A FEW THOUGHTS ON AMENDMENT 10-A

If you are looking to take part in the ongoing debate about homosexuality in the PCUSA you can skip this blog.  I'm not going to talk about it.  Instead I'm going to consider what 10-A actually says and how this might affect ordination trials.

Amendment 10-A uses one of my favorite words in the Form of Government three times: the word shall.  There are a lot of "mays", "should" and "is appropriates" in the Book of Order, all of which can be ignored by a governing body.  Even should means strongly recommended.  When I go to my favorite restaurant the waiter may strongly recommend a special.  I don't have to order it.

"Shall" however is a strong word.  You have to do it.  It is mandatory.  Shall not means you can't do it under any circumstances.  So when Amendment 10-A says "shall" three different times you know the writers of the amendment and the General Assembly that passed the amendment meant business.  No wishy washy may.  You have to do this stuff.

What does a governing body have to do?  Well here is the amendment:

Shall G-6.0106b be amended by striking the current text and inserting new text in its place as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added is shown as italic.] 

“b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

Let's not worry about what would be deleted.  What is a governing body required to do?  This blog will consider the responsibilities of a Session.  I will deal with presbyteries in my next blog.  The Form of Government already requires a Session to provide education (preparation) for newly elected officers.  The amendment then says that the Session shall examine the candidate's calling, gifts and suitability for the responsibilities of office?  What exactly will this look like at a Session meeting?  Calling for Presbyterians is a two sided thing.  The candidate for office must have a sense of calling but must also be called by God.  In the Presbyterian Church God calls people to serve as officers through the voice of the congregation.  Thus the Session can only consider the individual's sense of call.  This would be a radical improvement over the method used in too many Presbyterian Churches.  Too often the Nominating Committee talks about and then asks people they believe will say yes.  Usually these people are those who have already served as elders and deacons before.  And when the Nominating Committee brings up a new name too often the conversation is still about whether the person will say yes or not. 

Further Nominating Committees too often think that the office of Deacon is one step on the way to being an elder.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  A person could be a fantastic elder and fail miserably as a deacon and vice versa.  Each office requires that the person called have particular gifts in order to serve God effectively in the office. 

Thus if Nominating Committees and Sessions take this first shall seriously their work will become magnified and serve God better.  Education will have to include conversation about the meaning of the word call and about the gifts needed to serve in the particular office.  Of course all who serve on a Session or a Board of Deacons should not have the exact same gifts.  Sessions and Boards of Deacons need people with differing gifts so that the work of God can be done well.  While all deacons must have the gift of compassion some of them will need the gift of keeping track of how much money is left to help the poor.  Sessions will need people who have the gifts of teaching, leading worship, knowing how to talk with a contractor, and yes, that special person who knows when it is time to stop talking about something and vote.

Suitability for the responsibilities of office is a (possibly intentionally) vague term.  Each Session will have to determine what this will mean.  One of my hopes is that Sessions will consider whether a particular candidate can keep his/her mouth shut about confidential issues discussed at a meeting.  A gossip, in my opinion, is never suitable for any office. 

Having said all of this please note that the sentence says "the governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate . . ." I have a question: does the word candidate include those already ordained to the office to which they have been elected?  I hope not.  Candidate can be a slippery word if we take our meaning from the secular world.  A candidate for office in an election can be someone who has never held the office before or someone who currently holds the office.  I suspect there are going to be a lot of angry elders and deacons out there if they have to be examined again each time they are elected for office.  Maybe I am asking a foolish question here.  I do know I really don't want to tell ordained elders that they have to go through the whole examination process again.    

The second shall presents in my opinion a particular conundrum.  There are 9 ordination questions; some of them very complicated questions (just consider the first question about the confessions!).   Let's assume that a Session does not have to re-examine those already ordained.  Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church recently examined and then ordained and installed two new elders.  How exactly would a Session go about examining a candidate on his/her interpretation of each question?  How will the Session determine if the candidate has the ability to fulfill all those requirements?  Is a Session allowed to only ask questions about acts and attitudes required by several questions or will the Session have to consider each candidate's ability to fulfill the first ordination question: "Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?"  This question is partially a theological question but also a behavior question.  Trust is a behavior.  How will a Session determine if a candidate has the "ability and commitment to fulfill this question?

