From The Plain

A Violation of Religious Freedom or a Prevention of Religious Domination?

2012-02-01T15:54:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration has decided that large institutions run by religious organizations cannot be exempted from including birth control in the health insurance plans they offer. The rule does exempt churches and other places of worship whose primary purpose is to facilitate the practice of religion. However, if a religious institution runs a hospital, a university, or another organization that goes beyond religious services, thereby servicing and possibly employing many people outside that religion, then they must comply with this new ruling. Making sure birth control is easily available to women is a feature of the Affordable Care Act.

The Obama administration’s reasoning is based on the position of many, many medical organizations that making birth control easily available to women is a good for the public health that cannot be compromised by an employer, even if the employer is affiliated with a religion that disagrees with the practice. Once again, churches would be exempted, but not institutions affiliated with religion serving the greater community beyond the specific practice of religion. Of course, the Catholic Church is very, very unhappy about this decision as they run many hospitals and universities which would fall under the birth control coverage mandate.

I had to think about this for a while. Religious liberty is a foundation of our society and should never be taken lightly. But after considering it for a couple of days, I agree with the administration’s position.

First, we must establish that there is a limit on the practice of religious freedom. Few would argue that Native Americans should not be able to smoke peyote in their ancient religious rituals. (Actually, I think anyone should be able to do this, but I suppose that is another subject!). However, imagine a religion with an initiation ritual requiring five year old children to walk five miles barefoot in the snow. Let’s call this religion Freezism. And when practicing this Freezist ritual, hypothermia frequently sets in. Would our society tolerate this tradition? Probably not, because of how the religious practice would affect others - namely five year old children who are too young to choose this religious practice for themselves. So this barefoot snow ritual would not be an exercise of religious freedom so much as it would be an exercise of religious domination because of the risk of severe physical injury to those too young to participate in a truly willing manner.

So religious liberty is not an absolute - just like freedom of speech does not cover threats of violence or yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Now imagine a university or a hospital run by a religion that does not believe in treating heart disease. Let's call this religion Coronism. Their theology posits that God’s relationship with man dwells physically within a person’s heart, therefore no medical treatment should directly interfere with a person’s ticker. It is a danger to a person’s soul. Now imagine that this institution, a hospital let’s say, employs many, many people not affiliated with Coronism, and the hospital tries to exclude heart disease treatment from the health insurance policies offered to its employees.

Surely this would be too great a burden on the public health to be allowed. It would be religious domination rather than religious freedom. The Coronists would be forcing their employees to go without heart disease coverage, or to pursue coverage elsewhere at much greater personal expense. The Coronists would be forcing unwanted religious restrictions, or at least the hardship of bypassing (haha) them, onto employees, onto workers in the community.

By requiring the Coronists to include heart disease treatment in the health insurance policies they offer, no one is forcing any Coronist to receive heart disease treatment. But no one is allowing the Coronists to make it difficult for their employees to get the treatments they may need and desire and which medical science tells us are associated with health and well-being.

Now imagine another religion that does not believe in fire alarms. Pyroism? Surely if the Pyrists ran a hospital for the general public, they would not be allowed to subject their employees and clientele to that danger?

At the risk of changing the subject temporarily, I actually think the real problem with the Obama/Catholic conflict is the link between the employer/employee relationship and health insurance. This link is terrible. An employer should offer pay. That’s it. Then individuals should purchase their own insurance. We would have greater job mobility for workers, and Catholics could create their own policies which do not cover birth control, while employees at Catholic institutions (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) could buy the insurance they want which provides the services they desire.

But that is not the world we live in.

So the issue of religious freedom means deciding when one person’s “freedom” infringes on the freedom of another. And the Obama administration has decided that when a church operates an institution that goes beyond the specificities of religious practice, not covering birth control creates an undue burden on the health and well-being of employees. It is not an expression of religious freedom, it is an expression, however big or small, of religious domination.

And I agree. Do you?

GRO Some Cello!

2012-01-26T12:02:00.000-08:00

Here is a tune that I played cello on over the summer. Green River Ordinance is a super nice bunch of guys, and this is a great song. Even if top-40 aiming rock/pop is not your thing, you might enjoy the powerful chorus, the sincere performance and the spectacularly layered production here. Great job to the guys at Blackwatch Studios in Norman!

The cello is filling out the texture throughout the song (translation - you really can't make it out too clearly), but you can hear me swooping around a bit during the bridge.

I wish these guys the best. I really enjoyed seeing some skillful pop music production during the sessions.

Catholic Sex Casually

2012-01-20T12:59:00.000-08:00

Addition: The following is not to suggest that there are arguments which are not worth engaging with. I think all arguments are worth considering and responding to, because they come from people. Rather, I just want to point out that we can really spin some webs when it serves our purpose.

I will make up a moral.

It is wrong to chew gum. Sure, part of the purpose of chewing is for a person’s enjoyment. The experience of flavor is a blessing from God, but the primary purpose of chewing is to eat - to gain sustenance for the body. Chewing gum (particularly sugar-free gum which has no calories at all) divorces the enjoyment of taste from the gathering of sustenance. It is a denial of the body and God’s created order.

How does one casually respond to an argument like this? Perhaps with something like....

It’s OK....seriously.

The Catholic church acknowledges that sex serves the purpose of achieving intimacy between husband and wife, but it also believes that this intimacy must be married (haha) with the unfettered possibility of conception in order to be right. Therefore, birth control is wrong and any type of sex besides vaginal intercourse is wrong. Sexual intimacy must be married to procreation. Chewing must be married to eating.

There are arguments used by the church to support this view, but I will not debate them too much here. I am just pointing out that when a rather outlandish moral is offered up, it can be difficult to know where to begin when engaging with it.

How would you begin to argue with my gum-chewing moral? Surely there are numerous underlying assumptions, few of which anyone would deem obvious, that would need to be addressed.

Why is experiencing flavor wrong when divorced from consuming calories? Isn’t this actually a nice thing, because one can have some enjoyment without gaining weight? Why is it wrong to expand on nature’s “original” purpose for things a bit? Aren’t art and sports and airplanes etc. all pretty great things which expand on nature’s original purpose?

So sex using birth control? Sex in a different way than just vaginal intercourse? Chewing gum?

It’s OK....seriously.

Dance, Song and Composition part two

2012-01-18T08:38:00.000-08:00

So what are the implications if it is true that music is created for different categories of experience?

It means that often when we are critical of music, we may not be listening to it under the same terms with which it was created.

If patrons are dancing at a club and a Harry Nilsson song comes on, then they will probably hate it. It isn't produced with a strong enough beat for that setting. However, if they listened to the song in their car or on their couch, they might love it.

If one goes to a small folk club and someone generates a beat that repeats over and over, without much in the form of melody or lyrics, then it might be really annoying. But once again, in the club or in the dance studio, it might be acceptable.

If one is sitting in a concert hall, prepared to listen attentively to a symphony or chamber work, and a singer-songwriter begins strumming a guitar, it might seem really shallow musically, throwing our active ears back at us, no matter how good the lyrics are.

There is a converse situation too, which is very common, particularly in listening to composition. People approach the concert hall, or the "close" headphone listen at home, with the attitude of listening to songs. We seek immediacy, catchiness and repetition rather than a continuous aesthetic statement on all the elements of music and its organization, written to be worthy of, and to reward, a constantly attentive listen. Composition is the unfolding of organized thought in sound form.

Once again, this is not to say that composition does not contain elements of catchiness and immediacy. It's just to say that it is not necessarily its primary purpose. Listening to Webern's symphony will give you almost zero in terms of memorable melody (but a Mozart or Dvorak symphony will). But it will offer you a fantastic, short listen exploring the aesthetic of music when texture has completely and consciously supplanted melody and traditional harmony as the tool of communication. There is no beat to dance to, no melody to sing and no stable musical wallpaper. But it is a highly fascinating and rewarding listen.

One way to think of it is this - I have listened to the Beatles album "Abbey Road" many times more than the Webern Symphony, but I think I have thought about the Webern Symphony just as much over the last several years. And any time I have a chance to sit down with my headphones for eight minutes and listen to it, I enjoy it immensely. And with subsequent listens, the sense of immediacy and familiarity and emotional connection grows.

But listening to Webern in the car? No way. I can't even hear it over the traffic. Give me "Abbey Road."

Dance, Song and Composition part one

2012-01-17T21:22:00.000-08:00

I began writing music from a "classical" composition perspective. Later, when I became interested in writing popular songs, I was confused as to how to approach that process. Many of my first attempts were awkward. The language didn't flow, and the melodies and arrangements were really square. I knew I had to come up with a method to think about what I was trying to do. What was it about popular song that appealed to me and was different than composition? Did it have a different purpose all together? A different set of premises from which to operate?

I developed a way of thinking about music to help me find the aesthetic I was seeking.

I divided the function of music into three basic categories.

One - music to dance to
Two - music to sing to
Three - music to listen to

The first category is music that primarily seeks to stimulate movement and dance. This is music that is first and foremost felt in the body.

The second category is that of popular song. It is music created with accessible melodies combined with vernacular words - lyrics rather than pure poetry. Our primary experience with popular song is to sing along (even if just in our heads) - to participate in that unique combination of pitch, rhythm and the sound and meaning of words.

The third category is music that is meant to be experienced by a captive audience. It is music as abstract, unfolding thought.

If I made the list today, I might also include a fourth category - ambient music. Music that exists, not to be listened to directly, but to establish a mood - a kind of musical wallpaper or sonic landscape.

All this said, I do not think that many pieces of music fall neatly into one of the categories above. Rather, they favor one category more than the others. A Bruckner symphony falls primarily in the last category, but it still has elements of beat and movement that we feel in our bodies. A Mozart symphony has melodies that stick in our heads like popular song tunes, but their treatment and development go far beyond the song form. The songs of the Beatles incorporate many elements of the third category, but their foundation is still the popular song form.

What about opera or art song? They have words, right? Sure, but is the voice working more as a communicator of words or as a musical instrument using words for timbre and effect? More category three then.

Once again, almost all music falls a bit across the spectrum of the different categories. A drum circle might be a fairly pure version of the first category. An unaccompanied folk song might be a pretty straightforward version of the second category. Webern's symphony, written in the serial/12 tone style, might exist almost primarily in the last category.

However, some of the most interesting music in the world is that which firmly crosses borders. Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue appeals to all three categories. What about Bernstein's score to West Side Story? Same deal. Mambo! A captive audience listens attentively but can barely stay in their seats.

Theology From The Plain Part One - The Term "God"

2012-01-16T22:16:00.000-08:00

I am a person who uses God language. Atheism does not make sense to me given my approach to God. You see, to me “God” is the word for “that which is” or for whatever is ultimate. So it makes little sense to me to think that God doesn’t exist. I can certainly criticize different concepts of God and be labeled an atheist because I don’t believe in this or that version of God, but “God” is my preferred term in seeking for a greater understanding and experience of existence. I don’t want to use a term like “unfathomable mystery”, at least not exclusively. I want to use the term “God”. The former has too much of a connotation of being “out there”. Rather, God (I am going to stop using quotes now) is more personable and encompasses me, and all things, more readily.

So what is God? Well that’s the journey, isn’t it? Is God a person in any sense? Is God the selfless void from which all things spring - the ultimate expression of humility and giving love? Is God the cosmos? Is the cosmos in God?

I have ideas about all of this, but I am also pretty agnostic about many things. In fact, I have come to love the label “reverent agnostic”.

But I am not agnostic in approaching existence through the interface of faith. And my idea of faith is not intellectual submission to specific claims about history or authority, but rather it is simple trust.

Perhaps I can be criticized for being too flexible with the idea of God. I realize that in the culture wars of today, God has come to mean certain things, but throughout history God has meant many things. Even to the deacon in the pew every week, how do we really know what associations he or she brings to the word God? You see, I do believe that most people approach God in a way that is more personal than doctrinal.

In light of this, I could be criticized for making God an irrelevant term. If it can mean anything to anybody, then what is its use?

This is simple. God is a useful concept not because it unites us in what we see, but because it unites us in a common direction of looking.

I understand that for others the term does not work this way. Perhaps it has been spoiled by the trappings of sectarian religion. This is fine, of course. I understand that for others, different frameworks might work better. But for me, God remains at the epicenter of what it means to explore this life.

We argue about what we see and what we hope to see. But, for those who employ the term, God is a finite crucible into which we try to pour the infinite.

Happy 2012!

2012-01-15T20:56:00.000-08:00

It is a new year, and that is a good enough reason to look back a bit and then to make a few plans. I ask for the indulgence of any readers. Even though this blog is mostly a way to explore thoughts and feelings about different issues, it is also a professional site (sort of) that is an attempt to somewhat publicize my musical endeavors, so bear with me!

