Here's a flashback for you.
Remember the WWJD fad from the 1990's?
"WWJD" stood for "What Would Jesus Do," and was intended to help provoke Christ-like responses among believers towards all sorts of circumstances.
In other words, say, you're driving along in heavy traffic, and somebody cuts you off. WWJD? Instead of cursing the driver, you graciously back away, and re-construct the buffer zone you'd been maintaining between vehicles.
Or maybe you're at church, and you overhear a couple of people complaining about your pastor. WWJD? Well, we know Christ wouldn't sidle up to those folks and join heartily in the gossipy vilification, would He? But would He take a posture of unquestioning defense for the pastor, without admitting maybe the complainers have a point? Or would He simply keep walking away, praying for those malcontents under His breath, but not wanting to personally intervene and foment more antagonism?
What about when you happen upon a homeless panhandler? If your town has a well-run homeless shelter to which you and your church contribute time and money, do you just pass by the homeless person without acknowledging their presence, assuming maybe they'd gotten kicked out of the shelter for bad behavior? Do you pass by with a quick shout-out about the homeless shelter being just down the street, in case the panhandler isn't aware of it? Or do you stop, give the person $10, or take them to a restaurant, or welcome them into your own home?
Would What Jesus Does Change Your Behavior?
You can see how quickly the simple WWJD mantra proves itself insufficient in addressing some surprisingly complex issues. Thus, the WWJD trend became hollow quickly.
It wasn't enough, when you were asked a question about morality, ethics, or the propriety of a course of action, to simply utter "WWJD?" and assume you'd addressed the quandary.
Many people used WWJD as a social gospel validator, applying Biblical truths about grace and mercy inappropriately. In some liberal circles, WWJD became a pithy excuse to chastise more conservative evangelicals who, even back then, were clamoring for welfare reform, or gun rights, or immigration reform. Basically, liberals mistakenly assumed, Christ would have pretty much let people do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't involve ending generational poverty, carrying weapons, or enforcing national sovereignty laws.
So it scares me a little bit these days to find myself increasingly asking myself, "WWJD?" Yes, I'm a moderate Republican, but I'm no liberal patsy. I believe in - and am immensely grateful for - mercy and grace, but those are gifts God provides to His people along with expectations for how we're to exercise them. Both as recipients, and benefactors.
I'm no liberal patsy, and neither is Christ.
To a certain extent, I cannot argue that our modern American culture hasn't bred a spirit of dependency on our government. There have always been needs, and needy people, but it just makes sense to me that localized communities, starting with one's family and church, provide the best-balanced and benevolently accountable environments for meeting these personal needs. National governments come in handy for broader efforts like building highway networks, electrical dams, sovereign defense forces, and ensuring the civil rights of each citizen. But historically, government-run charities don't have a great track record, at least in making sure systems aren't abused and genuinely needy people don't go without.
When it comes to charity, the Biblical book of Proverbs has plenty to say both about our obligation to help the poor, and about the expectations a society is correct in having of each participant, and how each person is to contribute to their community. And I don't disagree that over the years, our society has shifted from a bottom-up form of reliance to a top-down form, with our government at the top.
Sock It To the Ones With the Most Money?
Yet as I continue to encounter Libertarian viewpoints in our evangelical media, the question "WWJD?" has begun to flutter around in my brain. Perhaps on account of all the empty space up there, true; but also, because some evangelicals appear to have quit the grace-and-mercy side of our faith cold-turkey.
Exibit A is an article for World magazine by D.C. Innes entitled, "Price Gouging as Neighbor Love." Innes, a professor at New York City's conservative Kings College who lives out on Long Island, writes about how he observed the long lines and rationing at gas stations across the metropolitan area in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. He bemoans the unfair restrictions against price gouging imposed by New York State on its gas station owners. He sounds convinced that it's actually a manifestation of Christ's command that we love our neighbors to let the price of gas go as high as the market will bear during a crisis.
"State law forbids anything more than a 10 percent price increase at the pump during a shortage," Innes complains. "But while our guardians of the common good meant well in making that law, I think their kindness was cruel."
I think my jaw dropped open when I read that. So... he thinks Jesus would endorse price-gouging?
"The market system of setting prices serves everyone," Innes claims, apparently assuming that we live in a perfect world. Generally speaking, when a community is not reeling from a natural catastrophe, free markets do have a way of settling into a sort of stasis which benefits the most people. But Innes doesn't believe that preying on the unfortunate is sinful behavior?
