often hear the argument that the Bible must be taken literally, but in reality no one takes the whole Bible literally. Apart from a few psychotic people, no one believes Jesus literally meant for us to saw off our hands or rip out our own eyes. The Bible is filled with metaphors, similes, and symbols. That of course does not mean that we can pick and choose what we want to believe, dismiss the Bible as simply the musings of men, or trumpet a private interpretation.

What it does mean is that scripture must be read in context. We have to have some understanding of to whom the original writings are addressed and what was going on in the world at the time. Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones is not literal, but symbolic of the resurgence of Judah and Israel which had recently been overrun by the Babylonians. Without some concept of the Babylonian captivity, the story either makes no sense or is open to a plethora of strange individual interpretations.

Although we have no original autographs of scriptural texts, we do have well preserved ancient copies that scholars can compare in order to arrive at the most accurate translations. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so the scholar must first assemble the most comprehensive and accurate manuscript from the pieces found by archeologists, then seek to translate those manuscripts in the language of the people, which is often a daunting task. Our point is that we need to read the Bible in context, seeking to find the most accurate rendering of the words, and paying attention to non-literal language when it occurs, while giving credence to sacred tradition.

It behooves us to respect sacred tradition. When our interpretations differ from 2,000 years of godly, spiritual, historical insight, humility requires that we take pause.

“Hell” is a translation of “gehenna”, or “gehenom”, or “gehinom” (Greek γεεννα), which was the landfill/garbage dump outside Jerusalem in the first century. Golgotha, the hill of public execution was near it, and the stench from gehenna wafted over it continually. The bodies of executed criminals were often tossed into gehenna.

“Hades” (or the Hebrew equivalent “Sheol”) was the shadowy realm of the dead (good and bad) in ancient Greek mythology -- a place where disembodied souls went after death and where they existed in dreamlike consciousness.

In classic mythology, below heaven and earth is Tartarus, or (Greek Τάρταρος, deep place). It is a deep, gloomy place, a pit, or an abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering that is beneath the underworld. In the Bible, Jude refers to fallen angels being in Tartarus.

The book of Revelation, which itself claims to be entirely symbolic, speaks of a lake of fire as the destination of the devil, the devil’s angels, a false prophet, and an antichrist. A simple reading of the various passages keeps us from taking the idea of an unending lake of fire where people are tortured for eternity with no hope of relief literally.

To take the concept of Hell with wooden literalness violates the text and the teaching of sacred tradition. Whatever it is, it cannot simultaneously be a lake of fire, outer darkness, a garbage dump, a shadowy abode of the dead, and a pit of torture. All of these must be metaphors to describe something bad in the future for the wicked.

Where we get into the most trouble, however, is not so much in our views of what hell is, as in our assumptions about who will be there. The Bible is quite clear that only God, who knows all the facts, hearts and motives, is qualified to judge. That is why Jesus told us not to judge others. Even Paul’s references to the categories of people that will be “outside the kingdom” or “not inherit age-abiding life”, when read in context, are exhortations dealing with specific problems in specific churches, are open to varying interpretations, and may be referring to local fellowship, not eternal destiny.

Concerning homosexuality, for example, difficulties in translation cloud the issue as well. The word arsenokoitai is rendered in various translations as “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” “child molesters,” or “perverts,” while malakoi is translated variously as “catamites,” “the effeminate,” or “boy prostitutes.” Malakoi is a common term meaning “soft.” It can refer to clothing (Matthew 11:8) or moral matters, meaning “undisciplined” and may be rendered “effeminate.” Arsenokoitai is a rare word and is made up of arseno meaning “man,” and koitai meaning “bed, lying, or having sex with.”  When put together the word may mean “male prostitutes,” but most English translators render the word “homosexuals”. Most Christian theologians today believe that the Apostle Paul condemns homosexual behavior. The early church interpreted these passages as condemnation of child-abuse, pedophilia, and prostitution. It is interesting that Jesus, although surrounded by homosexuals, said nothing about the issue.