2011 was a wonderful, busy year. Our second son Wolfie was two months old the day it started, and now he is pushing 15 months! He's left babyhood behind (almost) and is moving straight towards toddlerhood.......headfirst with a jetpack on! Severin has used 2011 to leave toddlerhood behind and enter boyhood with all its inquisitiveness and imagination (and willfulness ;)

In 2011, I wrote and recorded the score to the documentary "Where Did The Horny Toad Go" and I played many recording sessions for artists like Green River Ordinance, Kelly Clarkson, K.C. Clifford, Jami Smith, Portraiture, and several others.

I was privileged to have my string piece "Oklahoma Trails" performed by Doug Newell and the Enid Symphony Orchestra. Then the recording was used to accompany the wonderful outdoor event "Enid's Night Of Generals" organized by Wade Burleson. The piece was originally commissioned and performed by David Koehn and the Edmond Memorial High School Orchestra in 2010.

I was also lucky enough to play a pair of reunion shows over the summer with my band The Fellowship Students. Great times were had by all!

Currently, I am preparing for the release of the album of "Where Did The Horny Toad Go" - in fact, after writing this blog I am going to listen to the master I just received from Garrett Haines at Treelady Studios. As I mentioned, the project was recorded here at my home studio, known as Galloping Cat Studios (I love the name so I had to mention it. Even now I am hearing the sound of a cat galloping down our hallway).

I also have re-releases of some of my earlier albums that will see the light of day this year. They are remixed and remastered versions of two lo-fi EP's I did around 1999 and 2000. I am very excited to put them out there in a better form than I did back then.

I also hope to begin recording another project this year - the third in a series of albums in the vein I call "limited music" - songs/pieces recorded in the popular idiom drawing inspiration from classical composition in the sense that they are limited to a specific instrumentation. My chosen "limitation" is restricting the recordings to cello, acoustic guitar and voice. The first two records in the series are "Light Plays On A Pearl" (2006), also recorded without any effects, and "The Twin or The Seed" (2007).

And of course there is "normal" work to do. Teaching lessons, playing gigs, etc.

I do have plans to write more this year. My goal is to keep posts reasonably brief and somewhat often - perhaps breaking different ideas up into series of posts. One of my two main goals is to write about my novice understanding of meditation and hopefully to get a few readers to participate with me in attempting meditation more often and sharing our insights. One of my primary reasons for this is to simply get myself meditating regularly again. In my brief, "amateur"experiences, the effects on my life have been profound.

My other goal is to present a series called "Theology From The Plain" where I explore my framework for seeing "that which is". It will not be super organized, but once again, my attempts will hopefully be reasonably brief and often. I hope this will help keep things pleasant and somewhat interesting for any readers who are generous enough with their time to stop by this site and explore with me.

That's what blogs are for right? We explore as readers and writers - in posts, in comments and in our personal thoughts.

I wish you the very best in all of your endeavors this year!

ADDITION - Thanks to Burk for reminding me that I also want to start posting more about music!

An Imaginary Article.....

2011-12-18T17:28:00.000-08:00

Bill O'Reilly Accuses God of Class Warfare.

After reading the Magnificat, attributed to Mary the mother of Jesus in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, O'Reilly accused God of "encouraging the redistribution of wealth" and thereby "punishing job creators everywhere."

"I can't believe this," said O'Reilly. "These ideas are anti-conservative and therefore downright un-American. If God had been around in the 1950's, He would have been blacklisted."

The Magnificat

46 And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

Finished!

2011-12-17T18:13:00.000-08:00

I am so happy that I have completed the music for the documentary "Where Did The Horny Toad Go?"!

This project took around a year, off and on, to complete. I am grateful to the patient filmmakers who understood my time/energy constraints.

It felt absolutely wonderful to hand over the drive containing the music to Stefanie Leland last night!

I hope to write a couple of blogs sometime soon to describe the process of watching the film, imagining music, thinking of the pacing, recording demos, recording again, editing, mixing, etc. It was a lot of work, but it's work that I love to do.

The film music consists of 37 different tracks. All together it's around an hour's worth of music. I will be releasing it in album form sometime in 2012, but I will condense it down to around 25 tracks (40 minutes in length), since several of the movie tracks are quite similar to each other.

The orchestration of the music consists of acoustic guitar, mandolin, cello, violin and melodica. And shakers make one appearance (in the music for the opening credits described below).

Here is an unmastered sample. This is the music for the opening credits, a minute and a half in length, which features two of the main musical ideas of the film. The first is the music of the horny toad - quirky, playful and a bit wild. The second is the music of childhood and the memories of those who remember interacting with these fascinating creatures. Thanks for listening!

Horny Toad Opening Credits (unmastered) by stevenstarkmusic

Christmas Came Out Of A War.

2011-11-27T19:32:00.000-08:00

I wrote and recorded this song in December of 2007. At the time, the Iraq war was in my thoughts. This year the "occupy" movement, and accompanying discussion, has led me to listen to the song again with slightly different ears.

There were a few little lyrics mistakes in the singing which I just corrected. I like it better now!

For those who have heard this song enough already, I shall try to scratch out a new Christmas song soon (since, you know, there are clearly not enough of them....)

Special thanks to Beth Swales for beautiful harmony vocals!

Merry Christmas!

Christmas Came Out Of A War (unmastered) by stevenstarkmusic

Get A Job!

2011-11-27T17:56:00.000-08:00

‎"They need to get jobs. They are annoying. They just enjoy shaking things up for its own sake. They are dirty. They need to do something productive."

- an imagined discussion between Roman citizens concerning Jesus and his followers.

The Cherokee Strip - a Tale of an Oklahoma Boyhood by Marquis James

2011-11-22T17:12:00.001-08:00

The Cherokee Strip: A Tale of Oklahoma Boyhood by Marquis James

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If you grew up in Oklahoma, and particularly in Northwest Oklahoma, and even more particularly in Enid, OK - then this book should interest you greatly.

James recounts his boyhood living on the claim his father staked in the Land Run. Later, his family moves to Enid as he attends Enid High School (originally housed in a downtown building alongside an opera company!), and he begins his career in journalism working as a reporter, a subscriptions manager and a printer in Enid's various papers.

The most remarkable part of this book is the amazingly quick change that the town of Enid undergoes. At the beginning of the story it is a frontier, wild-west, tent city complete with saloons. By the end of the story, a scarce 10-15 years later, it is a brick-building town with a $"100,000" courthouse at the center. It has essentially transformed into the town it is today.

James is an entertaining personality, precocious and energetic. Enid's two-time Pulitzer prize winning author is a wonderful narrator throughout.

View all my reviews

Blog Adventures - Good or "Good"?

2011-11-22T09:12:00.001-08:00

I am getting into a bit of trouble over here in the comments section of Baptist pastor Wade Burleson's blog. Wade leads Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, OK.

I realize many readers of this blog question Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity, in terms of epistemology. People often judge their religion's truth by different methods and standards than they do many aspects of everyday life - this is called compartmentalization. This is an essential topic to discuss. But I am even more interested in moral compartmentalization, where some believers attribute actions to a "good" God that they would never consider good for themselves or for others. When this happens, when the word "good" is divorced from what we consider to be good, then the word loses its meaning.

As a former Baptist who grew up in the town of Enid, this is the angle I take when occasionally dipping my toe in here. Wade is smart fellow, a historical scholar, and a nice guy, so he, and the other fine folks folks commenting, are fun to interact with.

The Goat Rodeo Sessions

2011-11-10T20:38:00.000-08:00

Don't you just ADORE stringed instruments?

Little Dragon - The Eyes Have It

2011-10-05T09:25:00.001-07:00

LD: Why do women put limes on their eyes?

ME: Ummmm. When do they supposedly do this?

LD: You know, when they lie on a table with mud or something on their faces, and they have limes on their eyes?

ME: Oh OK, like at a spa or something?

LD: Yes!

ME: Those aren't limes. They are pieces of cucumber.

LD: Oh!

ME: Limes would really sting!

LD: Yeah, I guess so.

(both of us laugh)

LD: So.....why do women put cucumbers on their eyes?

ME: I have no idea.

Little Dragon Likes to Eat.....

2011-09-22T07:42:00.001-07:00

ME: (smelling a delicious dinner that LD's mom is cooking) So what's for dinner?

LD: Barbecue bison sandwiches and twice-baked potatoes.

ME: That sounds GOOD. (It's 7PM and I am hungry too....let's talk more about food) So what is your favorite food of all time?

LD: Well, that would probably be a tie between 20 or 30 different foods. It just depends on what I am in the mood for.

ME: Sure

LD: But one thing that I am always in the mood for is doughnuts.

ME: Yeah, doughnuts are good.

LD: And snails.

ME: (pause...analyzing for sincerity) Really?

LD: Yes, they are so good. You just have to pretend that you are not actually eating snails cooked in butter.

ME: Does your mom make snails or do you usually get them at a restaurant?

LD: If my mom could make snails, I am pretty sure that we would have them everyday.

ME: So a restaurant then?

LD: Yeah, there is this restaurant in Michigan, by my summer camp, that makes them.

ME: Nice. So they have a good French chef there?

LD: Um...no...he's not French...

Little Dragon - Holy!

2011-09-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

ME: The note that gets four counts is called the whole note. And it's called that because it takes up the WHOLE measure in a 4/4 time signature, not because it looks like a hole.

LD: OK, so it's not called a whole note because it looks like the hole my dad dug in the front yard that went too deep and he hit a pipe and then our toilets didn't work.

ME: Exactly.

I guess whether it's "whole" or "hole" somebody ends up having to hold it.

Little Dragon - Spicy!

2011-09-13T20:24:00.000-07:00

LD: Can I play you a song on my recorder?

ME: Sure!

(LD starts putting it together)

ME: That's a big one. Is it an alto?

LD: Yes, it is an alto. I can also play the other one though, the......uh.....the jalapeno one.

ME: (Blank stare) Oh! Do you mean the soprano one?

LD: Oh yeah! (giggles)

Next time I want to hear some salsa music, I am going to find a virtuoso of the jalapeno recorder.

Little Dragon - Yahweh or No Way?

2011-08-31T20:05:00.000-07:00

ME: (strumming through the Plain White T's song "Hey There, Delilah" which LD is learning) "Hey There, Jezebel....Hey There, Esther....Hey There, Bathsheba...."

LD: Ha ha! Is Bathsheba really a person's name?

ME: Sure. She is the woman in the Bible that King David fell in love with. Then he sent her husband Uriah to the frontline of a battle, hoping that he would be killed, which he was. Then David married Bathsheba.

LD: What? That is terrible!

ME: He did get punished.

LD: OK, good. I was thinking that would be really weird if he didn't.

ME: Yeah, this prophet named Nathan came to him and said that God was angry. Then King David's baby died as a punishment.

LD: What?!

ME: Yeah, sounds like more of a punishment for the child than for David, huh?

LD: Yeah! I hope that was on Nathan's orders and not God's.

ME: No, it was on God's orders.

LD: WHAT?!!!!

ME: At least according to the Old Testament writer.

LD: That is terrible. Why didn't God just make David's wife not love him or something? Why kill his child?

ME: Yeah, I know!

LD: I tell you what, if I was that baby, I would not want to go to heaven. I would definitely rather go to the other place. I mean, He just killed me!

ME: I hear ya.

LD: If someone just killed me, I would not want to hang out at his house.

ME: I understand. But remember, not everyone believes that the Old Testament is exactly right about what God is like. Many people believe it was written by humans and therefore is not exactly perfect.

LD: Yeah I mean, if God really did that, he should be taken down and replaced with some other God from some other religion.......though I don't know who exactly that would be.

ME: I agree! OK, so back to "Hey There, Bath...I mean... Hey There, Delilah"!

I can't help but notice a parallel in Scripture to LD's pronouncement against this concept of God. In Psalms 82 God takes his place in the divine council and judges the other gods. He does not condemn them because they are gods of different peoples, less powerful, or competition. Rather he judges them because of their inability to "give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute." "The foundations of the earth are shaken" because of the injustice over which they preside. This is stirring imagery - right to the bones of the world! As John Dominic Crossan says, "they are dethroned for injustice, for divine malpractice, for transcendental malfeasance in office."

It would seem that LD agrees with the author of Psalm 82 that might does not make right - whatever name, mental image or association one might ascribe to it. For King David's child to die because of David's sin is not a just punishment by any rational accounting of justice in the modern world. David did not "maintain the right of the lowly", but in this story, neither did God.

Psalms 82 not only suggests how we might judge ourselves and our leaders, but also how we might judge different concepts of God.

Little Dragon, Arrrrr!

2011-08-26T19:07:00.000-07:00

LD: This kind of sounds like a pirate song.

ME: Yes, you're right. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

LD: You know what the funny thing is?

ME: What?

LD: Kids don't really drink a lot of rum.

ME: Hmmm, no.

LD: I wonder why that is?

ME: I don't know.

LD: I guess we just have to chew GUM instead. (grinning) GUM RUM! GUM RUM! GUM RUM!

