Please Say I Died

I am very, very tired of the dreadful euphemisms our culture has coined to keep from facing death. This sappy lingo has even invaded the church. I hear it there often. And that makes me very uneasy.

You know what I mean: “he passed away,” they say, or “passed on,” or even simply, “he passed.” Passed what, I wonder. My house? The bar? A car going in the same direction? Counterfeit money? The time? A kidney stone? Or maybe just gas?

I suppose the verbal muddle of “passing away” would be harmless if it weren’t so dishonest. “Passing” language tries to pretty up a reality we just don’t want to talk about. “She passed”... say, into the next room, and maybe she’ll be coming back soon. All very smooth and controlled.

But it is also (pardon the expression) dead wrong. Fact is, at the end comes not passing, but death. And death is total. Unmitigated. Unmalleable. Inescapable. Absolute. It is not transformation into a wispy, ethereal spirit world. It is the very opposite of being, knowing, doing, feeling, having and holding in every way we now know. And that is stark -- clearly too stark for many people.

But I am troubled not only by the awful avoidance involved in these uninspiring circumlocutions. Ultimately death-evading talk fails to do justice to my faith. I believe in resurrection. I believe in the power of God to raise up and recreate and make new. I find this compelling promise about resurrection in the Bible: “Since we have become one with [Christ] by dying as he did, in the same way we shall be one with him by being raised to life as he was.” (Romans 6:5 - TEV)

Suppose we fix the holy story to support our ways of dealing with death.  What would we say? Possibly, “Jesus passed away on Good Friday.” Or liturgically, “Christ has passed away. Christ has passed on. Christ will pass this way again.” And we would have Bible verses like, “O passing away, where is your sting?” You get the idea.

Here’s my point: resurrection is about dis-continuity, not continuity. Resurrection does not consist in any inherent worthiness on my part to go on living in some transformed way in another mode called heaven. It consists in God’s unfailing love. It consists in God’s unflagging power. It consists in the unimaginable moment offered to us in the promises of God, and exemplified for us in the astonishing model of Jesus Christ.

So “passing” just won’t do. It wouldn’t do for Jesus. And it will not do for me. In order to be raised like Christ, first I have to die.

So please, please, when I am no more, please say I died!

The Real Reason Bachmann's Campaign "Fizzled"

On January 13, 2012 USA Today ran a political analysis article on “Nine Reasons the Bachmann Campaign Fizzled.” It was a masterpiece of mis-direction.

For some incredible reason the author, Jennifer Jacobs of the Des Moines Register, found only technical reasons for the implosion of the Bachmann effort. Jacobs focused on the campaign’s failure to make use of contact information garnered from supporter cards -- so nobody got called and asked for money, which resulted in a lack of funding for commercials. There was as well infighting among the staff, logistical and timing snafus, and the candidate’s lack of awareness of what the campaign required of her (she left events early and didn’t schmooze). Sexist wariness towards a female candidate played a part. Staffers mistakenly fed her misinformation. And aides felt slighted, the poor dears.

I don’t doubt that all these factors were part of the debacle. But there is another, much more gigantic reason for Michelle Bachmann’s deserved drop in the polls. The Bachmann campaign fizzled because her message was simplistic, insipid, misguided, zany, wrong.

Does Ms. Jacobs think that Michelle Bachmann was ever a viable candidate? Does she really believe Bachmann ever had a chance -- that all she had to do was run a technically correct campaign? Or did she just not dare to consider the absurdities of Bachmann’s message? Is form the only thing that matters? What about substance? As it turned out, people listened to her message, weighed it against reality, and concluded, “No.”

Does this mean there is hope for democracy? I hope so!

The Public Option

As our nation struggles yet again to identify what is best accomplished by the private sector, and what is our shared public responsibility as a “common weal,” I submit the following extracts from the first volume of the Records of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. (I have recast the original in more contemporary spelling, since the blog publisher didn’t seem to like superscriptions. Page numbers and dates are attached to each entry).

These records from 1628 through 1641 offer evidence of considerable government intervention in health care and quality of life issues in the earliest days of Massachusetts. Apparently the Puritans trusted government to work. They seemed to have expected it to make life better, healthier, safer.

THE PUBLIC OPTION

Mr Thomas Oliver is granted 15£ for recovering Daniell Mansfelt, having had him in hand since winter was twelve month, & being yet further to help him, he was so frozen./ May 13, 1640 [I, 290]

Whereas Thomas Lane, late servant to John Burslyn, by the providence of God, is fallen lame & impotent, & hath since remained at Dorchester, where he hath been chargeable to that plantation, & like so to continue, it is therefore ordered, that the inhabitants of Wessaguscus shall send to Dorchester for the said Thomas Lane, & shall pay for all the charges they have been at in keeping him during his abode at Dorchester./ June 3, 1634 [I, 121]

