Salt

Artie Shaw RIP

I first heard Artie Shaw in college about 15 years ago.  I was living with two Jazz musicians and a painter in a run down house a bit north of the campus.   We had in the CD player a contiuous rotation of Artie Shaw; Johnny Hartman; and Mingus [and yes, the occasional Public Enemy and Johnny Cash] while enjoying other sorts of college pleasures.   Anyway, here's an interview with him from 1999.

While in graduate school, I came across a local journal which included a great article by him. 

Peace be with you Artie. 

The End of the Year

Its the end of the year,
and I hope you've done well, or good.

That you've moved on from your regrets,
offered a little opening in your heart for God;
told a good story or two,
and listened to many more.

Last night I went salsa dancing, for the first time in a few months.
I'm a bit heavier than I was last year, but I can still spin.
I saw Susanna, who was the first girl I ever asked to dance,
about six years ago in a small club in midtown,
a dark Dominican beauty. 
That time, she was wearing a blue sequined miniskirt, silver heels
and a modest white blouse.   
Once we went out with a few of her girlfriends to a Thai restaurant after dancing.
Occasionally she called, although I rarely returned her messages. 
Late one evening about three years ago, I saw her face on a singles web-site;
it was oddly comforting to think we were equally lonely.
Once she called me a bit upset; she had discovered her boyfriend was married.

Last night she said, "it's so good to see you.  There's been no drama in my life."

When I first asked her to dance, she was the youngest person there - about thirty. 
I'd been declined several times, and she shyly agreed.

I saw a few other friends who'd gotten married, left for Paris, had a child, and returned.

A good evening.

Two Links:  An Eastern Orthodox Theologian reflects about the Tsunami

"As a Christian, I cannot imagine any answer to the question of evil likely to satisfy an unbeliever; I can note, though, that -- for all its urgency -- Voltaire's version of the question is not in any proper sense "theological." The God of Voltaire's poem is a particular kind of "deist" God, who has shaped and ordered the world just as it now is, in accord with his exact intentions, and who presides over all its eventualities austerely attentive to a precise equilibrium between felicity and morality. Not that reckless Christians have not occasionally spoken in such terms; but this is not the Christian God."

Also -   Dean John's St. Stephen's day  sermon:  " Oscar was a hero and a half, but he only did what we're all supposed to do. The word martyr is just Greek for 'witness' and that is what Jesus calls all of us to be: people who are willing to pay the price of telling the truth that is in us.

By witnessing I don't mean being pushy. In scripture the people who really speak for God are usually the opposite: Moses the stammerer; Isaiah who was obsessed with his own unworthiness; Jeremiah who was terminally depressed about everything; Jonah who ran away. They none of them wanted to speak. But that was tough. God wanted it."

I love stories like this. 

Here are some sites on bullying in the workplace. 

Have a merry, joyous, etc, etc.  "Come dancing..." 

Be Scared of the Religious Right

"I'm a Conservative Christian...."  by By Chuck Baldwin

The Religious Right offered virtually no resistance to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act, or the recently created position of National Intelligence Director. Neither did the Religious Right offer even a whimper of protest as President Bush and Republicans in Congress created a first-ever national ID card in the new intelligence bill, which eerily has more in common with early Twentieth Century German and Russian intelligence institutions than anything envisioned by America's Founding Fathers....

I don't remember anyone saying people voted "Christian" when they elected the outspoken Christian candidate, Jimmy Carter, President. Yet, Carter, in his personal life, demonstrated as much, if not more, Christianity than does George W. Bush. If you recall, Carter even taught Sunday School in a Southern Baptist Church while President....

Read it All

Property and Misinterpreting Genesis

Albertus Parvus is skeptical about my link between sex and property in the bible. 

My argument is that sex between straight people [which is more of a topic in scripture than homosexual acts] is regulated especially under property relations. Sex is assumed to be between men and women, in which women are owned by men. If not, Dt 5:21, for example, makes no sense.  Deuteronomy 22:13 –30 is similar -  The rules are about kinds of sexual relations within the context of a relationship where the man has ultimate authority.    In one place, it looks like the man doesn’t have to have sex with the woman – but since she is dishonored, he still needs to take care of her. This ONLY makes sense if there is some understanding of the man’s responsibility to an acquired piece of property.

Pfizer and the US

Apparently, Pfizer is giving $35 million to the victims of the Tsunami, matching the US.    The NYTimes complains about the US gift, agreeing with the comment Jan Egeland made, that the aid of westerna nations was "stingy."  The NY times compared the gift of the US to the costs of Bush's inauguration.   I don't think it's quite fair, as the donors to the inauguration are private donors, and the US doesn't need to give anyone anything.  Granted, if I were one of Bush's supporters, I'd donate to the Red Cross in Bush's name instead of the special feast, given these special circumstances.  And Bush could pull off quite a coup by exemplifying such Christian charity.   