ME: OK, so back to our song.....

At least it wasn't REDRUM!

LD Transforms

2011-08-23T21:59:00.001-07:00

ME: Okay, let me hear an E chord.

LD: I have pretty solid proof that I am a werewolf.

ME: (all thoughts of E chord fading) Oh....really?

LD: (looking dreamily at the wall) Yeah.

ME: So what is this evidence?

LD: I always wake up with the covers to my bed all bunched up. And I have scratches all over. And my brother always wakes up really hungry in the morning, but I am never hungry.

ME: Sooo, you think maybe you've...eaten something during the night?

LD: Maybe. Oh, and this morning I woke up with my watch missing, and I found it in the front yard. I guess that's it.

Pretty solid.

And we did finally get around to that E chord.

Little Dragon Stands By Me

2011-07-27T20:42:00.000-07:00

LD: Hey, I listened to that song!

ME: Which one?

LD: The one by Robert E. Lee.

ME: (scanning my memory for any Civil War songs I have taught in the past...aaaand...no luck) Robert E. Lee?

LD: Oh wait....um....Ben E. King!

ME: Ah! "When the night has come, and the land is dark....."

A New Letter to Tom Coburn

2011-07-07T21:49:00.000-07:00

Mr. Coburn, July 7, 2011

I was thrilled to receive your phone call on Monday, June 18. I reported our discussion to many friends, and, whatever their political opinions, they were all impressed that a sitting United States senator would engage a constituent as you have done.

I appreciate the Hayek recommendation. I am working my way through “The Road To Serfdom”. His opening sentiment, that extreme collectivism can lead to totalitarianism, is certainly something I can sympathize with. Surely both extreme socialism and libertarian anarchism are destined to end this way when put into practice. Such is human nature. I will write another letter when I finish the book.

Because of the ongoing debate about raising the debt ceiling, I thought I would write another letter with a few points that might help to further a discussion on these macroeconomic topics. Also, although I am enjoying the Hayek (and I hope you may have found time to browse “The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” by William Mosler), ultimately what is compelling in a discussion is to argue the points themselves. Great thinkers have laid the groundwork for us all, but to appeal to them is to appeal to authority rather than to the ideas themselves. I would be very interested in being presented with faults in my reasoning below. I doubt any of us is perfectly right, so hopefully we can help each other correct and refine our thinking.

This letter is a little longer than I had hoped it would be. But I have organized it into five points so that each point can be considered separately. In addition to sending it to you, I am publishing the letter on my blog at www.stevenstarkmusic.com, so I hope that this organization will make it easier on readers who are quite busy.

POINT ONE: We must asked ourselves if everyone wants a better economy and higher employment right now.

Republicans will surely benefit from a high unemployment rate in the 2012 elections. This is not a personal indictment of anyone’s integrity, rather it is an acknowledgement of our human nature. We want to win.

Also, corporations have been able to lift profits while sales remain low. All the articles I have read attribute current corporate profits to making do with less - working existing employees harder, keeping wages from rising, and squeezing more profit margin out of low volume. And the threat of the long unemployment line keeps employees from having other options. The Labor Department reports that annual average productivity rose by 3.9 percent in 2010. But unit labor costs fell during the same time period by 1.5 percent. Compensation is not rising with rising output. Here is a recent quote from the chief economist of the US Chamber of Commerce.

"We've been able to generate record profits on very, very low volume and very weak economic growth," - Martin Regalia.

And corporations who are hiring are doing so abroad. But why? Here is an interesting quote from Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chief executive. In a recent speech in Washingon he said, "We've globalized around markets, not cheap labor. The era of globalization around cheap labor is over. Today we go to Brazil, we go to China, we go to India, because that's where the customers are."

In 2000, 30% of GE's business was overseas; today, 60% is. In 2000, 46% of GE employees were overseas; today, 54% are. In short, demand in the US remains low, while corporations are leaning on foreign markets and higher domestic productivity. And workers have few options, giving large firms more leverage over their workforces.

However small businesses are not sitting on the cash reserves that major corporations are. They maintain high levels of debt by historical standards and need more customers pronto. Remember that small businesses employee over half our citizens, and they are responsible for over 64 percent of new jobs created from 1993-2008. In short, they have been the engine of our economy, and many of them are running out of gas because of low levels of aggregate demand here at home.

POINT TWO: Only more spending can raise employment.

We agree on this, and we agree that more spending in the private sector will occur when there is more confidence in the economy. However, if we reduce federal deficit spending now, we reduce sales, and therefore we reduce jobs. How will even higher unemployment (the immediate result of any decrease in spending, federal or otherwise) stimulate confidence and more investment? If businesses are worried about a weak economy, how will making it weaker make them less worried?

The private sector is reducing its debt levels, but it can only do so as long as the public debt rises. If the two attempt to deleverage at once we will see the aforementioned drop in aggregate spending (even lower demand) which will decrease sales and jobs.....and confidence.

POINT THREE: We should not put the private sector into deficit right now.

And this would be the logical result of eliminating the government’s deficit. Remember, the government’s deficit is the private sector’s surplus, and the government’s surplus is the private sector’s deficit. The third wheel in this is international trade, but that has been in deficit for a long time, so it is not adding financial resources into the mix (although it is adding real resources).

But is there a danger in more deficit spending by the United States government?

First of all, we often hear the phrase, “We’re spending more money than we’re taking in!” when describing federal deficit spending. But since the federal government has sovereign control over its own currency, a better way to describe deficit spending is, “We are creating more money through spending than we are destroying through taxation.”

I believe we agree on this description of how net financial assets enter the economy. And we agree that the risk of too much deficit spending is inflation. I think the common explanation for inflation is “too many dollars chasing too few products around”. But the key word here is “chasing”.

Dollars must be spent for inflation to enter the equation. Too many dollars sitting around, but not chasing around products, will have little effect on inflation. We have seen evidence of this over the last few years. Bank reserves are high, yet inflation has remained low. So inflation, the demand-driven kind that people fear from too much deficit spending, is not caused by too many dollars but rather by too many spent dollars (demand). And demand is low right now.

Imagine that another trillion dollars has just entered into the economy. Will it be inflationary? Perhaps. But now imagine that it has entered the bank account of one miserly trillionaire (J.P. Rockefeller Scrooge) who will not spend a dollar of that money. And remember, bank reserves are already high. This money will not be lent because the problem is a lack of credit-worthy customers for loans, not a lack of money to be lent out. So the money will sit. Surely prices will not react to adding to this stockpile of unused bank reserves. Now replace “J.P. Rockefeller Scrooge” with U.S. corporations.

What would be the difference?

Dollars are simply IOU’s, not commodities in themselves, and if they are sitting disproportionally in the hands of those who do not need to spend them, then as far as inflation goes, they may as well not exist.

So what happens if people do start spending all these dollars? What if the government spends more and then corporations gain confidence because of rising demand (more customers) and rising employment, and they start spending more? Would inflation start to creep up alongside rapidly rising employment and strong GDP growth?

Perhaps it would, if our economy is restored to its full productive capacity and the demand for products begins to exceed our ability to produce them.

But this does not sound like a nightmare at all. It sounds like exactly what we all want to happen. And if inflation starts to get out of hand, the Fed can manipulate interest rates or the government can raise taxes to drain excess demand out of the economy.

To be clear, we are probably in for some inflation because of rising worldwide demand for finite fuel sources and corresponding speculation. But surely we would rather approach this oncoming plight with a vibrant economy rather than a stagnant one. Maintaining high levels of unemployment to fend off potential inflation makes little sense in real terms.

And of course, fears of hyperinflation are unfounded. It’s usually just presented as a slippery slope argument. If more deficit spending right now makes hyperinflation more likely, then running a surplus makes the complete drying up of all dollars and the collapse of the United States economy into a deflationary spiral more likely.

Balance is everything.

POINT FOUR - Long term unemployment is the real tax on future generations.

Sustained high unemployment is costing us investment in our future. Our human capital, our time and our energy, are not being fully utilized to solve the problems of tomorrow. For example, can we really believe that underinvesting in efficient energy, better roads, science and education - in the name of deficit reduction - will put us in better shape a generation from now?

I am not advocating for big government per se, but I am advocating for the government to simply do its job of providing the necessary fuel to facilitate a vibrant private sector. I am speaking of protection for people and their businesses, education for tomorrow’s work force, roads to allow movement of goods and resources, and other public goods. And of course, the private sector must have enough financial resources in the right hands to keep aggregate demand at the required level to facilitate our economy’s full productive potential.

We also must also consider the societal effects of long-term unemployment. Those who go without jobs for long periods tend to have diminished skills, and when they do finally find a job, it may not be one that matches their skill set. This results in a loss of human capital. Chronic unemployment is also very difficult on the family unit, causing depression, money problems, health problems, etc. Crime rates can also rise alongside the growing desperation associated with long-term unemployment. Nourishing environments for raising children become more fragile.

POINT FIVE - If more direct public investment in the infrastructure of the private sector is off the table right now due to the political climate in Washington, then why not a huge tax relief package targeted at every single working American?

I am speaking of a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax is regressive, proportionally affecting lower income workers much more than higher income workers. This sweeping tax relief would lead to more money in the pockets of people likely to spend it. This would assist families in need and provide a huge boost to the current level of aggregate demand. More spending would create more sales which would create more jobs.

The rich and the corporate leaders sitting on mounds of cash can afford for the economy to be in a lull. But adults in unemployment lines and children in soup kitchens cannot afford it so well. High unemployment drives economic inequality in society and exacts a large toll on our nation’s families. Let’s give our citizens, and our nation as a whole, a greater chance for success through the largest tax relief plan in decades targeted to those who can and will use it the most.

Thank you so much for your time and energy. I wish you the very best.

Your concerned constituent,

Steven Stark

Happy 4th of July

2011-07-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed singing the hymn "This Is My Song" at Mayflower Congregational yesterday. The words were written in 1934 by Lloyd Stone. It is sung to one of the world's great melodies - "Finlandia" by Jean Sibelius.

This is my song, Oh God of all the nations,
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my sacred shrine.
But other hearts in other lands are beating,
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
Oh hear my song, oh God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.

Tom Coburn Update

2011-06-20T20:31:00.000-07:00

I was driving home from work this afternoon and my phone rang. Thinking it might be the company I was hoping would make it out to fix our AC (they didn't :( ) I picked up while still driving.

"Hello?"

"Is this Steven?"

"Yes, it is."

"Steven, Tom Coburn."

Yes it was. I pulled over as quickly as I could and we had a 20 minute discussion about macroeconomics. I am incredibly impressed that this United State senator took the time to call a constituent for a discussion. Wow! Seriously, that is just phenomenal. It's how it should be, but we all now how busy everyone is and how many people our Senators represent.

Despite being caught off guard, I feel I was decently cogent. He spent most of his time discussing the need for confidence in our economy and worrying about inflation. Of course I brought up many points concerning the need for more spending in our economy. He agreed, but he thinks that the more than two trillion dollars currently sitting in the coffers of corporations will be spent when they have more confidence in the stability of the dollar and our nation's debt to GDP ratio. (He didn't say this exactly, but this is the gist of it. I sincerely hope I am representing his position correctly). Of course, I asked him why a company would invest in more workers and products when the economy is weak and sales are down, despite whatever our deficit happens to be. "Why would a company hire workers they don't need?" was my main question. He said that companies could be selling more right now, but they just aren't willing to take the risk on more investment right now.

Of course I disagree. If customers are demanding a company's products, companies will respond by making more products.

We also disagreed on how more government spending would affect the economy. He maintained that more government dollars being introduced into the economy right now would only increase the number of dollars and not the number of real products and services. While I am very, very pleased that he is focusing on real goods and services and not just the dollars which represent them, I am mystified as to how this would work. If unemployment is at 9%, surely no one is thinking that our nation is anywhere close to full productivity. More spending creates more sales which creates more jobs. And we have people ready for those jobs, ready to create more goods and services.

So I am not sure why he thinks more government spending right now would result in inflation and not greater productivity. And of course we would all love for companies to just start spending out of the blue, but once again, the poor economy makes people hunker down and save, which of course keeps the economy poor! Only the federal government has the ability to spend counter-cyclically, when confidence is down, which can create more spending and more jobs and then more confidence. Confidence is the symptom of a good economy, which can then turn into a cause.

Of course, I know how this may sound to some, but I do not feel that I am a proponent of "big government." I don't think the government should overly involve itself in people's private lives, from who they marry to what plant they smoke to how they spend their money. I just think the government should do its job, acting as a source of fuel for the engine of the private economy. And no one doubts that the government is source of our currency (the "fuel"), which is required for spending. The government should step up its spending when the private sector needs that spending to maintain and grow its ability to produce. And, of course, all public spending ends up as money in the pockets of private individuals.

