Like most everybody I know, I love a bargain. I love getting a real deal! That's why I'm signed up for not one but two of the e-mail coupon services that provide a daily e-mail with the chance to purchase a really good coupon. Usually it amounts to 50%--sometimes in the form of a two-for-one offer.
I've gotten several good meals this way from local restaurants wanting to lure me in. I've saved money on coffee at Starbucks. And the best deal of all was the coupon that provided $200 off a mattress just when we were looking for a new one for our guest room! We got a $400 mattress for half-price! You have to be careful, and only buy what you really need--but that's always true with coupons!
I must say though that I was a bit surprised, and somewhat upset, by the e-mail that arrived yesterday offering a deal on a concealed weapons permit class. For only $29 I could purchase a $64 two-hour class, that according to the e-mail, would "qualify [me] to apply for a state CWP/CCW* permit." I would be trained in an air-conditioned facility, the e-mail said, and would even have the application forms provided for me. I would also need a passport photo (not included) and I would have to be fingerprinted at "a local law enforcement agency." (Groupon, 10-2-12)
Maybe I just don't get it--but it seems to me there ought to be a whole lot more to it than that. I don't really understand the need to carry a concealed weapon in the first place--I can't see that it really makes for a greater degree of safety in society. But if we are going to have such permits available, shouldn't it involve more than a $29 class and a two-hour training session? Apparently others disagree--the last time I checked, 340 people had ordered the coupon. I'm sorry, that just doesn't make me feel safer.
*Concealed Weapon Permit/Carrying a Concealed Weapon
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Was Jesus Married?
Karen King is a respected Harvard scholar, an expert in Coptic literature among other things. And, like any good scholar, she is very careful in her work to clearly articulate the boundaries of her research. So when she revealed that she held in her possession a scrap of papyrus, probably dating back to the fourth century, that had inscribed on it the words "Jesus said to them, "My wife . . . " she was made certain folks knew that if it was indeed genuine, all it proved was that folks were talking about the issue of Jesus' marital status in ancient times. It doesn't answer the question "Was Jesus married?" Rather it demonstrates that modern authors like Dan Brown and Nikos Kazanzatkis weren't the first folks to be intrigued by the possibility.
It does provide some interesting possibilities. Married life is different from single life. And it certainly challenges any clerical system built on the idea that celibacy and singlehood are essential for ordination because "that was how Jesus himself did it". But in the end, I wonder is it really all that crucial to our faith, or rather, is talking about it yet another way to avoid dealing with the matters that really energized the ministry of the man of Nazareth?
Those who aren't Christian themselves must scratch their heads and wonder each time we come up with some other intellectual diversion. They must wonder why we don't just get down to the business of following the one we call Lord and Savior. They must wonder why we don't do a better job of tending to the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed. Jesus never said, "Figure out my marital status!" Jesus never said, "Develop a lavish set of doctrines." No, Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." Jesus said, "As you do to the least of these my brothers and sisters so you do to me."
Was Jesus married? Two thousand years later I don't really think it matters very much. What really matters is whether or not we follow his way. Whether we are married or single, gay or straight, male or female, all of us who claim to be his followers ought to spend more of our time caring for the sheep, and less time worrying about the marital status of the shepherd.
It does provide some interesting possibilities. Married life is different from single life. And it certainly challenges any clerical system built on the idea that celibacy and singlehood are essential for ordination because "that was how Jesus himself did it". But in the end, I wonder is it really all that crucial to our faith, or rather, is talking about it yet another way to avoid dealing with the matters that really energized the ministry of the man of Nazareth?
Those who aren't Christian themselves must scratch their heads and wonder each time we come up with some other intellectual diversion. They must wonder why we don't just get down to the business of following the one we call Lord and Savior. They must wonder why we don't do a better job of tending to the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed. Jesus never said, "Figure out my marital status!" Jesus never said, "Develop a lavish set of doctrines." No, Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." Jesus said, "As you do to the least of these my brothers and sisters so you do to me."