I am not arguing that homosexuality is OK or pleasing to God. The point is that we do not see anyone’s heart and dare not pass final judgement on anyone. Certainly, we are to warn people about destructive behavior, but we cannot authoritatively announce who is in and who is out of God’s favor. Jesus was perpetually welcoming moral degenerates that the religious folks eschewed.

good news

Although there may be some, I have not yet met the person who has been intellectually argued into belief in God. God, it seems, must reveal Self or remain an enigma. Still, most people do believe in God. The very nature of the universe in which we live argues for the fact that nothing that exists in the realm of the physical could have always existed. It must have had a beginning -- the alpha point before the big-bang. We also know from physics that matter could not have formed itself. Logically, there must have been a Prime Mover, and that Prime Mover must have been intelligent and creative to have begun the process which now amazes us with its intricacies. An eternal, perfect, nonmaterial (spiritual), intelligent, prime-moving, creative Being is what we call God.

Jumping ahead, as we look at humankind today and historically, we see much goodness -- charity, care, compassion, and altruism, as evidenced in Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Father Damien, and many others. Yet, we also see evil -- genocide, holocaust, torture, greed, slavery, exploitation, betrayal, abuse, selfishness -- and as a result, we see hurt people. Clearly, there is an evil side to humans as well as a good side. When we are honest, we admit that we have all chosen evil at times. Not that we are in the same boat with Hitler or Pol Pot, but we have all made wrong choices, selfish choices that have hurt others and shattered relationships.

Our wrong choices have shattered our relationship with God. As Augustine of Hippo said, we all have a God-shaped hole in our hearts and souls. We long for fellowship. We yearn for love. We are never fully satisfied until we are connected with the Creator.

The newer testament boldly declares what it calls “good news” -- that the Creator bridged the gap between God and us by Jesus’ death and resurrection. By the cross, God comes to us, loves us, forgives us, and embraces us.

But, how do we know Jesus rose from the dead? How do we know he was not simply a good man who lived a long time ago?

First, we know historically that the Romans crucified him and made certain he was dead by piercing his heart cavity with a spear. Romans knew how to kill people -- they had bludgeoned the entire Mediterranean world into submission.

Second, we know historically that Jesus’ friends prepared and buried his body as was customary among first century Jews. They cleaned it, and wrapped it in a burial shroud wound around the body, placing spices between the folds of the cloth, placed a turban on his head, and laid the body in an above ground tomb hewn from a rock cliff. The entrance to the tomb was closed, again according to local custom, by a large disk shaped rock leveraged across the entrance.

Third, we know that the tomb was sealed, the Romans placed two strips of leather across the stone with the Roman seal impressed in the center. To open the tomb, one would have to break the seal -- punishable by death under Roman law.

Fourth, we know that the tomb was guarded, i.e., a Roman guard was posted 24/7 -- four soldiers on duty at a time, standing shoulder to shoulder in front of the tomb’s entrance. Under Roman law if even one of them had dozed off, they all would have been executed. Roman guards did not sleep on duty.

Finally, we know that when a group of women and men got there early the next morning, the stone was sitting off by itself. There is no way a stone of that size and weight could be moved without hitching up a team of oxen, but there were no drag marks, just a moved stone. Moreover, when they looked inside, they found no body -- only the grave clothes still wound as if a body were in them.

The only logical explanation of the facts is that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead. Otherwise, who moved the stone? How did he get out of a sealed and guarded tomb without disturbing the grave clothes?

Then, he appeared to hundreds of people on dozens of occasions, all of whom went to their deaths (many to torturous deaths) insisting they had seen, talked to, and eaten with Jesus.

Further, we have two millennia of testimony from people who claim to have encountered the risen Jesus, and whose lives became radically more loving and compassionate as a result. The followers of Jesus became loving, caring, pacifists, who served others, embraced the poor and outcast, and provided shelter and care for the sick, infirmed, and orphaned.

Sadly, Christianity became an institution about 350 years after the resurrection. The Roman Emperor Constantine ordered his soldiers baptized and issued an edict that stopped all the persecution of the Jesus-followers. A bit later, Constantine’s successor Theodosius declared Christianity the state religion of Rome. When church and state married, their offspring had little resemblance to either Jesus or his early followers. The emphases became power, wealth, and control, and Christianity became a religion capable of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust. “Christians” have been guilty of anti-Semitism, slavery, Islamiphobia, homophobia, sexism, classism, racism, xenophobia, and imperialism.