In challenging the government's need to mitigate a fuel shortage, Innes tries to argue that "there is always a shortage of some sort insofar as there is generally less of things than we would like." But I can't think of any tangible commodities that we Americans could have more of if they were available. What is there less of that we would like? Lexus seems pretty good at making just enough luxury automobiles to satisfy the demand of people who can afford them. Oreos hasn't faced an outcry over shortages of their nutritionless cookies, although devotees of Hostess Ding Dongs have recently. In fact, the world has no shortage of food - famine these days is a political crisis, not a production crisis.
Innes is correct in pointing out that price controls don't do a good job of eliminating the black market, and he witnessed people buying gas for one price and selling it for double to people waiting at the end of long lines. But all that proves is that sin corrupts our world, not that price controls automatically - or solely - cause black markets. Black markets flourish in countries - or even neighborhoods in America - where some products are officially unavailable. Would Innes blame the despicable proliferation of child porn on the black market, for example, on price controls?
It's hard to tell where morality fits into his viewpoint. "If gas stations had been able to raise their prices to reflect the radically reduced supply," Innes postulates, "lines would have been shorter, and there would have been easier access to gas supplies for those most in need of it." How does anybody know that if there were no price controls, only the people who most needed gas would have easy access to it? The only way you can determine that is by placing the proposition's value not on the person "needing" the gas, but a person's ability to pay what the market can charge.
Talk About Reviling the One Percenters!
And, voilà, you have the indelible scourge of Libertarianism, folks! The value in a Libertarian economy is not on the person, but on the person's financial worth. What can they pay?
The value of a person becomes not who that person is, what they might
need the gas for, or what factors have impacted their life in a way that
prevents them from paying exorbitant prices. The only value a person
has comes from whether or not they can play the higher price. Money
becomes more important than the person.
For example, suppose a medical doctor and a hedge fund manager need
fuel for their cars. Sure, the doctor may be able to afford quadruple the price to drive
to the hospital and perform a life-saving operation. But if the hedge fund
manager can afford ten times the price or more, should finances be the sole reason that doctor would be prevented from getting the necessary fuel?
What would Jesus do? This past Sunday, the pastor at my church pointed out in his sermon that Jesus healed the ten lepers, but only one went back to thank Him. Was Christ's healing power any less lavish on the other nine? Apparently not, since His grace doesn't depend on how well we thank Him for what He does for us. Is this the same Christ who would mock His people by setting the price for what we need at a level only a few could pay?
When the Bible talks about fairness in our business dealings, mandates like "accurate and honest weights," wealth being worthless in the "day of wrath," and not taking advantage of others are interwoven with accounts of Boaz letting Ruth collect food for free. Free! And maybe I'm being woefully literal by assuming "honesty" is concerned less with how much money you can exact from a customer, and more with being able to look your customers in the eye the next day. However, don't you have to be a pretty rigorous Gospel revisionist to believe that loving our neighbor means figuring how much they're willing to pay for
something they desperately need?
God has shown us what is good and what He requires of us. We're to "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God."
Must only WWJD bracelet-wearing, coffee-mug-holding social gospel liberals believe that?
Then again, would Jesus have given away the gasoline? Probably not, since it wasn't the gas station owners' fault that Hurricane Sandy crimped access to fuel. Nor could the industry control whether they had electricity to transfer their gas or not. Selling fuel during a crisis is not what's wrong here.
So, would Jesus condone price gouging? Since neither penalizing nor accommodating people based solely on their net worth is Biblical, I humbly stand in opposition to Professor Innes and say that no, He wouldn't.
If you believe He would, however, and your faith controls your politics, then maybe we've found another reason for why a certain political party lost this month's presidential election.
_____
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
68 New Regs Daily? Not Exactly
"68 new regulations every day."
Right-wing bloggers and Facebook users have been seething lately over the recent announcement on CNSNews.com that President Obama's administration is churning out an average of 68 new federal regulations per day.
Sixty. Eight.
A day!
I knew our federal bureaucracy is enormous, but I wasn't sure if 68 new regulations a day is too much for the government of the country with the world's largest economy... or, not enough.
The conservative side of me wanted to shake my head in disgust. How can our country's economy survive if 68 new mandates are being handed down from Washington on a daily basis?
The moderate part of me, however, wondered: what are all these regulations, anyway?
It didn't take any effort to visit the website in question, Regulations.gov, and learn that, sure enough, dozens of regulations hit the government's calendar every day. However, I learned that the claim being made by right-wing pundits regarding their overall impact is - surprise! - fairly misleading.
