My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
 |
Twitter Feed for My Recent Blog Posts and Other Tweets |
My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
Happy Birthday to Jesus? The Date of Christmas
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tomorrow is Christmas Day, the day Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. But is December 25th really Jesus’ birthday? Many people, including faithful Christians, skeptics, and scholars, answer this question in the negative. In fact, there are quite a few Christians who do not celebrate Christmas, in part because they believe that December 25 isn’t Jesus’ real birthday. This date, they argue, was chosen by early Christians because it was the day on which the Romans held a pagan celebration for the birth of the Invincible Sun. Thus, according to this argument, Christians should not celebrate the birthday of Jesus because it isn’t his real birthday and because the date has pagan roots.
So what’s the real story about December 25?
We do not know the date of Jesus’ birth. In fact, we don’t exactly know the the year of his birth, though it’s estimated to be around 6 B.C. Yes, that sounds strange. Jesus born six years “Before Christ”? In fact, the B.C./A.D. division is a few years off. What is quite clear from history is that Herod the Great, the Herod who sought to have the baby Jesus killed, died in 4 B.C. So Jesus had to have been born before this.
The earliest Christians did not pass on the exact date of Jesus’ birth. They didn’t even record the time of year in which he was born. We get a tiny clue from Luke 2:8, where it says that shepherds were in the field, watching their flocks at nighttime. Some scholars think this suggests that Jesus was born in a warm season, not “in the bleak midwinter.” Others contend that winters near Bethlehem are relatively mild, and shepherds could be out at night with their sheep in December. (The weather report predicts a low of 41 degrees for Bethlehem tonight, with rain.)
In fact, we don’t know the exact date of Jesus’ birth. For some odd reason, this has been taken by some skeptics as evidence against the historical reality of Jesus. Since we don’t know when Jesus was born, they argue, this means he never really existed. Such an argument is naive in the extreme. The only people in the ancient world whose birthdays were recorded were those born into powerful families. People like Jesus, who was not born into power, would not have their birthdays recorded. Moreover, it’s clear that dates of birth for ordinary mortals were not especially important in Jesus’ culture. The earliest Christians showed no particular interest in the date of Jesus’ birth, even when they believed that he was the Lord and Savior of the world. In fact, some influential early Christians (Origen, for example), argued that it was wrong for Christians to honor the birth of Jesus as if he were a pagan ruler or god.
So why do we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25? Is this date based on paganism, as some critics of Christmas complain. Yes, it is. But don’t start taking down your Christmas decorations quite yet. Let me first explain why December 25 came to the be the date for Christmas.
In the Roman world in which early Christianity developed, there were several pagan celebrations on or around December 25, including: the birth of the “invincible sun,” the birth of the god Mithras, and winter solstice. Christians began celebrating the birth of Jesus at this time, not to buy into paganism, but to overcome it. The hope was that by celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25, Christians wouldn’t be tempted to join in pagan celebrations, and pagans might be drawn into celebrating the birth of Christ. The first official celebration of the birth of Jesus on December 25 came in A.D. 336, after Constantine gave precedence to Christianity in the Roman Empire.
Thus the celebration of Christmas was not meant to endorse paganism, but rather to oppose it. It’s rather like when Christians who object to Halloween have a “Harvest Festival” on October 31. They’re hoping that the Christian celebration keeps people from engaging in what they believe to be pagan. One who argues that December 25 is a pagan date and should be avoided completely misses the point of the date.
Added Note:
One of my readers, Rev. Dave, offered a valuable comment. He pointed to an online article in which an author claims that the date of Christmas was not based on paganism, but in fact on Christian efforts to identify the actual date of Jesus’ birth. This article, by Willam J. Tighe, is solidly argued, and well worth further attention. Tighe, by the way, is no oddball, but a respected historian at Muhlenberg College. I think his argument has plausibility, though I wish he could have documented earlier recognition of the December 25 birthday of Jesus among Christians. Given Tighe’s evidence, it wouldn’t surprise me if some combination of theories is correct. Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25, partly because of their own calculations, and partly because it allowed for a co-opting of a pagan holiday. I hope some historians of the early church and/or the Roman Empire interact with Tighe’s thesis. Thanks, Rev. Dave, for this comment and link.
The history of the date of Christmas is, in fact, much more complex than the summary I have given. Many Christians, especially in the East, celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. This is still the date of Armenian Christmas, and many Armenians in western culture save their Christmas celebrations for this date. For Christians who use the liturgical calendar, Christmas is actually a twelve-day celebration, culminating on January 6.
Of course there’s no biblical command that says we should celebrate Christmas. Nor is there any biblical command prohibiting it. Thus Christians are free to celebrate Christmas, or not. As long as the celebrations themselves are consistent with biblical teaching, I see no compelling reason not to enjoy Christmas. (In some English and early American traditions, Christmas was a time for drunken revelry and mischief. Not recommended!)