But that a corporation is willing to give as much as the wealthiest nation in the world should give pause. 

It would be righteous if Bush decided to have a more modest celebration, a la Franklin Roosevelt's fourth inaugural, who's menu reflected a nation at war:  "cold chicken salad, rolls without butter, unfrosted pound cake, and coffee."   It would be, surely, a Christian gesture.

Colin Powell is right, however.  The US has been one of the most generous countries when it comes to natural disasters.   I do think that is changing, however, as the donor system continues to get politicized.

Speaking of Gin

This winter, I gave three bottles of gin away.  One to a friend who graciously hosted me this summer who loves martinis [he actually named his kid after me - <gush>]; another to my accountant; and one to the owner of the local saloon, who seems to have instructed the bartenders that my account is always paid for [I suspect he's a guilty Catholic of some sort], as the bartenders always wave me off when I am ready to pay.   I chose this Gin, which has now been mentioned in Wonkette.  I discovered it after taking my lady to this restaurant.  And now it will be the next big thing. 

[Sigh].

Chocolate Beer

In winter, I often enjoy a good Chocolate Stout.  No, they aren't unusually sweet - only in the beginning - you might even miss it.  The light sweetness is finished with a captivating, slightly bitter, roasted coffee taste that is thick and hearty.  They are a lot like Oatmeal Stouts in their richness.

Sam Adams has now made one.  The finest Chocolate stout, however, is Rogue which, conincidentally, has a photo of a family memeber on it.  Brooklyn's is also excellent.    

Tsunami

As a habit, on Sundays, I log on to Reuters, the WSJ or Yahoo to see if there is any breaking news; at 9:15 on December 26th, I read about the earthquake.  I did think about the consequent Tsunami.   

After, I spoke to a parishioner who's family lives in Malaysia; and a friend who is from Kerala.   The family was in France at the time, and my friend remarked that it was mainly Tamil Nadu that was affected.    The churches there are working hard to help. 

More than 1/3rd of the dead are children.

It makes so many of our little controversies seem small.  Even Iraq. 

Apparently they've found no dead animals in Sri Lanka.

Boing Boing has been following this very well. 

Oxfam and ERD [Episcopal Relief and Development] are good places to help. The news reports that the NGOs all say, "send money."  Here is a report.

Answering some Questions about Scripture

1. Aren’t you confusing duties/obligations with “ownership”? Most folks today would say parents have certain responsibilities to their children associated with rasing and educating them, and that children owe a corresponding duty of obedience to their parents. Would you describe parents as “owning” their children? Why or why not?

Owning property often conveys a sense of responsibility; not all sorts of obligations are related to ownership.  The sets often overlap.

Parents do, in some sense "own" their children and act as if they did.  At some point, a child "owns" his/herself.  I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps such a historian or even an anthropologist can answer this more precisely.

2. Your approach to human sexuality would apparently require Christianity to abandon 2,000 years of teaching on the subject. If the Church has been so wrong for such a long time, why remain a Christian? Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to denounce Christianity and walk away? What is the continuing attraction for you?

Christianity teaches that we are required to respect the sexuality of ourselves and others; that we engage in relationships that promote joy and abundance; that we do not humiliate others; that our lives, generally, are marked by certain fruits of the spirit.  If I were to abandon mutual respect, joy,  mutual submission, and social responsibility, then I would have to walk away from Christianity. 

The church is wrong insofar as it considers homosexuals defective Christians, or even, defective heterosexuals.  The church has abandoned several teachings along the way, and added others, and done quite well.

3. What model of Christian evangelization do you propose? Do you think many people will want to join a Church that has no creed, no scripture, no moral system not open to radical reinterpretation every generation? For argument’s sake, assume I will oppose any basic principles you propose using your own exegetical and interpretive methods.

I share my own Christian evanglization through prayer, the breaking of the bread, and the sharing of scripture.   I do not suggest, for example, radically reinterpreting scripture so that, for example, the sermon or the Lord's prayer gets replaced.  That's a worry conservatives have about liberals, not one liberals have about themselves. 

I note that, in my area, the Unitarian church is the fastest growing church.  I suppose that they do have a set of absolutist rules. 

My hermeneutical rules start with looking at how Jesus and Paul interpreted scripture. 

4. What does the OT understanding of blood have to do with anything? Keep in mind that I don’t really care what Muslims think about it.