First of all, many of the "regulations" on the list are procedures, updates, and clarifications - not actual laws, like some conservative antagonists of the President want us to believe. Others of these "regulations" are actually recommendations by experts in their respective fields regarding ways safety and operational standards can be improved.
And they're all open to public comments.
Today, November 13, an above-average number of 78 "regulations" were "due," which means that the public comment portion of each "regulation" would close at midnight tonight. They won't all necessarily go into effect tomorrow. Some are headed back to court or committee, some are just postings containing bureaucratic legalese, and some are recommendations for further action.
Rest assured: 78 new regulations won't hit the books tonight. All you have to do is click on any of them to see the real story.
Tank Farm Gas
For example, the first "regulation" I clicked was called the "Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy." Knowing nothing about nuclear energy, I didn't expect to understand any of it, but I was surprised to learn that either I'm missing something super-important, or this "regulation" is simply a notice about excess gas building up in and needing to be ventilated from double-shell tanks. Flammable gas could accumulate in these tanks, which store radioactive material at this aging facility located in Washington state. Our government's scientists want to avert a potential catastrophe if the gas were to somehow ignite.
Sounds like something I want my government to be on top of, doesn't it to you?
Right Wingers: Fail
Obama Administration: Pass
Texas Grass
The next "regulation" I inspected I selected because I was sure that even I would find it foolish. Entitled "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and Designation of Critical Habitat," it virtually reeked of the type of aggressive ecological conservation that I join fellow conservatives in believing to unfairly penalize rightful owners of real estate.
Turns out, some of this grass was identified in 1836 by an Army doctor, and efforts to preserve its habitat have been ongoing since 1981. A lawsuit hung up early attempts at designating the grasses as endangered in 1997, when courts forced the government to build a better case. After all these years, the government is now ready to close the public-comment portion of their proposal for enacting an endangered status on the grasses, which exist mostly around sand bars and other areas generally unsuitable for conventional commercial development. In fact, since government scientists started monitoring the grasses during the 1980's, the habitat for these grasses has shrunk, meaning the amount of land the government is looking to preserve for the grasses is smaller than when they originally proposed the regulation.
Naturally, the fact that some of the land in and around this habitat is being used for oil and gas extraction, environmentalists are anxious for these grasses to become protected species. And yes, that could have a negative impact on drilling here in certain parts of the Lone Star State.
In addition, I'm not crazy about the amount of time, effort, and money our government has been spending studying these grasses for the past thirty years. However, the fact that their pending "endangered" designation is coming about during Obama's administration is no fault of his. Blame Ronald Reagan's administration for starting the ball rolling on this one, and thank Bill Clinton's administration for apparently bungling its case in court, causing the delay in this designation.
Right Wingers: Fail (good try, though)
Obama Administration: Pass
Airbus Rudder
Wow. Things weren't looking too good for the right wing agitators who want to paint Obama's administration as a bunch of bureaucratic busy-bodies. And sure enough - right wingers didn't catch a break when I returned to the listing of "regulations" and found an airworthiness directive regarding the potential for cracks in the rudder of Airbus' A300-600 series airplanes.
Fortunately for Airbus, although the government estimates that their directive applies to 170 planes, it would require only an hour's worth of work on each one.
The next time you fly on an airline using Airbus planes, you can thank your government for helping to make sure its rudder doesn't crack.
Right Wingers: Fail
Obama Administration: Pass
Bank Control
I finally thought I'd found something that would at least keep the right wingers from completely zeroing-out on this quick tally of regulations on the docket for today: "Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company."
Doesn't that sound like a sinister governmental intrusion into our finance industry? I decided to check it out. Unfortunately for our right-wingers, it's a one-page document listing the addresses of several branches of the Federal Reserve Bank with some legalese regarding an addendum to an already-existing federal banking document. Nothing new to see here. This is just a benign listing included in today's dose of "regulations."
In fact, several other listings on a variety of other topics, including one for Michelle Obama's healthy kids program and another one for banking regulations, came up blank, making the list look artificially longer than it really is.
Right Wingers: Fail
Obama Administration: Pass
Trust Needs More Than Partisan Hyperbole
Of course, die-hard right-wingers may simply claim that I cherry-picked the "regulations" to review, hoping to slant my results in the President's favor. But if you think I'm a man with no honor, why do you bother reading my blog anyway? And why would I have cherry-picked only the "regulations" that would defy right-wingers and intentionally ignore the vast majority that would support the allegation that Obama's administration is churning out too many rules that are crippling our economy? You can check this list as well as I can. There are no secrets on it.