Personally, I think there is much good in Christmas. Giving is a good thing. Generosity is worth encouraging. At Christmas, people tend to give more, not only in the form of presents for their families, but also in benevolences to charitable organizations, especially those that care for the poor.
I’m not worried about the pagan connections in the history of Christmas. I am concerned, however, about the extent to which Christmas has become primarily about spending money in large amounts. In American culture today, it almost seems unpatriotic to cut back on massive Christmas expenditures. We may not be worshiping pagan gods on December 25, but Mammon gets plenty of honor.
The best reason for celebrating Christmas, I believe, has to do with its theological center: the Incarnation of the Word of God. At Christmas we focus on the miracle of God becoming human in Jesus. We marvel at the grace of a God who loves us so much that he became one of us. The Incarnation allows us to know God through Christ. Moreover, the Incarnation makes possible the substitutionary death of Jesus for us. Because God became fully human in Jesus, therefore Jesus was able to bear the sin of the world on the cross. Because of Christmas, Good Friday is good, and Easter is the grandest celebration of all.
Topics: Christmas | 5 Comments »
Happy Birthday to . . . Still Not Jesus . . . But My Blog
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, December 23, 2008
My blog just celebrated its fifth birthday. My very first blog post appeared on December 22, 2003, at 3:42 p.m. It was called: “Review: The Da Vinci Code is Truly Fictional” and contained 483 words. There’s a bit of irony here, as my long-time blog readers know, because, later on, I put up well over 100,000 words debunking the “historical” claims of The DaVinci Code. But, when I started blogging I was a bit more concise. No doubt some of you wish I had maintained the discipline of brevity. (Photo: My very first blog post.)
As many of you know already, I got into blogging at the urging of Hugh Hewitt. He had been bugging me about starting a blog for many months before we had dinner in early December of 2003. Over Italian food, Hugh started in again about how important it was for the blogosphere to have voices like mine in it (Christian, evangelical, reasonably sane). He shot down my excuses for not starting a blog, though he did offer a sage warning: “Blogging is a harsh mistress.” Translation: If you start and take it seriously, blogging will require time, energy, and lots of commitment. No kidding! In the past five years, I figure I’ve spent around 2,000 hours blogging–that’s 250 8-hour days.
From the beginning, my blog was an avenue for pastoral communication. I talked about the issues I would like to talk about with my own congregation, if I had the time. I reserved the right, however, to interrupt a serious conversation with silly or fun or personal items. No doubt you’ve seen plenty of this if you’ve visited my blog a few times. For example: “Practical Christian Living and Potty Talk,” or my ongoing series reporting on the police blotter from the Boerne Star.
One of the unusual features of my blog is the proliferation of series-length essays. Most bloggers write posts that are relatively short, and they don’t often link them together in a connected essay. But I found myself wanting to say things that just didn’t fit in 250 or even 1,000 words. So I developed the blog series. Because I was working in HTML, rather than using a blog engine (Blogger, Typepad, etc.), my series could be formatted so you could read it in chronological/logical order, rather than upside down, as is typical for blog categories. Some of my longest blog series ended up the size of a typical non-fiction book. In fact, one of them became a non-fiction book. Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable? became the book Can We Trust the Gospels?. (A few of my harshest critics think this is more of a fiction book, actually. But we’ll leave this for another day.)
For more than three years, I did my blog “by hand” with Dreamweaver/HTML. This gave me lots of power in formatting and design, but it meant my blog lacked the automation that makes blogging easy and that allows for convenient commenting, archiving, etc. Finally, in April 2007, I embedded a Wordpress blog engine into my website. This allowed me to do things like put up posts at one time that would become visible later, thus buying me a day off every now and then. For example, my blog will have a new post on Christmas, but I’ll put it up a few days earlier. Perhaps more importantly, using Wordpress enabled my readers to add comments with relative ease. My blog became more of a conversation and less of a lecture. I’ll have more to say about this in a few days.
I must admit that I’ve been amazed by the impact of my blog. On December 23, 2003, the day of my blog’s birth, it received 44 visitors who looked at a total of 174 pages. That felt like a good start to me. At least somebody besides my mother actually visited my blog! By the end of this year, my blog will have had well over 3,000,000 total visitors. In the last year, the 1,000,000 plus people who visited markdroberts.com looked at more than 3,500,000 pages. I marvel at the power of the Internet to foster communication throughout the world.
From the beginning, I wanted to blog responsibly, to speak with as much clarity and truth as I could muster. Whether I have fulfilled this commitment, I leave it to my readers to judge. But I continue to feel a great responsibility in my blogging. I do indeed want to be a trustworthy, gracious, Christian voice in the blogosphere, much as Hugh Hewitt once envisioned. I try to treat all people with respect, including those I’m critiquing or those who critique me. In my opinion, the lasting thing the world world needs is more harshness, more stridency, more narrowmindedness, more unwillingness to listen thoughtfully to others. In my blog I try to follow Jesus’ simple advice: Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Not as my young brother once said: Do unto others as you would like to do unto them.)