Was Jesus married? Two thousand years later I don't really think it matters very much. What really matters is whether or not we follow his way. Whether we are married or single, gay or straight, male or female, all of us who claim to be his followers ought to spend more of our time caring for the sheep, and less time worrying about the marital status of the shepherd.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Much Ado About Movies
Back in 1988 Martin Scorsese released a film based on Nikos Kazantzakis' novel The Last Temptation of Christ. It proved to be a very controversial film that offered up a fictional account of the life of Jesus. It was laced with very human emotions like doubt and lust, and portrayed Jesus as having a relationship with Mary Magdalene.
Even though Scorsese clearly stated he was not presenting a gospel account, he was roundly criticized by folks on the right. Many a preacher warned against seeing this "blasphemous" film. I did not. In fact, I went to see it--partly out of curiosity, and partly out of my love for the writing of Kazantzakis. When I arrived at the little art house cinema in Albany, New York, however, I had to cross a picket line. I was urged by the picketers to reconsider buying a ticket. I was offered tracts which told the gospel story from their perspective. But that said, nobody hit me. Nobody threatened to kill me. And nobody burned down the theatre. And at its best, that is the American way. You can make a film that deals with even the most sacred of subjects in what some might see as a blasphemous manner, but you can also protest the making of such a film. Freedom of expression, in the end, must cut both ways!
I thought about that experience as I was pondering the current situation in the Middle East. And I was reminded how precious free speech truly is. Throughout most of human history, including most of American history, folks have been constrained in their legal right to speak their minds. And, sadly, it has often been Christians who have tried to squelch free speech. Think Inquisition. Think Puritans. Think the Klan. But today, in America, we do have that right, that privilege--and it is largely respected.
But with privilege, my father used to say, there always comes responsibility. Or as someone else once noted, free speech isn't always free. Nor should it be!
The making of Innocence of Muslims, the film behind much of the current unrest, was and is a misguided use of free speech. Not necessarily an illegal use of it, but misguided, even immoral. But the undisciplined protests against that film are also a misguided use of free expression. And when they turn violent, not just misguided, but wrong.
My father also used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." The current controversy is a real case in point.
Even though Scorsese clearly stated he was not presenting a gospel account, he was roundly criticized by folks on the right. Many a preacher warned against seeing this "blasphemous" film. I did not. In fact, I went to see it--partly out of curiosity, and partly out of my love for the writing of Kazantzakis. When I arrived at the little art house cinema in Albany, New York, however, I had to cross a picket line. I was urged by the picketers to reconsider buying a ticket. I was offered tracts which told the gospel story from their perspective. But that said, nobody hit me. Nobody threatened to kill me. And nobody burned down the theatre. And at its best, that is the American way. You can make a film that deals with even the most sacred of subjects in what some might see as a blasphemous manner, but you can also protest the making of such a film. Freedom of expression, in the end, must cut both ways!
I thought about that experience as I was pondering the current situation in the Middle East. And I was reminded how precious free speech truly is. Throughout most of human history, including most of American history, folks have been constrained in their legal right to speak their minds. And, sadly, it has often been Christians who have tried to squelch free speech. Think Inquisition. Think Puritans. Think the Klan. But today, in America, we do have that right, that privilege--and it is largely respected.
But with privilege, my father used to say, there always comes responsibility. Or as someone else once noted, free speech isn't always free. Nor should it be!
The making of Innocence of Muslims, the film behind much of the current unrest, was and is a misguided use of free speech. Not necessarily an illegal use of it, but misguided, even immoral. But the undisciplined protests against that film are also a misguided use of free expression. And when they turn violent, not just misguided, but wrong.
My father also used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." The current controversy is a real case in point.
Monday, September 10, 2012
SPEAK UP I'M HARD OF HEARING!
I don't know about anybody else, but I have started to turn a deaf ear, so to speak, to much of the political jabbering that is going on all around me. On television, in the newspapers, online . . . we are being constantly assaulted by the noise of the campaigns. Everybody is talking all at once, making it very hard to hear!
In her later years my grandmother became very hard of hearing. Indeed it bordered on deafness. She wore two hearing aids (the old fashioned kind, very bulky, very visible) and she hated them. They never seemed to work quite right. She also wore a button on her jacket which read "SPEAK UP I'M HARD OF HEARING!" Still, much of the time she found it very difficult to understand what was said by others. And the thing that bothered and confused her most was background noise.