Suffice it to say that we live in a highly complex society, with many actors and stakeholders involved in countless decisions in both the private and public sectors. Could it be that the safety and security we generally take for granted in our everyday lives is due in part to the minutiae like cracked rudders and radioactive gasses that government bureaucrats churn through the system? Do you really want to find out if we could be as prosperous a country without these types of checks?
Sure, some of these "regulations" add costs to private industry. If the government weren't around to dot these bureaucratic i's and cross the t's, it's easy to assume that private industry would do at least as good a job, and make more money without the feds breathing down their neck. It sounds nice to talk about giving that a try, but when it comes to safety, people tend to get cold feet.
Could some of these "regulations" be redundant? Of course. Many of them likely mirror the advisories private companies issue regarding their own products. Airbus, for example, likely knew before Uncle Sam did of their rudder's potential to crack, but it's easier to assume that when you're not flying on one of their planes, isn't it? Or is that just scarier, since it means they kept planes in the air with a known potential defect? Things like this are why we tend to get cold feet when it comes to leaving private industry solely responsible for public safety.
It's harder, however, to see the need for protecting obscure types of grass. Even though Obama's administration can't be blamed for it, the pursuit to preserve Texas' endangered grasses seems excessive, even to me. Indeed, nothing in this little expose on "Obama's 68 new regulations" proves there aren't areas within our government that don't need to be right-sized. Gladecress and rose-mallow grasses have a hard time competing with trillion-dollar-deficits, unfunded wars, and cancer research. Unless scientists think these grasses hold a unique chemical that could cure cancer.
Still, to simply assert that an average of 68 worthless, cost-increasing, bureaucracy-bloating, Obama-empowering regulations are being added to the books every day by the current administration is, at best, a distortion of the truth. And at worst, an outright lie.
Sure, it makes for a more salacious sound bite when right-wingers toss out such statistics like they're facts. But if conservatives want liberals to take them seriously, they're going to have to give integrity a greater role in their dialog.
How do you think we've gotten to this point of being over-regulated in the first place?
_____
Right-wing bloggers and Facebook users have been seething lately over the recent announcement on CNSNews.com that President Obama's administration is churning out an average of 68 new federal regulations per day.
Sixty. Eight.
A day!
I knew our federal bureaucracy is enormous, but I wasn't sure if 68 new regulations a day is too much for the government of the country with the world's largest economy... or, not enough.
The conservative side of me wanted to shake my head in disgust. How can our country's economy survive if 68 new mandates are being handed down from Washington on a daily basis?
The moderate part of me, however, wondered: what are all these regulations, anyway?
It didn't take any effort to visit the website in question, Regulations.gov, and learn that, sure enough, dozens of regulations hit the government's calendar every day. However, I learned that the claim being made by right-wing pundits regarding their overall impact is - surprise! - fairly misleading.
First of all, many of the "regulations" on the list are procedures, updates, and clarifications - not actual laws, like some conservative antagonists of the President want us to believe. Others of these "regulations" are actually recommendations by experts in their respective fields regarding ways safety and operational standards can be improved.
And they're all open to public comments.
Today, November 13, an above-average number of 78 "regulations" were "due," which means that the public comment portion of each "regulation" would close at midnight tonight. They won't all necessarily go into effect tomorrow. Some are headed back to court or committee, some are just postings containing bureaucratic legalese, and some are recommendations for further action.
Rest assured: 78 new regulations won't hit the books tonight. All you have to do is click on any of them to see the real story.
Tank Farm Gas
For example, the first "regulation" I clicked was called the "Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy." Knowing nothing about nuclear energy, I didn't expect to understand any of it, but I was surprised to learn that either I'm missing something super-important, or this "regulation" is simply a notice about excess gas building up in and needing to be ventilated from double-shell tanks. Flammable gas could accumulate in these tanks, which store radioactive material at this aging facility located in Washington state. Our government's scientists want to avert a potential catastrophe if the gas were to somehow ignite.
Sounds like something I want my government to be on top of, doesn't it to you?
Right Wingers: Fail
Obama Administration: Pass
Texas Grass
The next "regulation" I inspected I selected because I was sure that even I would find it foolish. Entitled "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and Designation of Critical Habitat," it virtually reeked of the type of aggressive ecological conservation that I join fellow conservatives in believing to unfairly penalize rightful owners of real estate.