“Christians” often act nothing like Jesus while claiming to follow him. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust are extreme examples, but lesser ones are all around us. A pastor told me he “hated” President Clinton. An evangelical woman told me we (Americans) should “torture the hell out of suspected terrorists.” Another told me that Lee Harvey Oswald should be given a medal for having assassinated President Kennedy. An evangelical woman screamed out of context Bible versus at some of my gay friends and told them they were going to “burn forever.” It is little wonder that so many want nothing to do with Christianity.

But let’s not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath-water. There is no excuse for what people have done in the name of Jesus over the centuries. There is no excuse for hatred amongst people who claim to have made the Prince of Peace the lord and master of their lives.

None of that, however, negates the original good news. The Prime Mover, the creator and designer, is a divine being, a person, who’s heart, whose essence, is love, who wants to have a loving relationship with people. This God of love invites every person, regardless of life-style or past choices, into an eternal loving embrace.

As Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”

"Rent"

My daughter Emily took me to see the Broadway touring company production of “Rent” at the Fox Theater in St. Louis. It is a sometimes raunchy, often irreverent, brilliantly chaotic glimpse into modern bohemian life (or at least bohemian life in New York about 15 years ago). Some find the language objectionable, others find the portrayal of two homosexual couples offensive, but the play is not promoting anything other than friendship and love in a postmodern world. It makes no effort to promote or glorify the gay lifestyle, drug addiction, homelessness or poverty, but instead shows some of the postmodern alienation felt by the “Friends” generation and the ongoing effort to fill the gap with authentic community. It is an outstanding piece of theater.

Socialism, the new bugaboo

I put little stock in politics and less in politicians, although I continue to urge them to do the right thing. One reason for my cynicism, and I suspect I’m not alone, is that whichever party is in the minority in American politics seeks to demonize and thwart the efforts of whichever party happens to control things at the moment.

This is not a liberal or conservative problem, nor a Democrat or Republican habit -- dirty politics is nonpartisan. It happens that the Republicans are in the minority at the moment. The last time that happened, they undertook a very successful campaign to first demonize the word “liberal”, then attach it as a label to everything the Democrats did or tried to do.

But “liberal” has lost its punch, so a new bugaboo was needed. Enter the new demon of American politics -- “Socialism”.

Its usage is ubiquitous. All over the conservative side of political commentary, we keep hearing the S word applied to the President’s agenda and to the Democrat party generally.

I’m not arguing for any program on any side of the spectrum. My only point is that when we create a negative word, like racists have done repeatedly, then use it to demonize the opposition, we are using the tactics of fear, attempting to preempt discussion, and create knee-jerk reactions.

I wish we’d stop the nonsense and discuss things logically like adults.

Besides, from a Christian perspective, what’s wrong with socialism? The Bible does not endorse any economic system, but there are certainly far more scriptures that would lead to a socialistic perspective than the capitalistic engine that runs on human greed.

No government has successfully ever been entirely socialist or capitalistic. Unrestrained humans sin, and checks and balances must be built into the system. America has never been a purely capitalistic society. Pure capitalism leads to exploitation -- the rich get increasingly wealthy and the poor get stomped into the ground. On the other hand, pure socialism doesn’t work either because those with the control of markets invariably become corrupt and enrich themselves.

The third economic system that has been tried in modern times is communism. In a purely socialist society, the government would own everything. In a purely capitalistic society, government would regulate nothing, and the “free market” would determine its winners and losers. In a purely communist society, everything would be owned by everyone. It works if everyone is entirely unselfish and committed to the common good. It worked for the early church. It works in Amish communities. It will work in the Kingdom.

Capitalism won’t work because it runs on avarice and assumes that greedy people seeking to make as much money as they possibly can for themselves will produce a just society. Socialism won’t work because it assumes that Big Brother knows best in every circumstance. Communism won’t work because people get jealous of one another and want control.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to a spirituality that holds all things in common, shares all things freely with all, owns nothing, clings to nothing, controls nothing, serves everyone, wants the best for others, takes the lower road, washes feet, brings dignity to the marginalized, empowers the disenfranchised, dies to self, promotes justice for the other, and gives, and gives, and gives. All wealth, all control, all power, belongs to the King of kings. We who follow the King are willing bond-slaves.