For Robert Cutler, in regard of his lameness, charge, & weak estate, by reason of his long sickness, the deacons of Charlestown were wished to see him, & affoard such help as is needful, & bring in their bills, & the Treasurer to pay the same./ October 28, 1636 [I,183]
George Munnings is granted 5£ in regard of the loss of his eye in the voyage to Block Hand./ October 28, 1636 [I, 183]

The fines of this week are agreed to be given to George Munnings, who lost his eye in the country’s service, & this to be added to the 5£ given before./ October 28, 1636 [I, 184]

HEALTH CARE

William Swifte promiseth to gyve xx£ towards the cure of his late servant, infirm & lame./ April 7, 1635

CONSUMER PROTECTION

It is ordered, that no bread shall be made finer then to afford at 12 ounces the two penny loaf, & whosoever selleth lighter weight to forfeit his bread. This to bee of force within 14 days after publication./ May 13, 1640 [I, 296]

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

William Blanton, appearing, was enjoined to appear at the next Court with all the men that were in the canoe with him, & [Thomas] Aplegate, which owned the canoe out of which the 3 persons were drowned; & it was ordered, that no canoe should bee used at any ferry upon pain of 5£, nor no canoe to be made in our jurisdiction before the next General Court, upon pain of 10£./ December 4, 1638 [I, 246]

William Blanton, William Potter, Robert Thorpe, Henry Neale, John Fitch, & Thomas Aplegate, appearing, were discharged, with an admonition not to adventure too many into any boat./ March 5, 1639 [I, 249]

It is ordered, that no man should carry over any other at a ferry with a canoe, under pain to forfeit the canoe to the treasury./ May 13, 1640

GUN CONTROL

Further, it is ordered, that if any person shall shoot of any piece after the watch is set, he shall forfeit 40s, or if the Court shall judge him unable, then to be whipped; the second fault to be punished by the Court as an offence of an higher nature./ April 12, 1631 [I, 85]

It is ordered, that the captain & officers shall take especial care to search all pieces that are brought into the field for being charged, & that no person whatsoever shall att any time charge any piece of service with bullets or shot, other than for defense of their houses, or at command from the captain, upon such penalty as the Court shall think meet to inflict./ July 3, 1632 [I, 98]

IMMIGRATION

It is ordered, that the Scottish & Irish gentlemen which intends to come hither shall have liberty to sit down in any place upon Merrimack River, not prepossessed by any./ September 25, 1634 [I, 129]

It is ordered, that the goods of the persons come from Ireland shall be free from this [tax] rate./ May 13, 1640 [I, 295]

SMOKING

It is further ordered, that noe pson shall take any tobacco publicly, under pain of punishment; also that every one shall pay 1d for every time he is convicted for taking tobacco in any place, & that any Assistant shall have power to receive evidence & give order for the levying of it, as also to give order for the levying of the officers charge; this order to begin the 10th of November next./ October 3, 1632 [I, 101]

WELFARE

It was ordered, that such moneys as shall be laid out for the maintenance of Widow Bosworth & her family, shall be paid again by the Treasurer./ August 5, 1634 [I, 123]

HOMELAND SECURITY

Whereas many complaints have been made to this Court, both formerly & at present, of the great neglect of all sorts of people of using the lawful & necessary means of their safety, especially in this time of so much/great danger from the Indians, it is therefore ordered, that the military officers in every town shall provide that the watches bee duly kept in places most fit for common safety, & also a ward on the Lords days, the same to begin before the end of this first month, & to be continued until the end of September; & that every person above the age of 18 years (except magistrates & elders of the churches) shall be compellable to this service, either in person or by some substitute, to be allowed by him that hath the charge of the watch or ward for that time, upon pain of 5s for every default, to be levied by distress by the surveyor of the arms, & to be employed for light & fire, & such necessaries, by the discretion of the military officers./

And all such persons (except such as some Courte or the counsel shall see cause to dispense with, & except those of Boston who shall herein be ordered by the magistrates there) shall come to the public assemblies with their muskets, or other pieces fit for service, furnished with match, powder, & bullets, upon pain of 12d for every default, to be levied & employed as aforesaid./

And no person shall travel above one mile from his dwelling house, except in places where other houses are near together, without some arms, upon pain of 12d for every default, to be levied & employed as aforesaid./

And every town shall provide a sufficient watch house before the last of the 5th month next, upon pain of 5£./ March 9, 1637 [I, 190]

With Christians Like This...

This disgusting news from Southern California offers even more evidence of the anger which is so rife these days. It also provides a good reason to stay away from Church. If this is really the Christians way, who’d want to join up?

Baptist Pastor Says He Prayed Murtha to Death

Southern Baptist Pastor Wiley Drake of Buena Park sent out an email Monday night, saying that perhaps his prayers had been answered with the death of Rep. John Murtha yesterday.

“Maybe God took him out,” Drake wrote. “Maybe God answered our imprecatory prayer that we prayed every 30 days.” …

“It’s not distasteful to pray the word of God and include somebody’s name,” he said. “I didn’t celebrate his death. I said maybe it was God’s answer to our imprecatory prayer.”