Mr. Coburn asked me to read some Hayek and I asked him to browse through Warren Mosler's online publication "The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy", which can be found here. Then he asked me to write him another letter after our reading, and he promised me another call.

So cool!

My Reply to Senator Coburn

2011-05-21T22:30:00.000-07:00

Here is my response to Senator Coburn's letter in the previous post. I do not make any claims of expertise in the field of macroeconomics. I am doing my best to understand, and I challenge everyone to pursue knowledge on their own from multiple sources. One thing I do feel strongly about is that our common sense about these matters can only be trusted when we understand the context correctly, and federal debt is a different animal than household debt. Therefore our common sense about our own household budgets alone is not enough when considering the federal budget.

Senator Coburn,

Thank you for the thrill of interacting with you on these vital economic issues! Although I disagree with many of your positions, I have always felt that you genuinely care and that you are a thinker. I hope that you will prove me right by giving the following ideas more consideration. As the father of two young children, I am deeply concerned that our leaders, such as yourself, will inadvertently shortchange our nation's future by pursuing a path of spending austerity, freezing the vital investment in our future that needs to be made now to insure American competitiveness for the coming generations.

You repeatedly claim that deficit spending by the federal government does not create jobs. I believe that this claim is false. For instance, the Congressional Budge Office states that millions of jobs and multiple percent GDP growth has come from the stimulus. One can search through the details at the following link:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=12

Government spending creates jobs by introducing new demand for goods and services into the economy, first by the government itself. Then the dollars paid for those goods and services do not disappear into thin air. Rather they end up as private assets in people’s pockets. When those dollars are spent, it continues that increase in demand, stimulating job growth in the private sector. Government spending may not be politically or aesthetically pleasing to some, but it is incoherent to say that it does not create jobs. All income comes from spending, so government spending creates income - jobs.

Federal spending is the introduction of new financial assets (money) into the economy. Taxation is the way that the government destroys excess dollars (or excess potential demand) to prevent too many dollars from existing, which could stimulate demand to the point that it could outstrip productivity and create excess inflation. Obviously, with our unemployment rate so high right now, our capacity for productivity is not even close to being fully utilized.

And this is the real irresponsibility going on right now. Despite the fact that demand-driven inflation is not even close to becoming a problem, we are not investing in our collective future by spending on science, technology, education and infrastructure. We are allowing our potential productivity, specifically in the form of workers and their skills, to atrophy.

Saying that our current deficit spending is generational theft makes little sense. Our children cannot send resources back in time to us anymore more than the baby boomers can send resources back in time to cover the much larger deficit spending of World War II. We must really think about what it actually means to “pay back” the debt of the federal government. I will use China, one of our “creditors” as an example.

Paying back China, paying back our debt, simply means exchanging China’s bonds for dollars (which are both forms of IOU’s). Then what happens? Nothing. Nothing until those dollars are spent. And what happens when those dollars are spent? It stimulates the economy. People buy our products and since spending equals income, it helps our employment rate to decrease.

People think that China (and other US “lendors”) have the better of us. But the opposite is true. China sends us real products, real resources, and yet they refuse to exchange the dollars they receive for products. So we are getting all the stuff. So “paying back” our debt means China buying our products instead of sitting on dollars or bonds. And they are free to do this at anytime, but for some reason right now, they don’t want to spend their dollars, then want to hold them in the form of government bonds.

So “paying back” our debt is simply turning one set of IOU’s (bonds) into another (dollars), which makes little difference until the dollars turn into demand (when they are spent). And inflation, the real risk, only becomes a problem when our prodcutivity cannot keep up with demand, hardly a problem now. If it did happen, there are many courses of action to deal with it.

You are right that the stimulus was not effective enough, but that is because it was far too small to deal with the downturn. Trillions upon trillions of dollars in potential demand evaporated with the housing and stock market collapses. The stimulus was hardly enough to offset that. We can’t say that ibuprofen doesn’t cure a headache when we only take half of one.

Your claim that public spending requires taking money out of the private sector is false. Once again, public spending puts new financial assets into the private sector. When the federal government spends, it does so by creating money out of nothing. When it taxes, it destroys money. This is operationally how it works, even if we SAY that the federal government taxes in order to spend. Where did the money being taxed originate if not with government spending?

So If the government spends more than it taxes, it creates money into the economy. Say it spends $20 more than it taxes. Then it sells a $20 bond to correspond to this debt (which it operationally does not have to do, but does so because of old laws corresponding to the age of the gold standard). The government has spent $20 into the economy, taken $20 out of the economy through a bond sale......so it’s equal right? No! Because a bond has been created - a new financial asset, which is very liquid. It pays interest and it can be borrowed against or sold. And people buying bonds are looking to save anyway, so it transfers their money from relative inactivity into the active hands of the recipient of the government spending. For instance, the government stimulates the economy by hiring military personnel with deficit spending and then sells a bond which simply puts money into a bond for a person who was looking to save it rather than spend it anyway. The new bond is created, and inactive money is transferred into active money.

But I agree completely with your point that the entrepreneurial spirit of American must be engaged. And the only way this will happen is with enough demand (dollars actively being spent) to stimulate the creativity of industrious American businesspeople. There is no money to be made if there is no money!

Thanks again for your time. I appreciate the genuineness with which you approach your job.

sincerely,

Steven Stark

My Response from Senator Coburn

2011-05-21T22:25:00.001-07:00

I wrote Senator Tom Coburn a few months back. Here is his reply to me, which I received on Thursday. While I deeply disagree with almost all his points, I am very impressed that he wrote me such a substantive response. My next post will be my reply to him.

May 19, 2011

Dear Mr. Stark,

Thank you for your two emails in December regarding deficits and economics. I appreciate you writing to share your thoughts and I apologize for my delayed response.

There are many perspectives on the economics of government spending, some asserting that deficit spending is key to economic growth and some asserting it actually reduces it. Persuasive-seeming arguments could be made for any number of economic theories. The ultimate test of truth in economics, however, is how these theories play out in the real world. The reality is that virtually no nation that has consistently pursued a policy of deficit spending has improved their economic growth as a result.

Our own recent experience with deficit "stimulus" spending has confirmed this trend. When the Senate passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1, also called the "stimulus") 60-38, and I was one of 38 senators who voted against this bill. I opposed this legislation because it represents the worst act of generational theft in our history. The $787 billion cost of the bill was funded entirely by borrowed money, meaning that our children will pay the cost of the current Congress' irresponsibility.

Equally important, I was strongly convinced the stimulus would not create jobs. The current administration promised taxpayers that the stimulus program would "save or create" nearly four million jobs and that if Congress passed its program, the unemployment rate would not exceed eight percent. Yet the unemployment rate exceeded eight percent soon after the passage of the bill and has remained near ten percent for more than a year.

The stimulus has largely failed, first and foremost, because it was based on a flawed theory that simply by spending money, the government can create jobs. An increasing number of professional economists now reject this theory. Nevertheless, the idea of "stimulus" has remained very popular among professional politicians because it provides a rationale for what politicians love to do most-spend. Most Americans assume their leaders would consult the best science and evidence before signing away hundreds of billions of dollars of the nation's wealth. In reality, many politicians embrace astonishingly unwise, harmful policies in order to increase their own power, putting themselves first and the country second.

It is important for Americans to understand the only ones who really benefit from "stimulus" are politicians. The massive spending allows politicians to appear like they are working hard to help the people, earning them votes. It also often allows them to funnel taxpayer money to their political friends, earning contributions and support in the next election. The reason our country has so many "stimulus" programs is not because they help the economy-it is because they help politicians. It is absolutely essential that American citizens become aware of this deceptive political tactic, and send a clear message to Washington that they will no longer vote for, donate to, or support politicians who engage in it. This is the only way this practice can be ended.

Some argue government spending will put more money into the hands of consumers, consumers will spend more at businesses, and businesses will hire more workers. More economists today recognize, however, that in order to put money into the economy, the government must first take money out of the economy. Before it can increase spending, the government must either raise taxes on the private sector, or borrow money from the private sector. Both options take money out of the hands of consumers and businesses. "Stimulus" programs, therefore, simultaneously take money away from consumers and give money to consumers, but do so in a very inefficient and ineffective fashion.Ultimately, such programs do little or nothing to boost the economy. It is better to simply leave taxpayers' hard-earned money in their pocketbook and never take it for government use.

If a "stimulus" program is designed poorly, it can actually harm the economy. I am convinced the current stimulus program has slowed our economic recovery. In too many cases, stimulus projects are wasting money we do not have on things we do not need, and in some cases have even hindered job creation or eliminated existing jobs. For example, Washington's efforts to "stimulate" the economy are increasing utility costs, repairing bridges nobody uses, building tunnels for turtles, and renovating extravagant train stations in remote areas while widely-used bridges and roads in poor shape are passed over. I have released two oversight reports detailing hundreds of specific examples of wasteful spending funded by the stimulus: Stimulus Checkup and Summertime Blues (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=OversightAction).

The American people need to hear the truth about those initiatives that will stimulate the economy and those that will not. True stimulus happens when individuals operate in an environment of limited government, free markets, entrepreneurialism, and personal responsibility. Government spending for the sake of spending, new entitlements and subsidizing poor business decisions and risky loans will do little to stimulate our lagging economy, and in fact put it in even more danger.

While the economic challenges we face seem insurmountable, the American entrepreneurial spirit remains alive and well. I am confident we will tackle these economic challenges and emerge as a stronger and more prosperous nation.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

Question on Calvinism

2011-05-19T23:15:00.000-07:00

In Calvinist theology, all people are depraved and sinful. God chooses some of them to be redeemed. The evidence of their election is their belief in and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for them. God chooses others to be damned for their sins so that He can demonstrate divine punishment on them forever to further His own glory.

Presumably, under this system, God loves people differently. He loves the elect more than the damned, and this is why He saves them. If this is so, then God cannot be “all loving”. This is because there are people that He is loving less than others, and therefore He is loving less than the maximum possible amount.

So God is all powerful, but not all loving. Again, He is choosing some to redeem and some not to redeem, and if there are different levels of love, then there is some love that he is choosing not to exercise.

So if God is not all loving, can God be properly described as all holy or all righteous? Can the terms “righteous” or “holy” be meaningful if they are separated from love?

Consider Matthew 22:35-40:35

and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

So all the law hinges on commandments to love and to love fully. Is God righteous if He chooses to love less than He is able? If righteousness and holiness are conceptually divorced from love, do they have any meaning? Or are people praising God with statements like “God is holy” simply saying “God is God”, which tells us nothing about His character?

Little Dragon and the Fancy Restaurant

2011-05-05T08:19:00.000-07:00

ME: (screwing around on the guitar)

LD: That sounds like music at one of those fancy restaurants where the food is actually terrible.

ME: Hmmm. I am not sure if that is a compliment or not.

LD: (with total sincerity) I am not sure if it is either.

Justice and Osama

2011-05-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

I think it was the right move to go after Bin Laden. He was responsible for terrible acts towards our citizens. Perhaps the most terrible part of 9/11 are the empty chairs at dinner tables across the United States and across the world. He wished that to happen. Even if he saw 9/11 as a move in a larger war rather than the start of one, he wished that to happen to women, children, men, Muslims, Christians, civilians.

He is dead now and people are celebrating. He was a symbol of terror. I would rather have denied him martyrdom and kept him in a jail cell for the rest of his life, but he is dead and that is probably good. I am sure those who carried out this mission did their very best and obviously they are incredibly competent. But should we celebrate Bin Laden's death?

In one sense yes. His death may help to protect America in the future by making it look strong to a culture that respects the appearance of strength and honor. I would say his death may act as a deterrent to future terrorists, but we all know that potential loss of life is of little consequence in preventing suicide attacks. But still, this act may contribute in some way to our long-term safety. Perhaps, if handled correctly, it will help the world remember the United States as it was right after 9/11 - unified, a symbol of stalwart freedom to the rest of the world, as opposed to the misguided superpower invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever.

But what is justice really? Has it been served? As mentioned, if more protection and deterrence has been accomplished, then to an extent yes. But is Bin Laden's death, in the retributive sense, justice? Not to me. For two reasons:

One - It changes little on the ground. The victims of 9/11 and the ensuing wars are still dead and injured. Another death does not change that. It is still unjust through and through.

Two - The only real justice that could be enacted on Bin Laden is for him to fully realize what he has done. Without this, he simply died thinking that he was right. He died seeing himself as God's servant, a martyr for his cause, and where is the satisfaction in that?

Rather, Bin Laden should have to know what it is like for a family to sit for years at a dinner table with chairs that he helped to empty. He should have to see the physical suffering at the site of 9/11 and feel compassion for the victims. True justice would be for Bin Laden to identify himself with those he killed and maimed, to identify completely with the little children growing up without mothers and fathers. True justice would be to let him drown in a sea of empathy, of the pure objectivity of a God's-eye view. He should have to see the suffering he enacted upon others as suffering enacted upon himself.