Turns out, some of this grass was identified in 1836 by an Army doctor, and efforts to preserve its habitat have been ongoing since 1981. A lawsuit hung up early attempts at designating the grasses as endangered in 1997, when courts forced the government to build a better case. After all these years, the government is now ready to close the public-comment portion of their proposal for enacting an endangered status on the grasses, which exist mostly around sand bars and other areas generally unsuitable for conventional commercial development. In fact, since government scientists started monitoring the grasses during the 1980's, the habitat for these grasses has shrunk, meaning the amount of land the government is looking to preserve for the grasses is smaller than when they originally proposed the regulation.
Naturally, the fact that some of the land in and around this habitat is being used for oil and gas extraction, environmentalists are anxious for these grasses to become protected species. And yes, that could have a negative impact on drilling here in certain parts of the Lone Star State.
In addition, I'm not crazy about the amount of time, effort, and money our government has been spending studying these grasses for the past thirty years. However, the fact that their pending "endangered" designation is coming about during Obama's administration is no fault of his. Blame Ronald Reagan's administration for starting the ball rolling on this one, and thank Bill Clinton's administration for apparently bungling its case in court, causing the delay in this designation.
Right Wingers: Fail (good try, though)
Obama Administration: Pass
Airbus Rudder
Wow. Things weren't looking too good for the right wing agitators who want to paint Obama's administration as a bunch of bureaucratic busy-bodies. And sure enough - right wingers didn't catch a break when I returned to the listing of "regulations" and found an airworthiness directive regarding the potential for cracks in the rudder of Airbus' A300-600 series airplanes.
Fortunately for Airbus, although the government estimates that their directive applies to 170 planes, it would require only an hour's worth of work on each one.
The next time you fly on an airline using Airbus planes, you can thank your government for helping to make sure its rudder doesn't crack.
Right Wingers: Fail
Obama Administration: Pass
Bank Control
I finally thought I'd found something that would at least keep the right wingers from completely zeroing-out on this quick tally of regulations on the docket for today: "Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company."
Doesn't that sound like a sinister governmental intrusion into our finance industry? I decided to check it out. Unfortunately for our right-wingers, it's a one-page document listing the addresses of several branches of the Federal Reserve Bank with some legalese regarding an addendum to an already-existing federal banking document. Nothing new to see here. This is just a benign listing included in today's dose of "regulations."
In fact, several other listings on a variety of other topics, including one for Michelle Obama's healthy kids program and another one for banking regulations, came up blank, making the list look artificially longer than it really is.
Right Wingers: Fail
Obama Administration: Pass
Trust Needs More Than Partisan Hyperbole
Of course, die-hard right-wingers may simply claim that I cherry-picked the "regulations" to review, hoping to slant my results in the President's favor. But if you think I'm a man with no honor, why do you bother reading my blog anyway? And why would I have cherry-picked only the "regulations" that would defy right-wingers and intentionally ignore the vast majority that would support the allegation that Obama's administration is churning out too many rules that are crippling our economy? You can check this list as well as I can. There are no secrets on it.
Suffice it to say that we live in a highly complex society, with many actors and stakeholders involved in countless decisions in both the private and public sectors. Could it be that the safety and security we generally take for granted in our everyday lives is due in part to the minutiae like cracked rudders and radioactive gasses that government bureaucrats churn through the system? Do you really want to find out if we could be as prosperous a country without these types of checks?
Sure, some of these "regulations" add costs to private industry. If the government weren't around to dot these bureaucratic i's and cross the t's, it's easy to assume that private industry would do at least as good a job, and make more money without the feds breathing down their neck. It sounds nice to talk about giving that a try, but when it comes to safety, people tend to get cold feet.
Could some of these "regulations" be redundant? Of course. Many of them likely mirror the advisories private companies issue regarding their own products. Airbus, for example, likely knew before Uncle Sam did of their rudder's potential to crack, but it's easier to assume that when you're not flying on one of their planes, isn't it? Or is that just scarier, since it means they kept planes in the air with a known potential defect? Things like this are why we tend to get cold feet when it comes to leaving private industry solely responsible for public safety.
It's harder, however, to see the need for protecting obscure types of grass. Even though Obama's administration can't be blamed for it, the pursuit to preserve Texas' endangered grasses seems excessive, even to me. Indeed, nothing in this little expose on "Obama's 68 new regulations" proves there aren't areas within our government that don't need to be right-sized. Gladecress and rose-mallow grasses have a hard time competing with trillion-dollar-deficits, unfunded wars, and cancer research. Unless scientists think these grasses hold a unique chemical that could cure cancer.
Still, to simply assert that an average of 68 worthless, cost-increasing, bureaucracy-bloating, Obama-empowering regulations are being added to the books every day by the current administration is, at best, a distortion of the truth. And at worst, an outright lie.