One good thing: the President of the Southern Baptist Convention has roundly criticized Drake for his “unbiblical” position. But it’s all pretty sick, if you ask me.

"W" -- Mission Accomplished!

With the conclusion of George W. Bush's tenure as President, many thoughtful commentators have hurled a strong strain of angry criticism in his direction, like so many shoes. As he left the White House he was deeply unpopular, his administration practically paralyzed since last fall and apparently clueless in the face of an enormous economic crisis. Though the President-elect was largely powerless until January 20, it seemed everyone was turning against Bush and toward his successor, eagerly awaiting Barack Obama's leadership. The question has even been raise whether George W. Bush was the worst American President ever. As he was occasionally caught on camera in his final months doing a little jig, smiling, some have wondered how in the world he could be so cheerful? Is he a man of limiter abilities? Does he just not get it?

I believe most of his critics do in fact "misunderestimate" (to use a word he coined) the considerable achievement of George W. Bush.

The real measure of the man has to be in how he fulfilled his goals, his intentions, his objectives -- how he lived out his deepest convictions. I believe he deserves high marks in that regard. But I know I have to explain that strange and probably unexpected conclusion!

George W. Bush was the first Confederate President of the United States of America. I understand Confederacy in this sense to be a warmed-over feudalism growing out of an age-old culture found in the southern states. It is top-down in every respect. The one at the top is the "Decider." Confederacy assumes a government of our betters, with "betters" identified by their wealth. It assumes as well a comprehensive matrix of patron-client relationships, and relies on them to provide a place for everyone at each person's appropriate stratum. It expects most people to function as serfs. It is driven by fear, and does not hesitate to use fear to keep order. It is not particularly concerned with the making of things (so outsourcing manufacturing to other countries is just fine). It is more concerned with the possession of wealth (King Cotton, King Oil). I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

To secure this vision, it was important to shovel as much money as possible upward to those who have shown that they already have wealth (and presumably know what to do with it -- a dicey assumption). As Mr. Bush himself said to a group of backers and friends, "Some call you the super-rich; I call you my base." The idea is, if we do not take care of the very wealthiest, our betters, whatever will become of the rest of us?

In striving to accomplish his goals President Bush never wavered on cutting taxes for the very rich -- the Thanes of Walmart, the Dukes of Microsoft, the Satraps of Wall Street. He remained dogged on this issue in the face of all reason: a veritable "pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity," as he so memorably phrased it. He did his best to provide fresh meat to the system that created him by doing his best to open corporate access to natural resources on public lands. He made government regulation of charted financial institutions as lax as possible. He helped to exacerbate the dangerously growing gap between the tiny minority of the wealthiest and the vast majority of the people in our country, many of whom have seen their purchasing power decrease at an alarming rate.

It will take years to reverse President Bush's achievements. But putting the principles of Confederacy in place was the real goal of his presidency, and he succeeded admirably at it, because he was fully committed to it. So George W. Bush had much to celebrate as he left for Texas. The wars, the housing meltdown and subsequent economic fiascos, the erosion of civil and human rights -- well, they were all tangential to the main task: "Project Confederacy." Mission accomplished!

Benedict Discovers America

To mark the Pope’s arrival in America, the Roman daily Il Messaggero carried an editorial on April 17, 2008, about freedom and religion. (“La dignità della fede nella libertà dei laici,” p. 25, by Giuseppe Mammarella.) The piece quotes Pope Benedict XVI as saying, “I find it fascinating that in this nation [the United States] a positive concept of secularism (laicità) is affirmed.” He would actually like the American model to inspire a new vitality for Church life in Europe.

The article also suggested (it seems to me) the source of this “positive concept of laicity / secularism” that the Pope finds so appealing. “There are two elements expressed in American history,” claims the editorial, “the experience of the first Puritan communities in their search for a freedom of religion denied in Europe, which merges with the secular vision of the founding fathers...” The Puritans valued “laicity” as living in the world as people of faith. Being “secular” in the sense of engaging the time and place where they found themselves was a vital form of Puritan spirituality, and quite central to their enterprise. No cloistering allowed. And that helped to give a different face to Christianity in America. “Fascinating,” says the Pope.

Ah, welcome to America!

Great Investment Advice!

Back in July I made a great investment, and I can’t tell you how pleased I am with its performance since then. I realize you don’t usually share investing secrets like this, but this is too good to keep to myself.

Following a trip to Greece I ended up with € 26,26. The bills and coins, including a very tiny European cent, are still sitting in a neat pile on top of my dresser.

When I reached home on July 4 that sum amounted to U.S. $35.79. But today it’s worth $38.52. In exactly three months I’ve made $2.73, or roughly 7½ %. On an annual basis, that will be a profit of over 22%. And as I say, I don’t have to do a thing; the money just sits there.

I think I’ve done pretty well, if I do say so myself! But not so well as a computer wizard I met in an airport, who put all his money in euros when the incumbent President was elected in 2000. That guy has done very well.