But this is beyond our power.

I think of these verses in Romans chapter 12:

"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written,"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Perhaps some think that we should not pursue revenge because God's revenge will be much harsher. They think that the reason we should be kind and honorable is simply that we are saving the horrible stuff for God. Rather, I think that a good God teaches us to be good, because He is good. He leads by example. So perhaps God's vengeance, rather than being a meaningless trade of pain for pain, would put Bin Laden in front of a mirror with all his illusions cast aside. Then he would see what he has done, and it would be terrible, unbearable, almost. And then, as a consequence of this vengeance, Bin Laden would be a new person. After all, if one truly realizes one's wrongs, then one wishes to do better and is therefore reborn. And the cosmos would have taken another step towards reconciliation, rather than another sideways step of retributive vengeance of pain for pain. Perhaps we leave vengeance to God because God can do what we cannot.

Perhaps this type of justice is praiseworthy, the true meaning of satisfaction, not simply because of its terrible power, but because of its purpose - rather than a static retribution, a dynamic rebirth.

This is the only revenge that fulfills the requirements of justice. The criminal's knees must hit the ground, his tongue must confess, his heart must be changed. The only true revenge is restoration.

Sounds Christian to me!

Where Did The Horny Toad Go?

2011-04-30T20:34:00.001-07:00

I am hard at work on the music for this excellent new documentary. It is sure to be entertaining and enlightening, especially for those, like myself, who remember as children catching horny toads and "putting them to sleep" by turning them over and gently rubbing their bellies.

Their numbers have dropped markedly over the last several decades. What happened? This documentary seeks answers from leading experts while maintaining a light and poignant feel throughout. Needless to say, I am having a blast.

Where Did the Horny Toad Go? - Trailer from Jar of Grasshoppers on Vimeo.

My favorite music video

2011-04-13T07:38:00.001-07:00

I think this is still the Foo Fighters' best song, though they have many I have not heard. Michel Gondry's video for the song is so cool and bizarre - surreal, Evil Dead 2-inspired and most triumphant!

A response to Wade Burleson's recent blog on Christian Universalism

2011-04-11T19:14:00.000-07:00

Warning! Theology to follow....

I am not a person who thinks that the Bible is God's perfect, inerrant revelation. In fact, I think the Bible is 100% man-made, albeit one of the most important man-made books ever. And it offers us spiritual riches for sure, perhaps even an entry-point into certain kinds of deep truth. I believe in faith (when it means "trust" anyway) and I use God-language in describing reality and in my deepest thoughts and feelings. I think I am a reverent agnostic.

Anyway, this post is not to criticize or defend Scripture, but I wanted to be clear on my opinion of Scripture.

All that said, I also enjoy arguing for Christian Universalism (the idea that in the end, God will save all), even when it means accepting the premise that Scripture is wholly reliable and uniquely inspired in its communication about God. It's a premise that I disagree with, but one that I can accept for the sake of argument. Why do I care? Because I love Christianity and I would rather it exist as something that a reasonable person could hope is true, rather than in a form that any reasonable person should hope is not true.

Wade Burleson, in a recent blog post here talks about Christian Universalism, which is a hot topic thanks to Rob Bell's new book. It's called "Hell's Bells" I think. Oh wait. I mean "Love Wins" is the title! ;)

I would like to say that I enjoy discussing things with Wade quite a bit. He considers what his conversation partner is saying, he is polite and he is straightforward. I have always appreciated this. Wade does a great job of outlining the two premises that many Christian Universalists accept which leads them to the conclusion that God will save every person who has ever lived. He phrases the premises in the following way:

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world, and therefore His will, to reconcile every single sinner to Himself.

2. It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for every single sinner.

Wade states that if a person believes these two premises, then it will necessarily lead to Christian Universalism, for God has both the will and the power to save every person.

Wade agrees with premise two, but he disagree with premise one. This is the standard Calvinist position, in contrast with the Arminian position that accepts premise one but not premise two.

Wade believes that God does not wish to save certain people. He believes that God has created people that He does not love enough to save. Wade writes that while he agrees with Bell on God's love, grace and kindness, he disagrees "with him over the extent to which, or maybe it is better said "the sinners to whom," God has chosen to show His love, grace and kindness."

God will withhold his life preserver from many, despite having the power to pull them out of the waves, and it is simply because He does not want to help them.

I may get into what I perceive as a deeper disagreement with Wade in a subsequent post, but first I look at the Scriptures Wade uses to justify His position that God does not wish salvation for all people.

"How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Hebrews 2:1-4).

First, the typical Christian Universalist maintains an exclusivist position. This means that they do not believe a person can come to God if he ignores salvation through Jesus Christ. Rather, the universalist simply believes that in the end every person will cease to ignore salvation and will be saved by God. So this Scripture does not seem to violate Christian Universalism at all. Secondly, if one looks at the context of this verse, then we see that there are consequences for ignoring God's salvation. Once again, this is certainly a view shared by the Christian Universalist. If being apart from God is suffering and being with Him is bliss, then this is obvious. The typical CU position I have run across is that people will certainly resist God's salvation, leading to their own suffering. But given the unending love of God, the extreme benefit to the sinner of coming to God, and the unlimited means at God's disposal (patience, time, etc.), then all will eventually come home. So the Hebrews verse presented simply says that a person cannot be saved if he ignores God's salvation. A Christian Universalist would agree but add that in the end God will accomplish His redemptive purpose by leading all people to stop ignoring this great salvation.

I could bring up Scriptures which state plainly that God does will the salvation of every sinner (1 Timothy 2:3-7 comes to mind). But it's not too hard to come up with a view and find Scriptures to support it. Many criticize the Bible for this, perhaps justly, but I also think it contributes to the richness of the Bible. It can be quite theologically ambiguous. Perhaps we must seek ourselves, using our ethical intuitions and our reason in determining a view of God that is (hopefully) truly worthy of praise. For his supreme power? Sure. But much more importantly, for His perfect goodness.

And my question to Wade must be - if God has the power to save, to reconcile, to perfect His creation, and yet He lacks the will to do so, then is God perfectly good? I imagine that Wade would respond that our sinfulness means that we all deserve eternal separation from God (presumably by God's own decree), and that God is not obligated to do anything for us in order to maintain His perfect goodness (I apologize to Wade if this is an incorrect guess at his view). But this seems odd to me. If one has the power to make something better, to sincerely convict the heart of the sinner, to bring about healing and redemption, and one does not do it, this does not sound like perfect goodness.

Then we might also ask why God wishes to create sinful creatures with a will counter to His own (yet He created them that way so is it really counter to His will?) if there is no ultimate purpose of redemption for them. The Calvinist response I have often read is something like - God has created some people not to save so that, in the interest of His own glory, he can display His justice on them for eternity. Their suffering will be a testament to God's holiness, righteousness and justice. And their suffering is God's intent.

But if this is what we use the label "good" for, then I am not sure I want to be "good".

I appreciate Wade's engagement with this issue. I will try to write a bit further on broader notions of love, justice and goodness. And I would love to read other's thoughts.

Little Dragon and General Lee

2011-04-08T18:35:00.000-07:00

LD: I got that song!

ME: Which one?

LD: The one by Robert E. Lee!

ME: Hmmm (giving a questioning look and searching my memory for Civil War era folksongs we have learned).

LD: You know, "Stand By Me" by Robert E. Lee....wait.....I mean Ben E. King!

"Oklahoma Trails" Performance!

2011-04-01T07:52:00.000-07:00

I am very excited that this weekend the Enid Symphony will be performing my string piece "Oklahoma Trails"! I am also exited to be playing in the cello section for we will also be performing Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto and Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty Suite. Here is a link to the story in the Enid News & Eagle:

http://enidnews.com/entertainment/x1623043324/ESO-to-present-Vacatello-Stark/print

Recent Books

2011-03-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

I thoroughly enjoyed "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. I recommend it to anyone interested in reading about the development of the three Abrahamic religions from the point of view of cultural evolution.

Rather than "reduce" religion to a byproduct of natural selection, the author suggests that its continual adjustment to the facts on the ground, its continual evolution, is a sign of its relevance - that it has historically been an important resource in mankind's gradual but steady trend towards alignment with a real, objective (transcendent?) morality. "Transcendent morality" meaning that there is a universal behavioral trend which gives more fitness to a culture. Anyone familiar with Wright's writing will know that his favorite term is "non-zero sum-ness", meaning that a culture, made up of individuals of course, which finds the most symbiosis, the most "non-zero sum" relationships, between its individual members and with other cultures tends to have greater fitness - a greater tendency towards self-preservation. Wright's idea is that this transcendent moral code MIGHT be evidence of some sort of design - and he is careful to specify design not as a competitor to natural selection, but rather as the source of natural selection. But Wright is no dogmatist on specific conclusions. He simply says that if one is inclined to believe in an underlying purpose to existence, then this moral code that man is continually discovering through cultural evolution (two steps forward, one step back) could be used to support that idea - if one is so inclined.

But it is a great book even if one is not inclined to make such leaps. His stories of the development of these religions are very insightful. While he describes different innovations in religious thought as the product of perceived self-benefit, he is also respectful of the religious impulse which is describes in the words of William James - "the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto." A specific religious innovator (a Josiah, Paul or Mohammed) might be a true believer, not just a self-promoter. But the greater question is not "why did this thinker introduce this idea", but rather "why did this particular idea resonate within the cultural context of the time and become successful?"

Now I am enjoying "Papal Sin" by Garry Wills - a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, a Greek and Latin scholar, a staunch critic of the Catholic church, and a practicing Catholic. One of my favorite authors, even when I disagree a bit. His book "What Paul Meant" completely reintroduced me to the first century apostle. His retranslations of Paul's writing are refreshing and enlightening, stripping common English words from the text because the connotations we bring to the table are so different than those of a first century reader. He replaces "church" with "gathering" (there were no churches back then!). "apostle" becomes "emissary". And so forth. His goal is to recreate the same effect in reading today that the words would have had back then.

But I digress. "Papal Sin" is very enjoyable so far!

World Turned Upside Down performed by Dick Gaughan

2011-03-17T20:29:00.001-07:00

"You poor take courage. You rich take care. The world was made a common treasury for everyone to share."

This is another selection from Dick Gaughan's classic 1981 album "Handful of Earth."

"Song For Ireland"

2011-03-17T06:41:00.000-07:00

This is a powerful song encapsulating the beauty and sadness of Irish culture and history (not sure about the montage). Dick Gaughan is my absolute favorite Celtic performer. He is incredibly expressive and thoughtful in his technique. I will be posting a few more. Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Little Dragon - Bread!

2011-03-08T20:42:00.000-08:00

Me: What does m-o-s-t spell?

LD: Most!

Me: What does h-o-s-t spell?

LD: Host!

Me: What does p-o-s-t spell?

LD: Post!

Me: What do you put in a toaster?

LD: Muffins!

Me: Um.....well..OK, but what else do you put in a toaster?

LD: Oh! Toast!

Me: (a relieved smile) Really?

LD: Yeeees.

Me: Why would you put toast in a toaster?

LD: Because "toast" is in its name - TOAST-er!

Me: Hmmm. But why put toast in a toaster if it's already toast?

LD: (questioning, suspicious look and then...) OH!

Me: So what do you put in a toaster???

LD: Waffles?

Little Dragon - Snacks?

2011-02-24T08:48:00.001-08:00

LD's four-year-old little brother wanders into our lesson carrying something in a crinkly package.

"Are these snacks?" he asks with wide, hopeful eyes. "Are these snacks?"

LD's mouth falls open, "No, those aren't snacks! Those are mom's!"

I look over. Little brother is holding a tampon.

Brief Blog Adventure

2011-02-23T20:48:00.000-08:00

I have been debating whether Scripture is the infallible word of God with someone on Facebook. She continually claims that I am more interested in my own personal desires than truth. This is a frustrating obstacle to honest discourse right now. I realize that we all question the psychology driving each other's beliefs, but man, she and I don't even know each other.

These are the thoughts I sent to her in response to this claim. Do you have any thoughts or experiences along these lines?

"Finally, let me say that I have pursued answers with all the honesty I can muster. I will assume the same of you. Since I do not know you well, I question your judgement not your motivation. And you and I have come to different conclusions on the nature of Scripture. Being the son of a Baptist minister, I know what it is like to doubt oneself in the extreme when changing one's opinions about religion. Ironically, it is a growing faith in God, that if He exists He is good and will correct me with care if I am wrong, that has allowed me to question and change my thoughts. During many bouts of prayer, reflection, and self-doubt and many dark nights of the soul, I have always come again to the conclusion that we must live according to what we think is true, not according to what we are afraid might be true."

Of course, there is nothing wrong with an humble dose of what we hope might be true as well!

Signposts

2011-02-18T21:09:00.000-08:00

In our lives, which do we value more - the signpost or what it is pointing to?