Whenever we went to visit Grandma, we would take her out to eat. She really enjoyed going to restaurants, except for one thing: there's nothing noisier than a crowded dining room. First there's the chatter of staff and patrons, then you add the clatter of dishes and silverware, and, of course, that curse of modern times, Muzak. To make our meals with my grandmother enjoyable for all of us, we always had to insist on a corner booth. And then, Grandma had to sit in the corner itself. That way much of the background noise was blocked out and she could focus on what we were saying. For Grandma to be able to hear the conversation, she really had to focus and listen.
And so it is in this campaign season--to really hear what the candidates are saying, we have to listen. We have to block out all the chatter and jabbering and nonsense, and really focus on the issues. It's not easy--it never was easy for Grandma, even in the corner booth. But in the end, even though she was almost deaf, she could still hear because she was willing to focus and listen. Maybe we can also really hear in this campaign season if we are willing to do the same.
In her later years my grandmother became very hard of hearing. Indeed it bordered on deafness. She wore two hearing aids (the old fashioned kind, very bulky, very visible) and she hated them. They never seemed to work quite right. She also wore a button on her jacket which read "SPEAK UP I'M HARD OF HEARING!" Still, much of the time she found it very difficult to understand what was said by others. And the thing that bothered and confused her most was background noise.
Whenever we went to visit Grandma, we would take her out to eat. She really enjoyed going to restaurants, except for one thing: there's nothing noisier than a crowded dining room. First there's the chatter of staff and patrons, then you add the clatter of dishes and silverware, and, of course, that curse of modern times, Muzak. To make our meals with my grandmother enjoyable for all of us, we always had to insist on a corner booth. And then, Grandma had to sit in the corner itself. That way much of the background noise was blocked out and she could focus on what we were saying. For Grandma to be able to hear the conversation, she really had to focus and listen.
And so it is in this campaign season--to really hear what the candidates are saying, we have to listen. We have to block out all the chatter and jabbering and nonsense, and really focus on the issues. It's not easy--it never was easy for Grandma, even in the corner booth. But in the end, even though she was almost deaf, she could still hear because she was willing to focus and listen. Maybe we can also really hear in this campaign season if we are willing to do the same.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
On Getting Out the Vote--Your Own That Is!
I recently visited Philadelphia. It was a short stay, barely twenty-four hours. So I didn't get to the Museum of Art. I didn't run up and down the "Rocky" steps. And I didn't have a cheese steak. (My doctor would approve!) But I did spend some time in the Historic District.
Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell are always a real thrill--but the highlight of the visit for me was the National Constitution Center. In the main exhibit hall, the Center has a masterful display called the Chronology Wall. In many different parts, it traces the history of our nation, and the ongoing struggle for the various rights we enjoy as Americans. One especially intriguing part of the exhibit were several interactive stations where you could answer a series of questions, hit a button, and discover if you would have been eligible to vote at that particular time in history. The questions included things like "Are you male?" "Are you a property owner?" "Are you white?"
As I explored the exhibit there were two children just ahead of me, a little boy and a little girl. As they stood in front of a display marking the late nineteenth century, the little girl, who was probably six or seven, entered answers in the interactive part of the exhibit. When the results came up, she placed her little hands on her hips and said, rather indignantly, "What? Women can't vote yet?"
We tend to forget that the right to vote was not granted all adult Americans right from the start. We tend to forget that it has taken many, many struggles to extend the franchise to most of our citizens. It is a hard won right and honor to vote. Yet in any given election, a significant number of us fail to go to the polls, fail to exercise that right. Sometimes only a tiny minority of voters pull a lever or mark a ballot.
In this time of conventions, in this season of campaigning, one can easily fall into a sense of despair and frustration about politics and parties and politicians. But if you don't vote, you can't change anything. That's how the system works--but only if you are willing to work it!
I have a suggestion: this year, let's make it a rule, if you don't vote, you can't complain. Either way it strikes me that it would make the world a bit better!
Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell are always a real thrill--but the highlight of the visit for me was the National Constitution Center. In the main exhibit hall, the Center has a masterful display called the Chronology Wall. In many different parts, it traces the history of our nation, and the ongoing struggle for the various rights we enjoy as Americans. One especially intriguing part of the exhibit were several interactive stations where you could answer a series of questions, hit a button, and discover if you would have been eligible to vote at that particular time in history. The questions included things like "Are you male?" "Are you a property owner?" "Are you white?"
As I explored the exhibit there were two children just ahead of me, a little boy and a little girl. As they stood in front of a display marking the late nineteenth century, the little girl, who was probably six or seven, entered answers in the interactive part of the exhibit. When the results came up, she placed her little hands on her hips and said, rather indignantly, "What? Women can't vote yet?"
We tend to forget that the right to vote was not granted all adult Americans right from the start. We tend to forget that it has taken many, many struggles to extend the franchise to most of our citizens. It is a hard won right and honor to vote. Yet in any given election, a significant number of us fail to go to the polls, fail to exercise that right. Sometimes only a tiny minority of voters pull a lever or mark a ballot.
In this time of conventions, in this season of campaigning, one can easily fall into a sense of despair and frustration about politics and parties and politicians. But if you don't vote, you can't change anything. That's how the system works--but only if you are willing to work it!
I have a suggestion: this year, let's make it a rule, if you don't vote, you can't complain. Either way it strikes me that it would make the world a bit better!
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
All's NOT Fair in Love and War
As a general rule I don't criticize books, movies, television programs and other such things before I've seen, heard or read them. But I need to make an exception when it comes to the new NBC reality show called Stars Earn Stripes. In case you've missed it, the format involves training non-military folks like Dean Cain, Laila Ali and Picabo Street in basic military skills and then engaging them in a contest utilizing those same skills. To give it an air of respectability General Wesley Clark hosts the program, and real members of the military train with the cast.
The show has been criticized by a group of Nobel Peace Prize winners in a beautifully crafted letter that states "Preparing for war is neither amusing nor entertaining." The writers of the letter, including Desmond Tutu, express their concern that the show glorifies war and violence. NBC, in a statement released in defense of the program, stated that the show isn't "a glorification of war, but a glorification of service."
Not having seen it, I don't know if it glorifies war or not. But it's very existence does trivialize war. It's very existence trivializes military service. War is deadly. Military service involves tremendous commitment and risk. Unlike this program, warfare is not a game. Losers can't come back for a finale show at the end.
(I have the same basic problem with other reality shows as well. The Bachelor, for instance, takes the enormously important rituals of courtship and love and turns them into a contest. Yes, The Dating Game in earlier times did much the same thing--but nobody pretended it was reality!)
They say all's fair in love and war--but this kind of trivialization is anything but fair. It does a grave injustice to all those who've ever served in the military, all those who've ever lost their lives or limbs in the midst of bombings and battle, all those whose reality has truly been changed by war.
The show has been criticized by a group of Nobel Peace Prize winners in a beautifully crafted letter that states "Preparing for war is neither amusing nor entertaining." The writers of the letter, including Desmond Tutu, express their concern that the show glorifies war and violence. NBC, in a statement released in defense of the program, stated that the show isn't "a glorification of war, but a glorification of service."
Not having seen it, I don't know if it glorifies war or not. But it's very existence does trivialize war. It's very existence trivializes military service. War is deadly. Military service involves tremendous commitment and risk. Unlike this program, warfare is not a game. Losers can't come back for a finale show at the end.
(I have the same basic problem with other reality shows as well. The Bachelor, for instance, takes the enormously important rituals of courtship and love and turns them into a contest. Yes, The Dating Game in earlier times did much the same thing--but nobody pretended it was reality!)
They say all's fair in love and war--but this kind of trivialization is anything but fair. It does a grave injustice to all those who've ever served in the military, all those who've ever lost their lives or limbs in the midst of bombings and battle, all those whose reality has truly been changed by war.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Too Important for Chicken Fights
Make no mistake, I like chicken sandwiches. And I think the pickle chip is a nifty touch! But I really think the current debate over same-sex marriage is too important for chicken fights. Really. I think both sides have turned what should be a considered and thoughtful debate into a real circus. Since when is my preference in fast food (probably a poor choice to begin with) indicative of my stand on such a significant issue? And a Kiss In? I’m sorry, it just doesn’t work for me!