Sure, it makes for a more salacious sound bite when right-wingers toss out such statistics like they're facts. But if conservatives want liberals to take them seriously, they're going to have to give integrity a greater role in their dialog.
How do you think we've gotten to this point of being over-regulated in the first place?
_____
Friday, November 2, 2012
Stripping Fables from Christ's Nativity
Drives. Me. Nuts.
What drives me nuts? Well, first is the realization that since we've hit November, from now until Christmas Day, we're going to be bombarded with Christmas music practically everywhere we go.
And I use the term "Christmas music" loosely, of course! Because what really drives me nuts is that so much of the "music" that's become part of our North American Christmas repertoire mythologizes the birth of Christ into some snowy, fuzzy fable.
Christmas Is No Myth
Aren't the facts of Christ's Incarnation far less pretty, cosseted, and downright white - both in terms of culture and snow - than we western Caucasian evangelicals insist on stereotyping them as?
Mary was a pregnant teenager who'd just finished a grueling trek forced upon her and her fiancé - who wasn't the father of her baby - by their imperious government. They ended up in a stable, with smelly hay, smelly farm animals, smelly excrement from those smelly farm animals, and no obstetrician, neonatal nurse, or midwife in sight. Their first visitors after Christ's birth were a group of illiterate, smelly shepherds, who couldn't stop rambling on about their frightful vision of angels in the night sky.
In addition, this all took place probably in March or April, not the dead of winter, and the magi were just starting out on their journey after seeing the star in the East. It would take them a couple of years to make it to the place where the young Christ child was. And by then, it wouldn't have been a stable.
And guess what - it hardly ever snows in temperate Bethlehem.
If we told the story authentically, wouldn't we see that the reality of Christ's birth was actually more profound than the insipid fantasy into which our culture has polished it? Our King of Kings came to His Creation in such a lowly manner! Thankfully, some of our songwriters have gotten it right, and attempted to marvel at what God considered to be His perfect way of introducing Christ to this planet. But it's hard for merchants to sell Christmas as an arduous, unsanitary, disenfranchised, and bizarre event. And unfortunately, the evangelical church has been mostly complicit with the Nativity's commercializers in making the Incarnation a sellable product for once-a-year churchgoers.
Instead of a more accurately awestruck accounting of the birth of this world's holy Savior.
Christmas Music Needs Authenticity
Regular readers of my blog essays know that I'm an unabashed advocate for classical hymnody. I actually believe that what we consider to be traditional corporate worship provides, on the whole, a focus on Christ and God's holiness that comes closer to what our Trinity expects when we gather together to honor Him. I'm willing to contend that culturally, our genre of classical music has become less a Caucasian, European contrivance as much as it has become a universally-renowned, broadly-appreciated style of stately repertoire uniquely suited to the worship of God, no matter where we're born, or in what society we've been raised.
Yes, that means some expressions of culture are better than others. It's a politically incorrect thing to say, and, some think, a woefully impertinent thing to believe. But it's true. No human culture is perfect, or even ideal. And many are utterly unBiblical. Doesn't this mean that, when it comes to how we express our adoration of God to Him, particularly in public, we can't rely on cultural norms to be adequate? Just because we're under the misapprehension that God values all cultural norms equally?
Don't we need to discriminate between what's good, and what's adequate, or even downright inappropriate?
When it comes to such cultural institutions as Christmas, shouldn't we resist the urge to let culture dictate our worship? Shouldn't communicating the glory of Christ's birth be done with as much theological and historical integrity as possible?
It Depends On Your Definition of "Midwinter"
Consider, then, one of these seasonal songs driving me nuts. It's called "In the Bleak Midwinter," and the text is by noted poet Christina Rossetti, who lived from 1830 until 1894. For the most part, these lyrics withstand basic theological scrutiny fairly well. Yet Rossetti incorporates snowy winter themes and references the Wise Men in a way that bolsters the fictitious narrative of popular Christmas lore, which does a grave disservice to the historical accuracy of Christ's birth.
1. In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan, earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone; snow had fallen, snow on snow, snow on snow, in the bleak midwinter, long ago.
2. Our God, heaven cannot hold him, nor earth sustain; heaven and earth shall flee away when he comes to reign. In the bleak midwinter a stable place sufficed the Lord God Almighty, Jesus Christ.
3. Angels and archangels may have gathered there, cherubim and seraphim thronged the air; but his mother only, in her maiden bliss, worshiped the beloved with a kiss.