The written notes on the page or the music that they lead us to create?

Thanksgiving Dinners, Sugar Packets and Groundhog Day

2011-02-17T19:54:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago, this was my Facebook status:

"just one thing I love about Groundhog Day (the movie). Bill Murray cannot escape his own salvation, even by trying to kill himself. And yet he still has to make his own decisions on his own time, as he inevitably discovers the pathway to true happiness and humanity."

Well, here is another thing I love about the movie Groundhog Day (which has steadily climbed up my personal rankings over the years and is now tied for my number one favorite movie): One of its messages is that morality is real.

You see, if morality is real, then following a moral path will result in a deeper, more meaningful, more enjoyable life. Phil Connors is not a good person at the start of the movie. He is petty and his vision of reality is super narrow. Is he happy? Perhaps, but in the way a child eating a sugar packet would be happy without the knowledge, or the mature palette, to realize and enjoy the fact that a full Thanksgiving dinner is in the next room.

Phil becomes caught in a time loop where each day is a repetition of the same before it. At first he acts like a child, pursuing whatever fleeting pleasure he can think of. Then he sets his sights on loftier goals (bedding Andie MacDowell's character) and fails and fails. She sees through him. Then he despairs, but even when he tries to kill himself, he awakens to live the same day again. Then Phil slowly begins to better himself.

According to my friend Rich, in the original screenplay Connors lives the same day over and over for the equivalent of thousands of years. And he is gradually changed - not by direct force, but by constant exposure to the realities of what actually makes a person happy on a deeper level and his deficiencies in that regard. He begins to help others, learn new things and consequently he becomes a part of a community. He is no longer an isolated ego floating in a bubble of narrow awareness. He is no longer the child eating the sugar packet. Now he is sitting down to a Thanksgiving Dinner, with mature tastes allowing him the great and deep enjoyment of living life to the full - connected to others and his environment. He is now a part of a whole. And this realization is not simply his preference. No, it is what is bound to happen when a person is given the chance to explore fully and discover the sources of true well-being. Morality is real. But our ability to utilize morality corresponds to our level of awareness. Phil found himself in a time loop where he had no choice but to eventually grow and develop that mature palette for the Thanksgiving dinner. (of course a little sugar in the iced tea never hurt anybody....)

To me, this is how true corrective love would work. If morality is real, meaning its benefit is real, then it will lure us towards it (and has already done so to an extent, else we would not know what it is at all). Given enough time to develop the proper awareness, a person would understand its nature and recognize that it is there for a reason, not simply by some arbitrary command -whether by society, parent or divine being - which serves no purpose towards deeper levels of well-being.

A message of Groundhog Day is that morality is a deep metaphysical reality, built into the structure of things and as our level of awareness grows so does the capability, the responsibility and the inevitability of moral growth in our lives.

When the movie first came out, I saw it in the theater. Then I saw it again the very next day, which I thought was a bit ironic....

Little Dragon and a Big Saint Bernard

2011-02-07T20:46:00.000-08:00

Me: Do you recognize the song I am playing?

LD: Yes! It's....um...it's.....Ode to Joy!

Me: Very good! And who is the composer of this tune?

LD: I don't know.

Me: Oh come on, it's probably the most famous composer name out there. You know, crazy hair, writing music - who you think of when you think "composer"!

LD: Leonardo Davinci!

Me: Well, that is not a composer. At least not that I know of. Come on! Beethoven!

LD: Oh! I should just remember to think of bacon.

Me: (pause, trying to sort this out) Why...bacon?

LD: Because of that movie about the dog.

Me: Oh, ok. The movie with the big dog named Beethoven.

LD: Yeah.

Me: Did he always eat bacon? Is that the deal?

LD: Well, the dog always ate lots of stuff.

Me: OK, well let's give this a try then, shall we?

Little Dragon endorsed by Apple?

2011-02-02T07:39:00.000-08:00

Me: "So what did you get for Christmas?"

LD: "I got an iPad!"

Me: "Cool! What do you use it for?"

LD: "Well, I like to watch movies on it and play games on it. Oh hold on..."

LD receives a text on his iPhone, but politely puts it to the side. I look behind him and see the iPad on his desk. Then I look behind that and see a Macbook. Then I look behind that and see an iMac desktop. Apparently LD has received an endorsement from Apple. But seriously, what will upper middle class parents buy their teens and tweens next Christmas if Apple fails to put out a new product in 2011?

*************

LD: "Wouldn't it be terrible to be born on Feb. 29 of a leap year?

Me: "Sure it would. Only one birthday party every four years!"

LD: (thoughtfully and seriously) "I guess the good part is that it would really slow down your aging."

**************

LD: "I made up a joke!"

Me: "Let's hear it!"

LD: "What did the duck say when someone asked him what fifteen times four is?"

Me: "What?"

LD: "Quack."

I have told that joke about ten times now.....

***************

This one is from a couple of years ago, but it is very relevant this week.

Me: “Two days off of school! So what have you been up to? Besides practicing your guitar, of course....”

LD: “Not too much. I’ve been pretty bored. I’m actually glad there’s school tomorrow.”

Me: “I guess school being closed is fun for a while, but then you can get kinda stir crazy.”

LD: “Yeah. Yesterday we got so bored, that me and my mom went outside and looked at where the dog had just gone to the bathroom. Then we covered it with snow to see if it was hot enough to melt the snow.”

Me: “Wow. That is.....pretty bored.”

LD: “The snow won.”

Valuing Human Life

2011-01-20T19:40:00.000-08:00

I am not looking to discuss abortion policy at this time, but a recent discussion on that subject has led me to revisit some thoughts about our ethical intuitions concerning how we value human life.

When philosophofofosizing about morality or ethics, people often bring up rather horrible situations in order to create a relevant thought experiment. So forgive me - I'll make it really broad.

If we had to make a terrible choice between allowing a 30 year old to live and allowing a four year old to live, assuming there were no practical considerations concerning physical ability and subsequent chances of survival or anything, I think most of us would choose to preserve the four year old.

Why?

We have an instinct to protect the younger person to a greater degree than the older person. Perhaps we feel it is because of her "innocence" - her lesser degree of understanding (perhaps?) of the situation at hand. Since I am trying to dig into this a bit - I am guessing much of this instinct to protect comes from our desire to preserve more of life. The four year old has a greater potential for more life ahead of her. The 30 year old has more of her life in the past. The thirty year old has already lived.

But.

If we had to choose between saving a four year old and a four week old, what would we choose? This is much more difficult. I think that perhaps we would choose the four year old.

This would be because the four year is more aware, having more thoughts, feelings and experiences.

So perhaps we greatly value the potential for life, yet we also consider who or what is holding this potential when making value judgements. I suppose this is a balance of values - the potential for future thoughts, feelings and experiences weighed alongside the holder of that potential's current ability to have thoughts, feelings and experiences. The potential for life is weighed alongside the current level of ability to experience life in a meaningful way.

Do you agree with my ethical intuitions? Would you make the same choice?

Once again, this is really unpleasant to consider, I apologize. Obviously weighing values and being forced to make a decision does NOT mean that there is not a tremendous amount of value on both sides of the scale. I just find it really relevant to ponder this stuff sometimes.

Lesson

2011-01-16T18:43:00.001-08:00

My Dad once taught me a very important lesson during a phone call. I can remember contemplating the conversation while walking around the Oklahoma City University campus over a decade ago.

I do not remember what we were discussing, but I think I made reference to the verse in the Bible, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

I must have sounded like I was just paying lip service to the concept without any deep degree of understanding as to what it really meant. I will paraphrase what my Dad said below.

"A person cannot be truly non-judgmental unless he thoroughly and consistently considers the fact that he may be wrong."

This idea has been huge in my life ever since. Do we think the same things we did 10 years ago? Probably not. Therefore it follows that 10 years from now, we will look back on ourselves and see that many of the things we believe now are wrong. This leads to an humble opinion....of our opinions.

I am not suggesting that we should not stand up firmly for what we think. After all, knowing that we are all wrong about certain things should give us confidence to engage with others. Nobody is perfect, so put your opinion out there. Rather, our confidence should be accompanied by the consideration that there may be outward factors and inner thoughts and feelings we have not experienced yet, that could change our minds at some point. In short, one can be open-minded and confident at the same time. And the open-mindedness, truly considering that we may be wrong (in fact, that we are almost certainly wrong about something right now!) can lead us to identify with those who think differently. We can realize that we are all on unique journeys of discovery. And the most dynamic part of that journey is interacting with others - sometimes especially those with whom we disagree.

So confidence gives us dialogue, and open-mindedness gives us relationship.

And I think this knowledge - that our knowledge, and even our thinking, is not perfect - leads me to a sense of trust, a sense of faith - because we must have a place to rest at the end of another imperfect day of trying to think better. It is a faith in the truth that is, while we humbly hope that we know it - or that we will know it better tomorrow.

Ron Paul on Colbert

2011-01-06T09:44:00.000-08:00

Stephen Colbert hosted a brief debate between Ron Paul and an economics writer for the New York Times. The subject was "should we return to the gold standard?"

What I found curious was that two of Paul's arguments for the gold standard are actually good arguments against it.

First, he argued that we would not have entered into recent wars if we had been on the gold standard. Presumably, this is because our finances would have been much more limited. We would not have been able engage in enough deficit spending to finance those wars if our ability to create money was restricted by tying it to gold (which is a finite commodity).

Now, I am against the Iraq War as much as anybody, and I appreciate that Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of that war, but is the inability to finance a war really a good thing? World War II was financed through debt. We dropped the gold standard during the Depression and to finance the war we racked up the equivalent in today's dollars of 30 trillion in debt (double the amount of today's national debt). Surely this financial flexibility served our nation well at that time. And I should also mention that this debt did not destroy our currency or our economy. Actually the extreme deficit spending of the war amounted to a giant fiscal stimulus program which finally completely revived the economy after the Depression.

Second, Paul argued that people would never bury cash in their backyards, believing that its value would hold. Yet this implies that since people value gold (they presumably would bury it in their backyards), they might hang on to it much more forcefully than cash.

But once again, this is a great argument against the gold standard. Money is the means to facilitate the creation of objects of real value - like food, cars, computers, etc. You can't eat money and you can't eat gold. If people hang on to their money (gold or otherwise) too tightly, then the economy goes into recession (or worse). This is because spending equals income. It doesn't make sense to say that we can all save our money and create more jobs, because jobs are only created when people spend their money. If everyone saves their money, then they also lose their jobs. So if the gold standard is more likely to lead to buried treasure than our floating currency, then this is a good argument against the gold standard. (Note: obviously the need for savings is a reality for most of us, but excessive cumulative savings that depresse demand is the danger here. And there are savings vehicles which are better than cash, such as bonds which finance local municipal projects, etc.)

There are many more points to be sure, but I found Paul's points to be very curious.

We watch a lot of Thomas the Tank Engine.

2011-01-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

I'm ready to go!", wheeshed Severin, as I shunted him out the door to the car. We puffed down the road to school. The car's engine was warm as toast. Its pistons pumped and its axles ached.

As we waited at the signal, Wolfie tooted happily...but I was afraid I smelled a stinky steamie.

Blog Adventures yet again part 5

2010-12-28T21:15:00.000-08:00

I enjoy interacting with Southern Baptist minister Wade Burleson, and fellow commenters, on his blog. Wade has recently announced that he will be discontinuing his blogging (or at least the comments portion) in order to focus more on other aspects of his ministry/career.

We did have one last really good exchange back in October, which I have gleaned from his blog and am reposting here along with all relevant comments.

It's a long read (of short comments). I wouldn't take it up unless your are really interested in the subject matter - which is the conservative Christian doctrine of penal substitution, natural law, hell, etc. and whether this is compatible with a good and loving God. I have always appreciated the interaction at Wade's blog - It's always thoughtful and interesting.

I will post the comments only - the original post is here if you would like to read it.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.

God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong.

In fact, all it shows is that God requires vengeance, no matter to whom it is enacted. And it reduces love to a servant of the idea of "justice". And justice only means revenge.

I believe and hope that the opposite is true - that justice is a means to serve love. That justice is not revenge, but is a process of rehabilitation, protection and deterrence.

It is also ironic that the context of Matthew 5:48 ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") is a lesson in why we should forgive our enemies. According to the theology in this post, this is something that God the Father cannot actually do (He gets "paid" anyway). This would mean, if we are to be led by the Father's example, that for us to forgive others, we need to be appeased in some other way.

And this is not what forgiveness means.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.

God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong."

Steven, Jesus IS God. Do you understand the implications of that within the context of your comment?

The "Innocent" was Himself in the form of a perfect Human. That is why the Sacrfice is so great.

(My friends, this is why ESS is so very dangerous to our Faith. Because it can only logically lead to lessening the Sacrifice, that "God with us" made.)

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Lydia,

How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?