If each candidate has to be examined on each question that is going to make for a long Session meeting, at least if the Session actually does an effective job.  It is my suspicion that if elders know ahead of time that the examination will include such requirements (and the requirements of the previous shall as well) they are likely to vote against this amendment.

The last shall is a requirement for the governing body conducting the examination.  All candidates can now breathe a great sigh of relief!  The two important words in this sentence are "standards" and "individual."  The word standard is used in the Form of Government to refer to the Confessions as subordinate to the Scripture.  It also says that the Confessions are nevertheless standards.

The Form of Government also uses the word standards in Chapter 6 in the description of the process for examining candidates for office.  The standards are the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church that is the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order.  Curiously the standards are never actually defined except in G-6.0106b, the very section this amendment would replace.  Thus there is currently one defined standard in the Form of Government and it concerns sexual behavior.

The other uses of the word in this section refer to the essentials of the Reformed faith.  This is also not defined.  Thus there would be no real change if the last sentence becomes part of the Form of Government.  Sessions now examine individuals according to the standards of the Reformed faith and determine if each individual meets those essential standards.  The essentials standards are never defined although it is clear that they refer in some way to the Constitution.

My main concern about this amendment as it applies to candidates for the offices of elder and deacon is that they will be roundly ignored.  I suspect that most Sessions will simply not carry out such rigorous examinations of candidates for ordination.  We American are very concerned with time and such an examination would take too much time at a Session meeting for most members of Session to say nothing of the candidates.

My other concern is that the amendment does not directly address the issues raised by the current G-6.0106b.  But that is the subject for another blog.

And since this is getting so long I will consider examination of candidates by presbyteries for the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament in my next blog.

WOODSTOCKS

I should have written this in 2009 but didn't.  Things come to mind when they will.  I did write it during November, 2010 and put it on my Facebook page where it was roundly ignored.  I suspect it went to that place where all good electrons go . . . except stuff on the web endures forever or at least until Jesus returns.  Anyway. . .

My whole life I have walked to the beat of a different bongo player.  I don't care who wins, loses or even is on Dancing with the Stars.  The current craze about vampires strikes me as silly, (where are the shows about zombies?).  In fact I watch very little TV.  I prefer being online, chatting with friends and family, having obscure dialogues about theology or reading.  I am, in short as my daughter regularly tells me, a dork.  I can curse you out in both ancient Hebrew and Greek but find that no one cares.

Thus it will not surprise anyone that I did not hear about Woodstock 1969 until it was all over.  If one of the slogans of our generation was tune in, turn on and drop out, I was rarely tuned in, didn't turn on until I was safely away at college and dropped out sometime around the time I was born.  I would have gone if I had known about it if my parents let me (which tells you volumes about me).  My big event that summer occurred during July on top of a mesa in New Mexico (yes I was still a Boy Scout the summer between my junior and senior years in high school).  On top of that mesa God told me I was going to be a pastor.  My classmates at our recent high school reunion were surprised.  That order from God put me into shock from July, 1969 through spring, 1973.

Looking back from the perspective of being 57 I see some good things that happened at Woodstock 1969.  500,000 people managed not to kill each other for 3 days despite the lack of water and food, amidst downpours of rain and seas of mud.  That has to be some kind of record.  (Philadelphia averages more than a murder a day every year.)  People shared food and water.  There were announcements from the stage about bad acid.  But let's face it those who planned it and those who went were not prepared for the experience.  They weren't all brave because they lived through it.  They failed the intelligence test for not having enough food, shelter or water.  And if you saw the films of the garbage left behind it is very clear that the environmental movement had not begun.