What most Republicans want is less government regulation, not none. What most Democrats want is some additional government guidance, not total control of everything. I wish they’d both be honest, but that’s probably asking too much.

Supreme Courts, Abortion, and Homosexuality

“It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, comon honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.” -- H. L. Mencken

Today courts are in the news.

President Obama nominated federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, who was nominated to the federal bench first by Bush senior and later by Clinton. If approved by the Senate, she will be the first Hispanic on the high court. She will replace Justice Souter. Justice Sotomayor is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects by a single mom because her father died when she was nine years old. Her mother worked six days a week to send her to parochial school. She is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law.

Right-wing pols were screaming before the announcement was even made, calling her “a Constitutional revisionist” who “will legislate from the bench”. Although Justice Souter was appointed by the first President George Bush, he became a mainstay of the liberal faction on the court, and so his replacement by Judge Sotomayor likely would not shift the overall balance of power.

The current Supreme Court is decidedly conservative. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law:

Few would deny that the political values of justices, as well as theories of constitutional interpretation, play a role in their decisions in specific cases. The conservative wing of the Court, for example, generally favors a restrictive interpretation of the federal commerce power (and therefore a broad view of states' rights), favors an expansive interpretation of the 11th Amendment, and rarely votes to overturn criminal convictions.  The conservatives also take a skeptical view of affirmative action, are likely to reject most substantive due process, procedural due process, and establishment clause claims, and are generally reluctant to expand the fundamental rights strand of equal protection law (unless the plaintiff is George Bush, cynics would say).  The moderate-liberal wing of the Court is likely to take the opposite side on all of the above-mentioned issues.

Another way of dividing Supreme Court justices is between "judicial activists" (those who are relatively willing to invalidate acts of federal and state legislatures and executive branches) and "advocates of judicial restraint" (those who are more reluctant to use their judicial power to invalidate).  There are both conservative and liberal judicial activists.  Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are conservative activists while Justice William O. Douglas was a liberal judicial activist.  Current thinking suggests that Chief Justice Roberts is likely to prove to be a conservative advocate of judicial restraint, possibly in the mold of John Marshall Harlan.  There also have  been liberals on the Court who advocated judicial restraint, including Felix Frankfurter.

Seven members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents.  Two justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) were nominated by a Democratic president.
THE CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) , Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.),   Alito (appointed by George W. Bush),  and C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush).
"SWING JUSTICE": Kennedy (appointed by Reagan).   Justice Kennedy is more moderate than the conservative justices.  His views tend to be more libertarian than, for example, those of Chief Justice Roberts.
LIBERALS: Stevens (appointed by Ford), Souter (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Breyer (appointed by Clinton),  and Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton). (Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html)

Later in the day, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, keeping same-sex marriage illegal in California, yet recognizing those same-sex marriages that have already occurred in California.

The question for followers of Jesus is how much any of this really matters. I do not mean to suggest that court decisions and justices are unimportant, only that the issues are complex.

For example, conservative U. S. Supreme Court justices may oppose abortion, which coincides with the beliefs of many American Christians, but they also tend to side with big business against the oppressed little guy, with industry over the environment, and with presidential power over Congress. Obviously, if abortion is the only issue, then no dialogue is possible, but if other issues, such as human rights, poverty, oppression, and abuse of power matter to us, then we may find ourselves only partially supporting everyone.

I am pro-life and I would love to see a society where no one wants to have an abortion. I believe that unborn babies are human beings with human rights. But, I do not want to live in a society that prosecutes as murderers women who have had abortions or physicians who preform them. My own opinion is that seeking to make abortion illegal will never work. Instead, it seems to me that the way to a pro-life culture is loving one woman and one baby at a time. I know that sounds naive, but so does turning the other cheek and loving your enemies.