If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

"If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment."

I think you might chalk atonement and the manner through which God punishes Himself for the sins of His people as something men would call "foolishness." I can't, however, escape the fact Steven that the Creator has revealed "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." In other words, it seems difficult to argue with God, particularly since the argument is against Him paying our debt.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?"

That is why we call it Grace. And the greatest free gift of all.

Romans 3

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Wade!

The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law.

So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?

Lydia,

If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required.

Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short. Let's at least hope that this is the case - for the sake of the whole of God's creation.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Steven,

You write: "The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law. So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?"

Good thoughts. A brief response.

"Natural law" is consistent with God's revealed law. Thou shalt not murder is law, both naturally and through revelation (God's word). If a person whose conscience is seared, or defiled, or dead murders someone, it is a violation of God's standard whether their inner conscience tells them so or not. Likewise, if someone hates someone, a sin that requires a more sensitive conscience to feel than murder, that hatred is a violation of God's standard whether they feel it or not.

Second, your argument that penal substitution "violates the inner sense of right and wrong (natural law)" and thus, is a doctrine created by finite man and not God is something I completely understand. You are saying penal substitution makes no sense to you.

It seems to me that what makes sense to you is God punishing people for their wrongs and rewarding people for their good deeds. I think God acts precisely in this manner--except that what most people consider "good" when compared to the good that is God will find that it is nothing but "filthy rags."

For this reason, even if atonement makes no sense to you, I would fall in the category of "Thy Peace" and say that of all the religions on earth, it seems to me I would be the absolute fool to reject the good news that is found in Jesus Christ because everything else points me to something I do, I say, I accomplish. The good news points me to something God has accomplished for me.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Wade!

I do not accept the premise that the whole of the Bible corresponds to our current "natural" sense of right and wrong. For instance, I do not accept that it is OK to pass a slave onto my son as property as specified in Leviticus 25:46.

Penal Substitition:

It is not my theology that says God requires appeasement (revenge) for sins. It is yours. I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required."

The book of Hebrews can answer this better than I can. Look at what was required for atonement of sin in the OT then read Hebrews. For a glimpse:

Hebrews 7
26 For such a High Priest (Jesus Christ) was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests (OT variety) to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

"Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short."

In terms of God sacrifing Himself for our sins so we can have eternal life with Him, I would agree with you. It is so incredible and wonderful that no words do it justice. But there is also bad news as Wade points out in his post.

I will end with this because it is really about Faith:

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corin 1)

Paul said in Galatians:

20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Steven, It is not just the Cross but the Resurrection which is eternal life with our Savior.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

You write:

"I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it."

Steven, I am genuinely confused. What you call "retributive justice" I call "righteous punishment." When God punishes a lawbreaker the punishment meets the crime. It's righteous and just. The punishment for disobedience to God is eternal separation from God and His blessings of life eternal and inheriting an earth where the curse has been reversed (heaven).

Also, to argue that it is irrational, illogical and anti-common sense for God to punish the sins of His people in their Substitute is no skin off my nose.

The only other alternative is that there is no substitute or Savior, and/or there is no God that punishes sin.

It would seem to me to require greater faith to believe in the alternatives than it does in Jesus the Christ.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

Could not have answered objections to atonement better than Lydia does in the comments above.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Wade and Lydia,

Retributive Justice is the idea that punishment is deserved for no greater purpose than to create an "evening out" of things. It's the idea that punishment is revenge and nothing more.

When I punish my child, I (hope I!) do so because it satisfies one or more of 3 conditions:

1. It educates and rehabilitates
2. It creates a deterrent against future wrong doing
3. It protects him and others around him

The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple.

Why is revenge righteous? Especially when God calls us to forgive our enemies? Assuming forgiveness means actual forgiveness and not simply achieving appeasement from another source.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

And once again, even if required revenge is in the nature of God - how does the penal substitution satisfy it? The guilty party goes free. No just punishment has been enacted, but rather a revenge killing for its own sake.

If the answer is mystery, or "yes it seems immoral but we have to trust that it's not" then the whole business of doing theology is irrelevant.

(I am enjoying this conversation, I always enjoy reading both of your points of view.)

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

You write:

"The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple."

Revenge? How about punishment.

You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?

Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them.

It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.

I'm not sure what your concept of hell is, but it sounds like something from Dante's Inferno rather than Scripture. God righteously, judicially, and personally punishes sinners for their sin. There will be no complaint of "I don't deserve this."

But the good news is God pays our debt and credits us with His righteousness when we trust His Son.

Christiane has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi STEVEN,

I am wondering if you have ever seen the Mel Gibson film 'The Passion of the Christ' ? No English is spoken in that film. It's not needed.

You know, sometimes in attempting to understand and explain that which cannot be understood easily, our 'words' fail to portray a holy event in all of its mystery and majesty.

The crucifixion is only a part of the great Mystery of Christ, which includes His Incarnation, His Passion, and yes, Wade is correct in including Christ's Resurrection.

Some describe the Crucifixion by saying that it was done out of wrath against sin, and some by saying that it was done out of love for us.
How difficult it is for us to express clearly in words that which may not be fully understood.
I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred.
We try to explain 'the fullness of truth' with 'OUR words'. . but it isn't enough. And realizing this, we then do what we should have done all along:
we point towards Christ.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Wade,

"Revenge? How about punishment."

I have said that the version of punishment you present is no different than revenge. If I am wrong, then please explain how.

"You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?"

That would be actual forgiveness, and I am just thinking of Jesus' statement to "forgive your enemies".

But I am not suggesting that law-breakers should go unpunished. I am suggesting that just punishment is always an act towards the greater good. Hell does nothing to further the greater good. It accomplishes nothing tangible. It is an act of God towards His creation that is not in their best interest.

"Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them. It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers."

But for what purpose? To further the greater good or to preserve their own power and honor?

1. How is punishment as presented here different than revenge?

2. What does Jesus mean when He says "forgive your enemies" in the context of "be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."? Does He mean we should still insist on punishment from someone, but take it from someone else? Surely not?

3. Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?

Christiane,

I like your approach. I don't have a problem with mystery at all! Surely most of our existence is mysterious. I just have a problem with the idea that we can appeal to mystery when our ideas don't seem to work, but then call out other ideas when they don't work.

best to all - I always try to see us as partners, rough stones rubbing together to create more fineness.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

You write to me: "Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?"

Good point. I believe there is a HUGE difference.

God is Judge of the Universe, Father to those who trust Him.

Blessings,

Wade

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.

I would never close the door eternally on my child.

Should I expect less of God?

Kristen has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I completely agree with Christine:

"I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred."

The Bible describes the perfect holiness of God and the sinfulness of humanity. Sinfulness cannot dwell in the presence of holiness-- it must be cast out. God the Son came to fix the separation caused by sin. There are many metaphors in the Scriptures that describe what the Atonement accomplished, but all human language that describes such things is and must be partial, limited in understanding, and bound by our own human preconceptions.

The main thing that happened, as far as I can tell, was a Substitution. Christ's life for our death. Christ's sinlessness for our sin. The very being of God poured into the separation between us, in a way that will eventually destroy the death we were born into.

The Bible does speak of it in legal terms of judgment and punishment, but that is only one of the ways in which it is spoken of. It is indeed also spoken of in relational terms of Father and child, of the prodigal who comes home to find the Father running down the road to greet him. . .

The truth is above all the pictures, hidden in the nature of God, and as far above us as His thoughts are above our thoughts. If a particular concept does not seem to one of us here to make us mindful enough of the holy beauty of the God who is Love, then another concept of the Atonement from the same Scriptures can help. Our faith is not in "penal substitution." It is in the Christ who atoned for us.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.

I would never close the door eternally on my child.

Should I expect less of God?

Mon Oct 18, 01:08:00 AM 2010

Hi Steven,

What I am going to say is not popular and many Christians disagree with it. But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable.

When Jesus Christ comes back, He is coming like this:

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f] followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Rev 19

Here is a snippet of what happens in Rev 21:

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

If you read the OT to the NT, you can see where God gives multiple warnings to people and proof of His Sovereignty in not only caring for them but saving them from total destruction. But so many times they turned their backs on Him. Even to the point of demanding a king like the pagans when God told them He was their King.

And then He, totally innocent, becomes Sin for us so that we might have His righteousness and eternal life.

The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

It seems to me that you believe in the "universal Fatherhood of God" but as I read Scripture I hear Jesus say to the Pharisees "You are of your father the devil," and passages where God "adopts" believers into His family, and because of these and other Bible passages I must reject your notion that God is the Father of all human beings and accept the truth of Scripture that He is the Father of those who are "born again" by the grace of God and have been "given the right to be called the sons of God" due to their faith in Jesus Christ.

My understanding of God is not threatened one iota by your belief in the Fatherhood of God for all human beings. Were I a universalist and believed that Christ paid the ransom for every sinner and the Holy Spirit regenerates in time every sinner, I, too, would believe in the universal Fatherhood of God. But I am not a universalist because I don't see the Word of God teaching universalism.

But your desire for a loving, gracous, merciful, pardoning, Heavenly Father is not only GOOD, it is a legitimate understnding of WHO GOD IS -- to those who receive His Son.

"Kiss the Son, Lest He be angry."

Thanks! Enjoyed the conversation.

Wade

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia,

"The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?"

These are not mutually exclusive questions. The latter is something that many people just do not believe is literally true. People whom God has created.

If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?

Wade,

Fair enough, we have our disagreement. I think God, as you describe Him, is more powerful than good.

Of course, I see the Bible as an amazing, yet man-made, attempt to understand God, rather than a perfect, or even sufficient, revelation. So there's another disagreement.

But the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense and implies an immoral premise at the heart of conservative Christian doctrine.

Of course I disagree with many people whom I love and respect on this. Best wishes to us all as we search for what is truly right! :)

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Kristen,

Thanks for your words, I enjoyed reading them.

Lydia,

One more thought:

"But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable. "

I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong.

Of course God can send people to Hell. He is powerful. But it makes no sense to call it good, unless we change the definition of good itself.

BeamStalk has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I think Steven is holding his own, but Wade you brought up something:

It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.

Do they punish all lawbreakers equally? Is every punishment the death penalty? With the concept of Hell, it is. Every punishment from the slightest infraction to Genocide is punished by something worse or equal to (depending on your stance of Hell) the death penalty.

Now you say that is what we deserve. Why do we deserve it? Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way.

If I write a program and it fails to live up to the standards I have set for it, am I to blame the program?

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"

2000 years, so far, is not enough time? My question is why didn't He shut the door long ago? We did not deserve Jesus Christ's sacrfice. It is the most loving and merciful gift in the world. You cannot earn it. It is FREE. Why aren't more people receiving that gift of eternal life?

He does have sure knowledge. Scripture tells us that Jesus knew what people were thinking when they had not spoken.

Why did He "choose" the Jews to show His Sovereignty through? Why did He prosper pagan kings to punish Israel? Why did He allow innocent babies to drown in the flood?

I would recommend all of Romans but here is a clue to the above from Romans 9:

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong."

You are not alone. Thomas Jefferson cut out all the passages he did not like to produce a more comfortable bible for himself.

But think about this:

Because God loves, He also hates. There can be no love unless there is the antithesis of love, which is hate. Those two emotions are inseparable.

If you love babies you will hate abortion. If you love good, you hate evil. If you love God you hate Satan.

Proverbs 6 lists all the things God hates. Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!

But contrast that with His great love to die on a Cross for your sins even though He was totally innocent.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia,

You do well to show the immoral ideas in conservative Christian thinking.

I have never argued that God is not powerful. He CAN do whatever He wants to us. But this doesn't make it GOOD.

A friend of mine likes to say that Calvinists make the mistake of mixing up God and the devil. Sorry if that is offensive, but it seems relevant. I am poking a bit, but I hope it's for light, not just heat.

If you keep reading Romans into chapter 11, remember what Paul says about God accepting the Jews anyway. Perhaps verses 28-32 or thereabouts shows God's ultimate purpose in creating vessels of grace and vessels of wrath.

Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Remember how Jacob greeted Esau? Their reconciliation was moving:

Jacob said, "To see your face is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me with such favor." Gen. 33:4

So Jacob saw the face of God in one whom God created for the purpose of eternal destruction?

I think there is a deeper meaning here.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.

Mon Oct 18, 03:01:00 PM 2010

Who am I to judge God who created me before the foundation of the world? That is what Romans is communicating.

If God is not good then He would not have allowed Himself to be mocked, beat and nailed to a tree for us undeserving humans. Do you not see the great love in that?

I just do not understand why that isn't enough?

Christiane has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi STEVEN,

You wrote this:
"Surely most of our existence is mysterious."

Yes. It is.
It was also for St. Augustine, until he realized something important:

"People travel to wonder at the height of the mountains, at the huge waves of the seas, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars, and yet they pass by themselves without wondering."
Saint Augustine

"Too late have I loved You, O Lord; and behold,
You were within,
and I without,
and there I sought You.