I, on the top of that Mesa sat in the rain in my poncho and waterproofed boots, had my tent pitched down below the mesa and my comrades and I had plenty of food for the next few days.  We also were intelligent enough to travel in a small group.  While we did not even think about the possibility we probably would have known if asked that there was not enough food or room on the trail for 500,000 people.  And while the music wasn't as good (the only music we had was our own singing which wasn't all that good) the view was amazing.  There is nothing quite like seeing a herd of deer at sunrise in the mist on a meadow at 10,000 feet above sea level. 

If Woodstock 1969 was an experience of bad planning and peace Woodstock 1999 was an experience of the entrepreneurial talent run amok and violence.  I might not have heard about Woodstock 1999 except for the fact that it occurred 16 miles from my front yard.  There was plenty of parking, plenty of food and water and most brought their tents.  There was a lack of shade which was a real problem but who thought it wouldn't rain?

My 15 year old daughter wanted to go.  Her argument was "what could happen to me among 250,000 people?"  I thought that failed the experience with humanity test and didn't let her go.  My decision was wiser than I knew.  Girls were raped at Woodstock 1999 in front of people who watched and didn't do anything.  While walking around topless or naked is not an invitation to rape it also is not intelligent.  Yet girls got naked in front of hundreds of people at Woodstock 1969 and no one got raped.

There was plenty of food and water available in 1999 – for a price.  Water cost $4.00 a bottle and the cost of food was sky high.  People didn't share and no one gave out food or water for free.  So on the last day of the concert there was a riot, encouraged by the performers on stage.  ATM machines were broken open and robbed.  Portapotties were tipped and burned.  To be fair this was one area of poor planning at both Woodstocks.  Neither had enough places available when one had to answer the call of nature.  But no one burned them in 1969.  I haven't even heard that anyone tipped one in 1969!

The peaceful, free spirit of the Woodstock Generation disappeared sometime between 1972 and 1980.  Hippies turned into bankers, Wall Street giants and lawyers.  A few stayed true to the cause.  Curiously you can find a bunch of hippies in Woodstock, NY!  But we lost our ideals.  We stopped giving money to the bums on the streets sometime before 1980.  Tragically many of those on the streets didn't have our advantages.  We went to college and they went to Vietnam.  We bragged about our generation, sneered at our parents and dreamed about how we would make things different.  Remember the songs?

Hope I die before I get old. . .

Why don't you all just f-fade away.

And don't try to dig what we all s-say." 

(The Who, "My Generation.")

"We want the world and we want it now!"

(The Doors "We Want the World and We Want It Now!")

And that perennial favorite that wasn't in any song that I know of "Don't trust anyone over thirty."   Somehow it pales a bit when I look back from my late 50's.

I'm not sure what to say about all of this.  We clearly didn't learn to skip stupid wars.  George W. Bush is a member of our generation and he launched a pretty stupid war in Iraq.  You can argue about the necessity (I personally don't think it fits the Just War standards) but he didn't listen to the Powell doctrine or learn anything from Vietnam.  We can also argue about Afghanistan but any student of history knows that fighting a war in Afghanistan is doomed to failure.  Even the Macedonians and the Mongols failed to hold it more than one generation.   The British lost there and the Soviet Union fell apart partially because of their failed war in Afghanistan.  So what are we doing there?  I suspect that Osama bin Laden left town around the time we arrived and is somewhere in Pakistan or Yemen.  If our intention is to catch him we are probably in the wrong place.

Curiously there were some things we should have learned from those over 30 in 1969.  Save your money.  What a great idea!  Don't buy too much stuff on your credit cards or get a home equity loan on your overpriced house.  Stuff like that can cause a fairly significant recession.  Have dinner together.  Turn off the radio in the car and talk or sing stupid songs together.  To be fair to our generation there just weren't all that many stations you could get on an AM radio when you got into the mountains of PA or NY.  And yes, learning to diagram sentences and learning the parts of speech was good for us. 