If you want to have a day set aside to appreciate the poultry at Chick-fil-A, well then go for it! But people should be willing to be more straightforward (pardon the pun) about their views on same sex marriage than simply standing in line at the take out counter. And if you really oppose Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s views on the matter, then write him a letter, write the editor a letter, or, better yet, volunteer to work with and for any of the organizations working around the country to make sam-sex marriage legal.
I took time to actually look up the article about Cathy and his business that started the whole conflagration. It’s an interesting piece about a man who seeks to run his business based on his values. And some of what he says is really right on the money. “Jesus,” he told a Baptist Press reporter, “had a lot of things to say about people who work and live in the business community.” (Baptist Press, 7-16-12) And so he did! But none of it, as I remember, had anything to do with same-sex marriage. It had to do with treating workers fairly and reaching out to the poor, and a variety of other issues. The article also noted how Chick-fil-A restaurants are closed on Sundays, that too is part of Cathy’s value-based approach. It’s a real way of honoring the sabbath. Sure, it’s a counter-cultural move, but I find it to be rather refreshing!
But when it comes to the same-sex marriage issue, I think Cathy’s got it wrong. He told that same reporter, "We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give thanks to God for that.” As they should—we should be willing to thank God for all the things we perceive to be blessings in our lives. But to assume there is just one model for marriage in the Bible is just poor exegesis. Even worse to imply there is only one way to be a family! Better scholars than I have pointed out that there are a variety of models in scripture—including polygamy!
Cathy has invested a great deal of his own money in the movement to stop same-sex marriage. And he has strongly enunciated his views. Rather than wrangling about chicken, I think his supporters and his detractors, if they feel strongly about the issue, should be willing to do the same. I don’t agree with Dan Cathy. I don’t support his perspective on the matter. But he has a right to his opinion. So do his opponents.
Let’s stop playing chicken. Let’s really work on the issue in a way that reflects the dignity and importance of marriage. There's a lot more at stake here than where to go for lunch.
If you want to have a day set aside to appreciate the poultry at Chick-fil-A, well then go for it! But people should be willing to be more straightforward (pardon the pun) about their views on same sex marriage than simply standing in line at the take out counter. And if you really oppose Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s views on the matter, then write him a letter, write the editor a letter, or, better yet, volunteer to work with and for any of the organizations working around the country to make sam-sex marriage legal.
I took time to actually look up the article about Cathy and his business that started the whole conflagration. It’s an interesting piece about a man who seeks to run his business based on his values. And some of what he says is really right on the money. “Jesus,” he told a Baptist Press reporter, “had a lot of things to say about people who work and live in the business community.” (Baptist Press, 7-16-12) And so he did! But none of it, as I remember, had anything to do with same-sex marriage. It had to do with treating workers fairly and reaching out to the poor, and a variety of other issues. The article also noted how Chick-fil-A restaurants are closed on Sundays, that too is part of Cathy’s value-based approach. It’s a real way of honoring the sabbath. Sure, it’s a counter-cultural move, but I find it to be rather refreshing!
But when it comes to the same-sex marriage issue, I think Cathy’s got it wrong. He told that same reporter, "We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give thanks to God for that.” As they should—we should be willing to thank God for all the things we perceive to be blessings in our lives. But to assume there is just one model for marriage in the Bible is just poor exegesis. Even worse to imply there is only one way to be a family! Better scholars than I have pointed out that there are a variety of models in scripture—including polygamy!
Cathy has invested a great deal of his own money in the movement to stop same-sex marriage. And he has strongly enunciated his views. Rather than wrangling about chicken, I think his supporters and his detractors, if they feel strongly about the issue, should be willing to do the same. I don’t agree with Dan Cathy. I don’t support his perspective on the matter. But he has a right to his opinion. So do his opponents.
Let’s stop playing chicken. Let’s really work on the issue in a way that reflects the dignity and importance of marriage. There's a lot more at stake here than where to go for lunch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)