You were with me when I was not with You.
You called, and cried out, and burst my deafness.
You gleamed and glowed, dispelling my blindness.
You touched me, and I burned for Your peace.

For you have made us for Yourself,
And our hearts are restless until they rest in You.

Too late have I loved You, Beauty ever ancient, ever new.
You have burst my bonds asunder;
I will offer up to You an offering of praise."

-- St. Augustine of Hippo

Kristen has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia said:

"Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!"

Some cultural/language context is appropriate to mention here, I think. The "love/hate" dichotomy was used in the ancient Jewish culture to indicate a choice being made. It doesn't mean literal love and hate. Jesus used the same terminology when He said we could not follow Him without "hating" our mother and father and even our own life. Obviously, if He had meant real hate, He would have been directly contradicting the "honor your father and mother" commandment, as well as the "love your neighbor" commandment. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" simply means, "I chose Jacob and passed over Esau."

As for Romans 9, it seems fairly clear to me (my pastor also preaches this) that the context is not eternal salvation, but the choice of God for what part one is to play in His plan. It's about earthly calling/destiny, not eternity. Israel was chosen, but is now temporarily rejected so that the Gentiles can come in. This does not mean than an individual Israelite is prevented from coming to salvation even if they wanted to. Romans 11 makes that clear.

Beamstalk said:

"Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way."

Yes, I think it's an intentional setup. Romans 11:32 says God shut everyone up under sin so that He might have mercy upon all. That's just a few chapters later than Romans 9, so I think it needs to inform our reading of Romans 9.

However. I'm really not sure it's appropriate to argue Calvinism vs. Armenianism on this blog post. I think Wade is quite right to say that God's judgment is for sin, and that it's belief in Christ that saves us from our sin.

I would also like to say that I don't think love and holiness are meant to be opposed. God is Love; therefore love must be holy. God loves us all but also hates everything we do that hurts ourselves or others-- because He loves. Something has to be done about this; hence the Atonement and our resulting sanctification, so that one day He can have a Kingdom where no one does any harm to another, ever again.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia,

The problem of Satan (or evil) is difficult within a theistic framework. Perhaps evil was allowed so that we could make a choice. However everlasting damnation stops any possibility of choice. And I am unconvinced of any theodicy that requires the purposeful creation of people to eternally suffer. By what standard is this good?

I am perplexed that you are OK with a God that created many of your neighbors for the purpose of everlasting damnation.

You are right. I do not see the salvation of some as enough.

But thanks for your opinion, it is interesting to me for sure.

Christiane,

Good stuff. I think the world is mysterious, including myself, for sure! ;)

Paula,

I love the story! This world is remarkable and mysterious.

Kristen,

I think your take on Romans 9-11 is more consistent with a loving God. The vessels of wrath and grace both serve the purpose of revealing God's all-encompassing love. Perhaps we would not know what it was if we could not see life without it.

But Paul's reference to the ultimate fate of the Jews and his statements about the mystery of God and His mercy towards all reveal that the vessels of grace and wrath are temporal means, not everlasting ends. What is the end, the final purpose of all things?

I hope that it is God for all. Romans 11:36. 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Best to all! Thanks for a delightful conversation. And I truly mean that.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Kristen, I agree with what you wrote concerning Esau. Thanks for clarifying.

Another thought on federal debt and deficit....

2010-12-07T11:50:00.000-08:00

As long as the dollar is the world's currency of choice, we will have large deficits.

This is because other countries need dollars. Oil is traded in dollars, and countries want dollars for savings. So they export to us, without importing as much, so that they can hold on to dollars. This insures that we will run a trade deficit.

And since we are bleeding money abroad, the government must deficit spend to create more money domestically, or else the economy would dry up.

So a trade deficit almost always insures a budget deficit. But there is an exception:

During the late 90's we had a trade deficit, but a budget surplus. A budget surplus is a drain on the economy, because it means we are destroying more dollars through taxation than we are creating through spending. And the trade deficit is also a drain on domestic demand.

So what made up for all this anti-stimulus? Private credit.

The credit boom of the late 90's had the private sector moving heavily into debt and subsidizing the trade deficit and budget surplus of the US.

But that wasn't enough to last. The economy still went into recession at the turn of the century, partially because of the drain of the budget surplus.

So as long as the world wants dollars, trade and budget deficits are pretty much guaranteed.

My letter to Tom Coburn part 2

2010-12-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

Mr. Coburn,

I wrote you a letter recently criticizing your views on the federal deficit and the debt.

I am now writing with a short idea (which I have read from numerous economists) that I thought you might like to think about. I certainly have.

If you are worried about the United States' debt, why not have the Treasury cease to sell securities? Then deficit spending (the amount put into the economy by the government that is more than the amount taken out through taxes) would accumulate in reserve accounts at the Fed (the Fed's "checking" accounts) instead of in Treasuries (the Fed's "savings" accounts).

What is perceived as an accumulating debt that has to be "paid back" is really just the accumulation of savings at the Fed. The national "debt" is really the world's dollar savings. After all, the government’s deficit equals non-government savings of financial assets to the last penny.

Issuing Treasuries has no real function anymore since our government uses a floating currency. The money is printed out of nothing. Then the spending is offset by taxation to avoid too much liquidity in the system. Taxation and bonds do not operate as revenue generators. How could they? The money used to buy those bonds and pay those taxes came from the government originally, and it was printed out of nothing. It is illogical to say that money can start with tax revenues and bond sales. Where did that money originate? So despite what many people think and say about it, operationally, in absolute reality, taxes and bond sales do not serve the purpose of generating revenue for the federal government.

The only constraint on deficit spending is the possibility of inflation. But that is not a worry right now. In fact, deflation is still a worry, which means that the government is not deficit spending enough - since private credit is not generating enough growth right now and the world still wants to sit on dollars. Where else can new demand be generated except by federal fiscal stimulus? Inflation would probably be good right now, as it might encourage people to get off some savings and spend/invest it.

If we do get to a point where demand is too hot, we will be at a position of full employment with a booming economy. Then "demand-pull" inflation could begin to take effect. At that point, it would be wise to raise taxes in order to drain the excess demand out of the system. Or the Fed can tighten credit markets.

Thanks for your consideration of these issues. I know that you are a passionate, intelligent individual with the best interests of the nation at heart. I hope that you will look into the issues like I have. I am not an economist, I am a musician. But I believe that economic illiteracy is a huge danger to our nation right now, so I am reading up. And I still have a long way to go.

sincerely,

Steven Stark

My letter to Tom Coburn

2010-12-02T20:18:00.000-08:00

I am still working hard to understand economic issues. I will make mistakes in my discussion of these issues, but I hope that others can help me to fix them!

I am very concerned that the current debate over the deficit and debt of the US government is mired in premises that are not true. Premises like "we can go broke". But we can't. We pay for everything right now with money printed out of nothing. Then we tax or sell bonds to drain liquidity from the system in order to control demand (spending) and therefore inflation. People are afraid of interest rates going through the roof on Treasury securities if our debt gets too high, but the Fed can control rates and even if rates were super high, that would increase money into our system and act as a huge fiscal stimulus. GDP would rise, tax revenues would increase, and the debt would stop looking so scary. And there are many tools at the government's disposal to squelch inflation caused by too much demand - namely taxation!

Anyway, this is a short attempt at a letter from the father of a one month old. That is my excuse if it doesn't read well, or if there are legitimate errors that I need to fix!

Mr. Coburn,

I was disturbed to hear your comments on deficit reduction today. I believe that your fears of government deficits may be based on an ignorance of macroeconomic issues.

Government deficits cause the economy to expand. In fact, it is the only way to get a net gain in financial assets into the private sector. And without private credit working properly, deficit spending is the only choice to keep demand where it needs to be. And it is NOT where it needs to be, which should be obvious since the unemployment rate is so high. Our economy is not operating at full production.

A lack of real productivity now is the actual, irresponsible legacy we are in danger of leaving our children. Your statements suggest that you are more concerned with an accounting artifact than with facts on the ground.

You are mistaking the servant (money), for the master (the actual goods and services they represent). The US will always be able to meet its financial obligations if they are in US dollars. Our debt certainly is, since it is simply funds that have been deposited in U.S. Treasuries for safe-keeping.

I pray that you will research these issues more thoroughly. They are difficult, as on the surface they run counter to our "common sense" about such things. Deficits actually fuel savings. Loans create deposits. Surpluses funnel revenue out of our system! This is not what we need right now in an economy that is desperate for more demand, more money, more spending. The only relevant danger in deficit spending is inflation, but that's the purpose that taxation serves - to drain the economy of excess liquidity. Taxation is not actually a revenue source! It's a way to control aggregate demand - to cool down an overheated economy. We can drain the economy of excess demand (purchasing power) if need be.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the people of Oklahoma.

sincerely, Steven Stark

Economic Balance

2010-11-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

The difference between the conservative and the liberal on many economic issues is not one of principle but one of balance.

While there are certainly different economic ideologies at play, the simple, over-arching idea of more or less government is not a principle. If I am for more or less government, the appropriate question is "Compared to what?"

Both the conservative and the liberal see a vital need for private enterprise and for government action. Most conservatives still believe in a public school system. They certainly believe in a public military. They believe in public services like fire fighters and police. They believe in certain government regulation of markets. Liberals believe in rewarding creativity and hard work. They believe in personal freedom. They believe in financial markets.

So there is always a mix of socialized and privatized control of production and distribution in almost anyone's economic ideology.

I don't mean to downplay some very real differences on specific issues, but the dominant theme of more or less government is a question of balance rather than principle. And no two conservatives, and no two liberals, have the exact same position on this question. I think remembering this helps to lessen the illusion of a hard binary relationship between economic liberals and conservatives.

Keeping the focus where it belongs

2010-11-19T20:33:00.000-08:00

“In sum, on its current economic trajectory the United States runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or underemployed for many years,” he will say. “As a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable.”

-Ben Bernanke

False Premises

2010-11-14T20:22:00.000-08:00

I watched George and Laura Bush's interview on CBS Sunday Morning today. It was pretty good. The interviewer walked a fine line, keeping it a human interest story while asking some pretty tough questions about Iraq and Katrina.

Mr. Bush stated that one of the regrets of his presidency was not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He said that it gave him a sick feeling. My ears perked up at this. Was he admitting that the invasion perhaps should not have happened?

Of course not. And how could he say that, even if he did think it was true? He asked so much of so many and the damage to persons and families has been so massive, that there is no way he could ever admit that it was a bad decision.

No, he said that the sick feeling was because he knew that not finding those weapons would undermine the legitimacy of the invasion in people's minds. Then he explained that the real reason for the invasion was to try to topple a brutal dictator's regime and plant a fledgling democracy in the middle east hoping that it might spread.

In a sense, he is right. That is the only reason that ever made sense for the Iraq invasion. Iraq was never a huge threat. We actually invaded Iraq because it was a small threat. There is no way anyone would invade North Korea, another part of the "axis of evil", with its gigantic standing army, much scarier weapons arsenal and even more insane leadership. Iran? No chance.

The only reason to attack another country preemptively, the only reason to start a war with another country with little immediate justification, was to take advantage of public sentiment following 9/11 in order to try this experiment in nation destroying/rebuilding.

But there is a problem with Bush's reasoning now. While this may have been the real reason for the invasion of Iraq, this was not the reason that was given. Weapons of mass destruction was IT. That was the reason. That was the case that Colin Powell presented to the UN. That was the case that the President presented at his State of the Union (making use of sloppy, false intelligence concerning "yellow cake" pursuits in Africa by Saddam).

So whatever a person's feelings are on the Iraq war, we must admit that we invaded under false premises. These premises were contrived and yet they were also legitimately believed by many. But they were wrong. This democracy-building-through-aggression idea is a post-hoc rationalization given to the public - even though it probably is the real reason that the Bush administration wanted to invade.

It became obvious they would find a reason. First the UN inspectors needed to be let in (and rightly so). Then there were access and timeline issues. Then we would only stop the invasion if Saddam and his family would leave....which they didn't, but can you imagine spending tens of billions to position ourselves for invasion and then not doing it? No, if Saddam and all the top Baathists had left, we would have found another reason - to prevent chaos, to assist the Iraqi people, something.

And what is the problem with making war when it is not a necessity? Thousands of US soldiers have been killed. Tens of thousands wounded and many of those disabled. Tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have been killed, wounded and disabled. Families upon families upon families all over the world have been deprived of their loved ones.

It seems shallow to reflect on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the project in light of all those lives, but sending those resources towards the war has affected people's lives too.

I don't think Mr. Bush is a bad guy on a personal level. I think his intentions were good, but his judgement was way off. And he insists that he has always stuck to his principles. I just wish he would admit that the national and international community was not sold the Iraq war with the premises that he now uses to justify it.