I’m also concerned about other biblical values and issues such as stewardship of the environment, oppression, injustice, racism, poverty, health care and civil rights. While many would call me a conservative concerning abortion, others would call me a liberal on other issues.

Then there is homosexuality. Certainly, it is accurate to say that the majority of Christian institutions -- Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant -- hold, and have historically held, that the Bible is sacred scripture and interpret the scriptures as condemning homosexual practices, but not homosexuals as people. There are some Christians -- equally devout and equally convinced of the authority of scripture -- who read the same passages and see them as condemning exploitation and pedophilia but not consensual, committed same-sex unions. Rarely do the two sides have a reasoned discussion without resorting to anathemas and name calling.

Again, the courts are asked to pick sides and many, on both sides of the issue, look for political solutions.

The path I feel the Spirit leading me is one of love and grace and trust. I have friends who disagree with me on abortion and on homosexuality. We cannot both be right I don’t think. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, I trust that God, my loving eternal Father, will correct me. If my friends are wrong, I trust the same God to correct them. I leave us in His loving hands. My divine assignment is to embrace people where they are, understand them as best I can, welcome them into grace, and live with them in peace. I doubt all the impassioned well-meaning efforts of courts, politicians, and activists will sway many hearts.

Memorial Day

National liturgy, solemn ritual gives meaning to Death
Graveyards, flags, ceremonious parades,
Dignified homilies from uniformed secular clergy
Battle ribbons, stars, epaulets, scrambled eggs
Military scientists behind desks, in war rooms, high tech maps flashing
Poor boys, undereducated, brave, fearless
Ride to their Deaths.

Folded flags, rifles fire blanks,
Old men whose uniforms no longer fit
Honoring ultimate selflessness
Remembering the valiant
Now welcomed into eternal reward.

Prince of peace.

Taps

Weeping mothers and wives, stoic fathers and brothers
Pride assuages the gnawing agony of loss.
Patriotism gives meaning to lives cut short.
Preserve the national myth
Maintain the state religion
It makes sense.

The kingdom does not.
It births traitors
who forgive and love enemies of the state.
No dual citizens in the kingdom.
It’s an all or nothing allegiance.
Keep it secret
No way to build a megachurch with these citizens
Too radical, too disparate,
They won’t call Caesar “Lord”
They won’t try to serve two masters.

Kill them
Ignore them
Exile them
Ostracize them
Mock them
Marginalize them
Persecute them
They never seem to go away
At least not entirely.

A substitute is what we need.
A new religion
A national religion
A religion that renames the gods
Let’s call Mammon “Jesus”
Rename Tyr “Evangel”
Make room for Nemesis, Hebe and Branwyn, for they are patron saints.
Christianize the festivals, deify Nationalism
Preach the new gospel, it will grow, tare-like.

What is Single Payer?

What is Single Payer?

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.

Access and Benefits

All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures.

Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.

Payment

Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.

Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. In most cases, government would serve as administrator, not employer.

Financing

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. Employers would pay a 7.0 percent payroll tax and employees would pay 2.0 percent, essentially converting premium payments to a health care payroll tax. 90 to 95 percent of people would pay less overall for health care. Financing includes a $2 per pack cigarette tax.

Administrative Savings

The General Accounting Office projects an administrative savings of 10 percent through the elimination of private insurance bills and administrative waste, or $150 billion in 2002. This savings would pay for providing medical care to those currently underserved.

Cost Containment

The Congressional Budget Office projects that single payer would reduce overall health costs by $225 billion by 2004 despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of savings.

Different Perspectives on the Benefits of Single-Payer

Patients

Each person, regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care, and the free choice of doctors and hospitals. Individuals would receive no bills, and copayment and deductibles would be eliminated. Most people would pay less overall for health care than they pay now.

Doctors

Doctors’ incomes would change little, though the disparity in income between specialties would shrink. The need for a “wallet biopsy” before treatment would be eliminated; time currently wasted on administrative duties could be channeled into providing care; and clinical decisions would no longer be dictated by insurance company policy.