There are also some things we should have learned from childhood.  The best toys are the ones that require imagination.  A sheet and a table make a much better fort than one made out of plastic, looks like a real fort and has to be put together by an adult.  Pick up baseball games are a lot more fun than having adults run the game and yell from the sidelines at the coaches.  A ride on bicycles for an afternoon with friends is a whole lot more fun (gasp, choke) than watching TV or playing video games.  And big cardboard boxes can often be more fun than the things that come in them.

But we did invent or continue some good things.  Women's liberation, the Environmental movement, Gay liberation and the continuation of the civil rights movement were good ideas.  My wife is sudden death on failing to recycle anything.  We may not always go about them in the right way but they were still good ideas. 

So maybe we of the Woodstock Generation during our final years could remember and put into practice the good things that our parents taught us and the good ideas from the late 60's and the early 70's.  It's worth a try.

And if anyone tries to get all those groups together that sang and played at Woodstock 1969 (the ones who are still alive) would someone please tell me ahead of time?

Some thoughts about names of time and the sections of the Bible

One of the current struggles in Academia and in the Church is naming things and times in ways that don't upset anyone.  In some circles people use BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini that is year of our Lord) to talk about the time before the coming of Jesus and the time after the coming of Jesus.  This may make sense in Church circles.  After all in the Church we see Jesus as the center of the Biblical story and also as the center of history. 

Our big struggle is not in the Church but in society and particularly in academic conversation.  Scholars have come to recognize that insisting that everyone divide history according to the Christian calendar denies religious or other narratives of humans. 

We can't really expect Jews, Muslims, etc to divide history according to the Christian narrative.  In fact both Jews and Muslims when within their own communities measure history by other methods; Jews since the creation of the universe and Muslims from the time of Mohammed. 

So in the scholarly world and in some other circles time is measured by the abbreviations BCE (before the Common Era) and CE (the Common Era).  All seem  to accept that BCE and BC still refer to the Christian measure of time but have agreed to ignore that and use terms that do not directly refer to Christian measurement of time.  There are curmudgeons that insist we retain BC and AD but BCE and CE are accepted in the majority of the scholarly community.  And I think outside the Church we should use the newer terms.  We can't expect the whole world to name time according to our beliefs.

Of more controversy is what to name the first and the second parts of the Bible.  Christian tradition has used a couple of curious titles: Old Testament and New Testament.  These titles are rejected by more and more scholars and curiously by more and more pastors and other Christian leaders.  The most popular replacements at this point seem to be "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Scriptures."  As I have thought about this recently I have come to the conclusion that neither the old method nor the new method is acceptable.

I find the old names to be unacceptable mainly from a Calvinist perspective.  The following definitions of "testament" come from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1

a archaic: a covenant between God and the human race

b capitalized: either of two main divisions of the Bible

2

a: a tangible proof or tribute

b: an expression of conviction: creed

3

a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death.[1]

I think we can eliminate 2 and 3 for the purpose of this essay.  We are left with 1 a and b.  B simply describes the names.  A, I think, is the proper definition and is the core of the problem.  Calvinists have believed since there were Calvinists that there is one covenant between God and humanity.  Some will say that there are two covenants, the one between God and Adam and Eve (a covenant of works) and the covenant that follows the sin of Adam and Eve (a covenant of grace).  Putting that theological disagreement aside I think Calvinists can agree that at least since the sin of Adam and Eve there is only one covenant. 

There is of course the not so small problem of the series of covenants in the Old Testament (hold on, we haven't gotten to my suggestion for a better way to name the two parts of the Bible).  There are covenants between God and Noah, Abraham, the Israelites at Mount Sinai and David.  We also see references to a new covenant between God and Israel in Jeremiah 31.  There is also the clear statement in the New Testament that Jesus brings and makes a new covenant between God and the people of Israel but also all who put their faith in God through Jesus.  There are references to the new covenant not only in the passages about the Lord's Supper but also in other places (particularly in Hebrews) that make a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant suggesting that the new covenant is better than the old covenant.  The question at hand is does the new covenant replace the old covenant?