4. What can I give him, poor as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb; if I were a Wise Man, I would do my part; yet what I can I give him: give my heart.
Thematically, the references to a "bleak midwinter" could be argued as being allegorical to the span of quiet time between the writing of the Old and New Testaments, when it's widely thought that God's presence had been generally withheld from our planet. Then too, since centuries ago, the Roman Catholic Church had moved the observance of Christmas to coincide with pagan celebrations of the Winter Solstice, which symbolizes a time of death between the seasons of decay and renewal, a "bleak midwinter" presents a poetic linkage between mortal sin and salvation.
For the artistic among us, appreciating these delicate abstractions may be a permissible way to forgive the historical inaccuracies that help to mythologize Christmas. However, their doing so does little to convey the universal application of the Christmas story to cultures where references to snow and its allegorical qualities risks tilting the Incarnation towards a Western - and therefore, foreign - aesthetic. Granted, the Holy Spirit can overcome any obstacle we Christians can put in the way of Christ's redemptive work, but how loving is it for us to intentionally complicate parts of the Gospel?
Let's Liberate Christmas From Ethnocentrism!
Maybe you don't mind singing songs that are exclusive to your culture and cohort. And in terms of everyday socialization, doing so isn't wrong, in and of itself. But when it comes to the Gospel, shouldn't we be seeking to free God's Good News from the shackles of our own cultural bondage? The message of God becoming incarnate for us is a global message. And it's not our message - it's God's!
For a full half of our planet, the midwinter is hardly bleak and snowy. For them, it's like North America's and Europe's summertime! If we sang Rossetti's song in Australia or Nigeria, we'd have to throw in the caveat, "well, this was written by a European white woman; you'll have to free it from its cultural baggage."
Maybe there are some Nigerian Christmas songs that talk about how hot and dusty it must have been during the winter when Christ was born. See how awkward that would be for us?
Therefore, shouldn't Christ's Nativity be equally relevant to all of God's Elect, no matter where we live? Or what our winters look like?
I'm not interested in preserving Western hymnody simply for nostalgia's sake. I think the bulk of Western hymnody should be applicable to as many cultures as possible, because it has that much theological and artistic integrity. It may have originated in Western cultures, but just like the message it declares, it can be universal in its applicability.
That's why it drives me nuts when church choirs like the one I'm in have to sing fluff like "In the Bleak Midwinter" during Advent.
How bleak, indeed!
_____
TO HELP WITH HURRICANE SANDY RELIEF EFFORTS:
What drives me nuts? Well, first is the realization that since we've hit November, from now until Christmas Day, we're going to be bombarded with Christmas music practically everywhere we go.
And I use the term "Christmas music" loosely, of course! Because what really drives me nuts is that so much of the "music" that's become part of our North American Christmas repertoire mythologizes the birth of Christ into some snowy, fuzzy fable.
Christmas Is No Myth
Aren't the facts of Christ's Incarnation far less pretty, cosseted, and downright white - both in terms of culture and snow - than we western Caucasian evangelicals insist on stereotyping them as?
Mary was a pregnant teenager who'd just finished a grueling trek forced upon her and her fiancé - who wasn't the father of her baby - by their imperious government. They ended up in a stable, with smelly hay, smelly farm animals, smelly excrement from those smelly farm animals, and no obstetrician, neonatal nurse, or midwife in sight. Their first visitors after Christ's birth were a group of illiterate, smelly shepherds, who couldn't stop rambling on about their frightful vision of angels in the night sky.
In addition, this all took place probably in March or April, not the dead of winter, and the magi were just starting out on their journey after seeing the star in the East. It would take them a couple of years to make it to the place where the young Christ child was. And by then, it wouldn't have been a stable.
And guess what - it hardly ever snows in temperate Bethlehem.
If we told the story authentically, wouldn't we see that the reality of Christ's birth was actually more profound than the insipid fantasy into which our culture has polished it? Our King of Kings came to His Creation in such a lowly manner! Thankfully, some of our songwriters have gotten it right, and attempted to marvel at what God considered to be His perfect way of introducing Christ to this planet. But it's hard for merchants to sell Christmas as an arduous, unsanitary, disenfranchised, and bizarre event. And unfortunately, the evangelical church has been mostly complicit with the Nativity's commercializers in making the Incarnation a sellable product for once-a-year churchgoers.
Instead of a more accurately awestruck accounting of the birth of this world's holy Savior.