Medical endorsements include PNHP (9,000), the American Public Health Association (30,000), American Association of Community Psychiatrists, Massachusetts Academy of Family Practice, American Medical Women’s Association (13,500), Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Society, American Medical Student’s Association, D.C. Medical Society, National Medical Association (6,500), American College of Physicians (Illinois Chapter), Long Island Dermatological Society, Islamic Medical Association, American Nurses Association, the Nurses’ Network for a National Health Program, and the D.C. chapter of the American Medical Association.

Hospitals

The massive numbers of administrative personnel needed to handle itemized billing to 1,500 private insurance companies would no longer be needed. A negotiated “global budget” would cover operating expenses. Budgets for capital would be allocated separately based on health care priorities. Hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills.

Insurance Industry

The need for private insurance would be eliminated. One single payer bill currently in the House (H.R. 1200) would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

Business

In general, businesses would see Single Payer limit their health costs and remove the burden of administering health insurance for their employees.

Congress

Single payer would be the simplest and most efficient health care plan that Congress could implement.

Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone (312) 782-6006 | Fax: (312) 782-6007 | email: info@pnhp.org

Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php

a letter to the president

Dear President Obama,

For many years, I became cynical about American politics and essentially disengaged from involvement. “Business as usual” with all the lobbyists and money interests in Washington left me cold. Then you came along with a campaign filled with hope, change, and new ideas, and for the first time in a long time I was energized, active and involved in your campaign, then rejoicing in your election.

Now I am growing cynical again. One of the primary issues that attracted me to you was the strong support you gave to single-payer national health care when you were a state senator. At that time, you said all that was needed to make it happen was for the Democrats to control the White House and Congress. Now you do. You said in your campaign that all interests would receive a fair and equal hearing at the table discussing health care.

And yet, single-payer is not even being considered. Single-payer advocates were not even invited to the table - a table dominated by the health industry - until very recently, and their voices are not being considered.

Why? Senators say it is because single payer has no hope of passing. When you were asked recently, you said that single-payer was ideal if we were starting from scratch, but since we are not, it is not practical.

Mr. President, we elected you precisely to start from scratch. We elected you because you promised to ignore the big money lobbyists, yet you and the Congress have taken millions of dollars from an inefficient health care industry that is wasting money, costing lives, and devastating the uninsured.

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Taylor, PhD

Christian American

While driving to a hospital visit recently, I passed a prominently displayed lawn sign in the yard of a rural cottage, boldly proclaiming, CHRISTIAN AMERICAN.

I am both. I am blessed and happy to be both. By grace I have been saved through faith, not of works - forgiven by the pure radical mercy of God through Jesus, the Messiah. I love the United States of America. There is no other country I would have rather been born in or in which I’d rather live.

So, why did that yard sign send a chill through my American Christian brain? Was it perhaps because of what I assumed to be behind the slogan?

Was it put up by one of those people who are furious with the president for stating that, “America is not a Christian nation?” No student of history would assert that America has ever been a Christian nation, unless by “Christian nation” we simply mean a nation where the majority of people in power are nominal Christians. Even that isn’t true any more.

How does the sign placer define “Christian” - as a follower of Jesus, a radical disciple, a servant like the Master, or as a right-wing ideologue grasping for an imagined bygone era of WASP supremacy?

Does the person who displayed the sign see any incongruity between being Christian and being militaristic, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, classist, racist, anti-Semitic, islamaphobic, or a super-patriot?

Would she or he be offended if a neighbor put up a sign reading, JEWISH AMERICAN? How about MUSLIM AMERICAN? ROMAN CATHOLIC UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT? How about HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIAN? AFGHANI CHRISTIAN?

Is the person who displayed the sign weeping over poverty, working for justice and peace, taking the disenfranchised into his or her home, listening to the opinions of others, engaging in constructive dialogue, learning from others, open to other cultures, opposed to hated, intolerance, and torture, striving to preserve a fragile ecology, or working to alleviate suffering?

Why did I get the feeling that CHRISTIAN AMERICAN really means, “If you’re not a white, politically conservative, flag-waving, church-attending citizen then go away”?

Perhaps I am being unfair. Maybe the sign was placed by a nice old guy who loves Jesus and loves living in the USA and wants to proclaim his gratitude to that portion of the world that drives by his house.

Maybe.