Calvinists have said throughout history that all the covenants from Noah down through Jesus are part of God's covenant of grace.  Thus the new covenant in Jesus is an extension – and a very important extension – of the covenant of grace that is the story of God's loving pursuit of sinful humanity.  To speak of a new covenant smacks of supersessionism, that God's covenant with Christians through Jesus replaces God's covenant with Israel. 

There is a further problem with the titles Old Testament (or covenant) and New Testament (or covenant).  The very titles suggest a radical division between the Scripture from Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation.   If there is a new covenant does that covenant replace the old covenant?  If there is a new covenant does that make the Scripture of the old covenant no longer relevant?  NO!  The Scripture of what is called the New Testament builds on that of the New Testament.  There can be no real separation between the Scripture in this sense.  We do not reject the earlier Scripture because of the coming of Jesus.

The most common new way of naming the two parts of the Bible has this same problem and others.  The new names are Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures.  One is picky but then I am a picky person.  Parts of Scripture in the section from Genesis to Malachi are not in Hebrew.  They are in Aramaic.  So while it is mostly Hebrew calling it Hebrew Scripture is not exactly accurate. 

Further if the term "Hebrew Scripture is meant to refer to the Scripture of the Hebrew people as over against the Scripture of Christians we have the same problem we have with Old Testament and New Testament.  The section of Scripture from Matthew to Revelation is not the full content of Christian Scripture.  Christians believe that the section from Genesis to Malachi is also Scripture and fought for centuries against those who would exclude that section of Scripture for a variety of reasons. 

The main group that rejected the first section of Scripture was the Gnostics, or at least some of them.  "Gnostics" is a complicated term that refers to a lot of different groups.  Most of them rejected the first section of Scripture insisting that the God of that first section of Scripture is a different God than that of the second section of Scripture – or at least those parts of that second section they accepted along with other documents.  They considered the God of the first section of Scripture to be evil and the God of the parts of the second section and the other documents they accepted as Scripture to be the greater and good God. 

So we cannot make a division between the first and second second sections of Scripture.  To do so is to commit not only an error but a form of heresy.  While we can say there is a distinction between them there can be no separation between the two sections of Scripture.

Nevertheless for the sake of our Jewish brothers and sisters (and for Christian reasons as well) we need to make a distinction between the first section of Scripture that they accept as Scripture and the second section of Scripture that Christians accept along with the first section.  I therefore suggest different terms altogether.  Jews call what they would call the three parts of their Scripture, (Torah or Law, Nevi’im or Prophets and Kethuvim or Writings), the Tanach which translated actually means Bible.  Thus we can call the first section the Tanach – the Hebrew word for Bible and the second section Additional Christian Scriptures.  This would allow us to recognize that Jews believe only the first section of what Christians claim is Scripture as Scripture and that Christians recognize both the first section (from a Christian perspective) as Christian Scripture and the Additional Christian Scriptures as also a part of Scripture.

Of course there is also the text of the Moslem Scripture – the Quran. Muslims believe that the Tanach and the Additional Christian Scriptures are corrupted.  And there are also the various Scriptures (although I am not certain that Scripture is the correct word) of various other religions like the various types of Hinduism and Buddhism but since Christians have used "Old Testament" and "New Testament" and scholars and some Christians have changed that to Hebrew and Christian Scriptures I think we can limit the new titles I have given to refer to the Tanach and the Additional Christian Scripture.

Of course I recognize that neither those who use the old terms nor those who use the new terms are going to listen to me.  This is merely a suggestion that from both Jewish and Christian perspectives there is better way to name the two sections of what Christians would accept as Scripture.

Have at me all who like or dislike my suggested titles!

---

[1] http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testament

MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND "I GOT IT FIRST YOU F____KER!"

I've watched the yearly culture wars about what to say to people during the month of December, and particularly about what store clerks ought to say to customers.  I have recently come to the conclusion that Christians seeking to celebrate the birth of Jesus have no horse in this race. 