Christmas Music Needs Authenticity
Regular readers of my blog essays know that I'm an unabashed advocate for classical hymnody. I actually believe that what we consider to be traditional corporate worship provides, on the whole, a focus on Christ and God's holiness that comes closer to what our Trinity expects when we gather together to honor Him. I'm willing to contend that culturally, our genre of classical music has become less a Caucasian, European contrivance as much as it has become a universally-renowned, broadly-appreciated style of stately repertoire uniquely suited to the worship of God, no matter where we're born, or in what society we've been raised.
Yes, that means some expressions of culture are better than others. It's a politically incorrect thing to say, and, some think, a woefully impertinent thing to believe. But it's true. No human culture is perfect, or even ideal. And many are utterly unBiblical. Doesn't this mean that, when it comes to how we express our adoration of God to Him, particularly in public, we can't rely on cultural norms to be adequate? Just because we're under the misapprehension that God values all cultural norms equally?
Don't we need to discriminate between what's good, and what's adequate, or even downright inappropriate?
When it comes to such cultural institutions as Christmas, shouldn't we resist the urge to let culture dictate our worship? Shouldn't communicating the glory of Christ's birth be done with as much theological and historical integrity as possible?
It Depends On Your Definition of "Midwinter"
Consider, then, one of these seasonal songs driving me nuts. It's called "In the Bleak Midwinter," and the text is by noted poet Christina Rossetti, who lived from 1830 until 1894. For the most part, these lyrics withstand basic theological scrutiny fairly well. Yet Rossetti incorporates snowy winter themes and references the Wise Men in a way that bolsters the fictitious narrative of popular Christmas lore, which does a grave disservice to the historical accuracy of Christ's birth.
1. In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan, earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone; snow had fallen, snow on snow, snow on snow, in the bleak midwinter, long ago.
2. Our God, heaven cannot hold him, nor earth sustain; heaven and earth shall flee away when he comes to reign. In the bleak midwinter a stable place sufficed the Lord God Almighty, Jesus Christ.
3. Angels and archangels may have gathered there, cherubim and seraphim thronged the air; but his mother only, in her maiden bliss, worshiped the beloved with a kiss.
4. What can I give him, poor as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb; if I were a Wise Man, I would do my part; yet what I can I give him: give my heart.
Thematically, the references to a "bleak midwinter" could be argued as being allegorical to the span of quiet time between the writing of the Old and New Testaments, when it's widely thought that God's presence had been generally withheld from our planet. Then too, since centuries ago, the Roman Catholic Church had moved the observance of Christmas to coincide with pagan celebrations of the Winter Solstice, which symbolizes a time of death between the seasons of decay and renewal, a "bleak midwinter" presents a poetic linkage between mortal sin and salvation.
For the artistic among us, appreciating these delicate abstractions may be a permissible way to forgive the historical inaccuracies that help to mythologize Christmas. However, their doing so does little to convey the universal application of the Christmas story to cultures where references to snow and its allegorical qualities risks tilting the Incarnation towards a Western - and therefore, foreign - aesthetic. Granted, the Holy Spirit can overcome any obstacle we Christians can put in the way of Christ's redemptive work, but how loving is it for us to intentionally complicate parts of the Gospel?
Let's Liberate Christmas From Ethnocentrism!
Maybe you don't mind singing songs that are exclusive to your culture and cohort. And in terms of everyday socialization, doing so isn't wrong, in and of itself. But when it comes to the Gospel, shouldn't we be seeking to free God's Good News from the shackles of our own cultural bondage? The message of God becoming incarnate for us is a global message. And it's not our message - it's God's!
For a full half of our planet, the midwinter is hardly bleak and snowy. For them, it's like North America's and Europe's summertime! If we sang Rossetti's song in Australia or Nigeria, we'd have to throw in the caveat, "well, this was written by a European white woman; you'll have to free it from its cultural baggage."
Maybe there are some Nigerian Christmas songs that talk about how hot and dusty it must have been during the winter when Christ was born. See how awkward that would be for us?
Therefore, shouldn't Christ's Nativity be equally relevant to all of God's Elect, no matter where we live? Or what our winters look like?
I'm not interested in preserving Western hymnody simply for nostalgia's sake. I think the bulk of Western hymnody should be applicable to as many cultures as possible, because it has that much theological and artistic integrity. It may have originated in Western cultures, but just like the message it declares, it can be universal in its applicability.
That's why it drives me nuts when church choirs like the one I'm in have to sing fluff like "In the Bleak Midwinter" during Advent.
How bleak, indeed!
_____
TO HELP WITH HURRICANE SANDY RELIEF EFFORTS:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)