A rupture between the practial understanding, plaintext understanding of blood of the Levites and our modern generation open up various hermeneutical problems in the importance of bodily fluids - a central reason we condemn homosexuality.  One liberal argument is the relationship between blood and sin has been ruptured as a form of practice.  Thus, certain categories of "sin" have been rendered irrelevant.

6. On behalf of Pontificator’s loyal readers I must ask the following: What is your position on Absolute Simplicity? Your answer cannot exceed 1000 lines of text.

Some times God is simple; some times he is absolute.  Othertimes God is mystery; and God is particular.    It is human sin to reduce God to our own needs; yet God blesses us anyway. 

7. Who was more absolutely brilliant and super-cool, Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud? I understand this may be a hard question for you, so take your time.

Marx had some interesting ideas about the power of capitalism to organize human society and about social relations [On the Jewish Question], and relationship of workers to their work [e.g. the concept of alienation] - his early essays.  Freud's understanding of melancholia and more generally, the unconscious were equally fruitful.  But like all thinkers, some of their ideas were accurate, but others of their ideas needed modification.   

Pontificator asks:

From what I have read of your writings, John, you have adopted a hermeneutical stance that makes it impossible for God ever to speak a historical word of moral instruction or judgment that you cannot reinterpret away according to your own lights.  Assume, for the moment, if you will, that God actually does disapprove of homoerotic relations and that the biblical proscriptions do actually express his divine will. Is should God have said or done to persuade you that this proscription originates with him? Is it ever possible for your God to ever speak a moral command in the past that binds you in the present?

I agree, actually, that most people tend to reinterpret away things that they don't like.  And to be honest, Pontificator, I'm not sure if I'm much different.   People are naturally pleasure seeking and justify it; restraint and repentance are in remarkably short supply.  No disagreement there.

God does not want ME to have homosexual relations with others - in part because I'm straight; that I'd probably be doing it simply to get play; because I wouldn't really want to do it anyway; or it would be involuntary. 

How do I know if I'm following God or not?  Well... how about faith in God's grace?  If I think God's grace would ask me to become more holy by giving up a certain form of being, then I'd make that change.  But in my life, sometimes rules interfere with one another and you make do.  That's life.  I hope I just don't have to face those times often, because sometimes all our decisions are evil. 

I'm not a situationist in part because I need some rules.  But I don't think that God needs rules; God's rules are for my sake.   

Granted, I think a God that opposes homosexual relations just because he doesn't like them, raises several practical problems.  So, are gay people, as a class, willfully evil [after all, gay people are not born gay - they choose it]?  Then, doesn't that justify an active, coherent, planned out way to eliminate them on our part?  Because, then, gay people are interinsically dangerous - for people's eternal souls.  If we do NOT do everything we can to eliminate them [for they are deliberately choosing evil] then we, ourselves, are collaborators, with the devil.  Pastoral care won't do - it doesn't work with Satan.  Our responsibility is clear. 

I suppose that this sort of God exists.  It is possible, although I don't recognize this sort of God in scripture, or on Jesus, or in my own life. 

I am willing to read Gagnon, but again, I suggest James Alison.  Alision is more firmly in the Catholic camp.  Granted, I think that Countryman is correct, but I don't have the technical expertise to judge vs. Gagnon.  From what I've read, I think Gagnon might be a bit stronger on the biblical end, but Countryman is the the more expansive theologian.

Other Questions from Albertus Parvus

Economic Orthodoxy Revealed

"Argentina's recovery has been undeniable, and it has been achieved at least in part by ignoring and even defying economic and political orthodoxy. Rather than moving to immediately satisfy bondholders, private banks and the I.M.F., as other developing countries have done in less severe crises, the Peronist-led government chose to stimulate internal consumption first and told creditors to get in line with everyone else."

... some of that record budget surplus has come from a pair of levies on exports and financial transactions that orthodox economists at the I.M.F. and elsewhere want to see repealed. About a third of government revenues are now raised by those taxes, which have surged.

"The I.M.F. wants these taxes to be eliminated, but on the other hand they also want Argentina to improve its offer to creditors and also pay back the fund so it can reduce its own exposure here," said Alan Cibils, an Argentine economist associated with the independent Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Public Policy here. "In other words, they are saying, 'You have to pay out more and take in less,' which is a sure prescription for another crisis."

The IMF is again revealed to be defenders of market fundamentalism, with no concern about the fact the people are working, there is a budget surpluse, and there are plenty of countries seeking to invest in Argentina.  The problem: those countries aren't running the IMF.

Read it all