What caused me to come to this conclusion was the refusal of a senator from Oklahoma to participate in a Christmas parade because the Mayor had changed the name of the parade to something like "Holiday Parade."  I got to thinking about Christmas parades and what and who are usually in the parades.  Maybe there is a small chance that some church put a manger scene in the parade.  I suspect most of the floats, bands and people are unspecific advertisements for shopping, fat men in red suits and strange references to winter. 

So what does all this say about the birth of Jesus?  Nothing.  Why should I care what a sales clerk says to me when I buy something at Wal-Mart during the month of December?  "Have a nice day" is sufficient for the rest of the year.  Happy Holidays is nice as it makes a reference to three different celebrations but what about all the other religious groups that don't celebrate anything in December or non religious folk?  Besides I think the real message in the store is "It's time to buy presents so come back and spend some more money."  Which, unfortunately, has come to be the real meaning of Christmas. 

Yet there is this massive yearly battle over whether sales clerks should say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."  Now if I happen to know the sales clerk and know that s/he actually believes in Jesus a Merry Christmas would be nice, although I'm not quite sure what "Merry" has to do with the birth of the Savior of the world.  Most of the time, given where I live I have never met the sales clerk before and have no idea why s/he would say "Merry Christmas" to me.  So why should Christians care what a sales clerk says to them during December?

I think the real issues are power and tradition.  Some seem to think if one does not say "Merry Christmas" the myth of Christian America is being threatened by secular humanists.  They think they are losing power.  Worse, those people from other religious traditions are getting uppity and want some validation for their faith.  So refusing to say Merry Christmas ultimately will destroy America and the people who are for free sex, drug use and allowing immigrants into the country will turn America into some kind of land of Satan (which is what the Iranians have been saying for years!).

Those of us in the Reformed tradition who remember our history know that for centuries Presbyterians didn't celebrate Christmas.  We also didn't celebrate Easter, have crosses or stained glass windows in our places of worship, use musical instruments during worship or sing anything but psalms during worship but that is the subject of another blog.  Presbyterians didn't celebrate Christmas partly because it was "Romanish" (meaning the Catholics did it so we shouldn't) but mainly because the celebration of Christmas in England had become a time to get drunk, dance, and generally carry on.  Presbyterians didn't believe in carrying on.  It wasn't that Presbyterians didn't have fun it was rather that they wanted to have holy fun.  Wearing sexy clothes, puking after drinking too much and dancing into the wee hours of the morning just didn't seem very Christian to them.  So they didn't celebrate Christmas.

Then the Queen of England, Victoria, got married to this Elector or something from Germany and brought the German tradition of Christmas trees to England.  Songs about Yule logs came back into fashion as did St. Nicholas (now renamed Santa Claus because of a rather poor poem) who no longer left food and gifts for poor Children.  He left big presents for all good children.  But Yule logs came from Norse celebrations and evergreen trees from pre Christian German religions (probably some form of Druidic belief). 

The modern version of Christmas (at least the shopping version) began sometime in the last 50 or 60 years.  Before that kids in most families got new socks, maybe some new clothes if they had outgrown the old clothes, an orange and one toy.  Rich folk went for the big spending.  Santa Claus became omniscient and kept a list like the Book of Life from Revelation.  In America more people had more money and the middle class started buying more and more toys for the children.  And good old scientific research enabled toy companies to move from talking dolls to Wiis.

To top all this off some now believe it necessary to get the most popular toy for their child (or for themselves) so people sit outside of stores starting at 2:00 AM on the day after Thanksgiving in order to they can buy that particular toy.  Early in the morning on Black Friday the doors to the stores open, the crowds rush in, (injuring or killing the poor underpaid employee who had the bad luck to be assigned the task of opening the door) and fight with other customers for that particular toy (thus the last part of my title).  Christmas has become a celebration of that most important of American dreams, the increase of the Gross Domestic Product.

What does all this have to do with Jesus?  Nothing, as far as I can tell.  Finding some way to celebrate the birth of the second person of the Trinity as a human being (and the not so subtle message that God physically stands with the poor) I think is necessary.  But somewhere in all of this we need to make a separation between the traditions borrowed from other religions and cultures, the secular celebration of economic growth and the primary idolatry in America that having more makes one better.

I suggest that we go back to giving presents that meet real human needs along with one toy.  That does mean that the yearly tie or sweater has to go.  I suspect most Americans have many more articles of clothing than they actually need.  No, one toy and a gift the Heifer Project or some equally worthy cause is the way to go. 

And outside of that?  Worship and service to others on Christmas day.  If God served us by sending his Son shouldn't we follow the model and serve others?

In any case I think the argument about what to say to people in December has to end.  Except about cursing out the person who go the last toy that you wanted on Black Friday.  I suggest we don't shop on Black Friday at all and that those who feel they must learn to be polite and kind.  That would be a big and pleasant change in the language of December.

PEAK OIL AND GOVERNMENT DENIAL

My friend John Shuck has blogged about Peak Oil quite a bit over the past few months. I discovered yesterday that it pays to ignore the issue in the short term.

My sister invited us to celebrate Thanksgiving with her family. We live in Philadelphia and she lives in Northern Virginia. I looked into public transportation, admittedly because I didn't feel like driving four hours each way. I discovered that those who use public transportation between cities are punished.

Here in the Northeast Corridor Amtrak has many trains. One leaves Philadelphia and Washington about every hour each day. It would take less time to go from my house to my sister's on the train and I could sleep or read on the way. The problem is that there is a significant cost to using Amtrak. Given the distance and the miles per gallon that my trusty eleven year old Jeep achieves it will cost about $75.00 for the gas to drive round trip. If we take Amtrak it will cost almost $350.00. And that's just for my wife and me. We simply cannot afford to save energy and take the train.

I also checked flying and discovered it would us cost a twice as much to fly than it would to take the train.  And to fly from Philadelphia to Washington almost every airline requires that one fly to Atlanta from Philadelphia and then to Washington. Talk about a waste of fossil fuels!  Further, we could fly to California and celebrate Thanksgiving with my parents for the same price! There are nonstop flights between Philadelphia and Washington.  They cost over $900.00 per person.  And yes, I check Greyhound.  You can't get there from here.

Since the U.S. government owns Amtrak it could supplement public transportation. It chooses not to do so. Frankly it pays to drive. There has been some talk about placing a significant tax on gasoline and using the moneys from that tax to fund public transportation. The tax, the argument goes, would encourage people to use public transportation. The problem with this idea is that it places a significant burden on the poor. As people seek (if they do so) to buy more fuel efficient cars or even to move to electric cars those who cannot afford new cars will be stuck with their old gas guzzlers as the price of gasoline rises. And in many parts of America there simply is no adequate public transportation. Once you get out of the cities (and frankly some cities have very poor public transportation) there is no way to get from one place to another without driving.

The sad thing about all of this is that as recently as the mid 1940s there was a fairly adequate public transportation system between cities and within cities in America. As the American love of cars grew and those who could moved to the suburbs the infrastructure of public transportation was allowed to decay in many cities and between cities.

We who live in Philadelphia are fortunate. Public transportation may take more time and frankly costs more unless you are driving downtown and have to pay for parking but you can get just about anywhere in Philadelphia by train, bus or trolley. This is simply no longer true in too many cities and is practically non existent or costs way too much between cities.

So I learned yesterday that the Federal government wants me to drive instead of taking public transportation between my house and my sister's. And that is a tragedy.

A small correction thanks to Jim Loomis:

"Small detail: The government does not own Amtrak. It's a private corporation that is subsidized by the government."

Jim and I agree that Amtrak is not subsidized enough.  I would add a couple things:

1. That rider load does affect price: the less riders the less effective rail travel is as a cost of fuel; and
2. That routes have been cut so that less interuban rail is available.  THERE IS NO MORE BROADWAY LIMITED!  That means to take the train from NYC to Chicago you now have to go either to Pittsburgh or D.C. and wait for another train to get to Chicago.  One more incentive to NOT take the train.