If you’re a regular reader of my blog, or even an occasional visitor, I want to thank you for your faithfulness and encouragement. I can’t tell you how many times I have wondered whether my blogging effort was worthwhile, only to receive a note from someone thanking me for something I had written. Oh, to be sure, there have been other kinds of notes as well, from people who’d prefer that I stop blogging. A few seem to wish that I’d drop off the face of the earth. But the vast majority of readers who communicate with me, either through email or comments, have kept me going. This includes, by the way, those who have disagreed with me. Their questions and challenges have sharpened my thinking and sometimes helped to change my mind.
Thus, blogging has been more than a way for me to express myself. It has given me an opportunity to grow in my thinking and, in the process, to develop new relationships. Most of all, I hope that, through blogging, I’ve been able to make the world a little better place.
Topics: Blogging | 12 Comments »
Happy Birthday to . . . Not Yet Jesus . . But Nathan!
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, December 22, 2008
Yesterday was a watershed day in the Roberts family. My son, Nathan, turned sixteen! Yes, sixteen! Wow! It’s hard to believe.
On December 21, 1992, Nathan was born at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, California. That was one of the most amazing and wonderful days of my life, matched only by the day a couple years later when my daughter was born.
Of course at the time I had no idea how much Nathan would change my life. He made my life harder, with many, many more responsibilities (and I wasn’t even his mom!). He added plenty of worry to my life, especially when, as a baby, he regularly ran temperatures over 105 degrees. But Nathan also helped me to laugh more than I ever imagined possible, to cherish life in a new way, and to discover the incredible joy of parenthood.
Nathan is one of my very best friends. Yes, of course there are times when I need to be “the Dad.” But those times are few and far between. For the most part we share life together, often with an eerie sense of mutual understanding. We both love nature. We love ideas and discussing them. These days we talk about politics and religion and, well, you name it.
Some of the best times of my life are when Nathan and I take off hiking together, whether in the High Sierra of California or the Hill Country of Texas. Until a year ago, I had to slow down a bit so he could keep up with me. Now his natural pace is faster than mine, so he’s learning to be patient with me!
It’s been wonderful to see Nathan grow to be the person God has made him to be. He’s always been artistic. In recent years his artistic energies have focused on movie making and musical theatre. Check out his blistering parody of Zac Efron’s “Bet on It” from High School Musical 2. (Look at the original first, then Nathan’s version.) Or you might enjoy his rendition of “If I Were a Rich Man” at a school choir fundraiser. The video quality isn’t great, but you’ll get the idea.
Part of what I admire about Nathan is how hard he works to use his talents well. Yes, he has a fine singing voice. But he put in tons of hours getting “If I Were a Rich Man” just right, so that he could sing it effortlessly. He treats all of his challenges this way. So he isn’t coasting on his abilities, but rather striving to steward them well.
I’m proud of Nathan’s accomplishments, but mostly I’m proud of who he is. He is a young man of compassion, integrity, and faith. He’s thoughtful and kind (at least most of the time). He cares about people and ideas. He’s disciplined in his studies, but always has time to goof around with his dad. Or just to be a goof off, period. Check out his most recent Halloween costume. Yes, he did go as an outhouse. Enough to make any dad proud, don’t you think? (You just have to love this photo, with Nathan as an outhouse posing in front of a cross wall.)
The only bad thing about Nathan growing up is that my time with him feels so limited. But I am thrilled to have such a great son and friend. So, happy sixteenth birthday, Nathan! I love you!
Topics: Tributes | 2 Comments »
My Favorite Christmas Tree
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, December 20, 2008
I’m a Christmas tree fanatic. I admit it. I love Christmas trees . . . their look, their feel, and their heavenly smell. So, as you can imagine, I’m not much into artificial trees, though I don’t criticize my friends who have sold out . . . um, well . . . decided to go with the convenience of a pitifully fake economically thrifty tree.
Ever since Linda and I have had children, it has been my job to purchase and preserve the family Christmas tree. I have a whole system that guarantees the beauty and freshness of the tree, but I won’t bore you with that now. Honestly, I can get obsessive-compulsive about my Christmas tree.
Anyway, when we lived in Irvine, I tried several varieties of Christmas trees over the years, including Douglas Fir, Noble Fir, and Grand Noble. My usual preference was for the Noble Fir, becuase it stayed fresh for a long time and wasn’t as pricey as the Grand Nobles. One year I found a Fraser Fir, unusual for California because Fraser Firs are grown in the southeastern United States. This was a fantastic tree: beautiful, pungent, long-lasting. But I could never find another Fraser Fir in Southern California after that one year.
Last December, after our move to Texas, I was quite happy to find Fraser Firs on sale. Unfortunately, our rental house had very little room for a Christmas tree. So I ended up getting a relatively small Fraser Fir that we set up in the kitchen.
Early in 2008 we were able to buy a home in Boerne, a home with high ceilings. So, as you can imagine, I set out in hot pursuit of a taller Fraser Fir. I found a great deal at Lowe’s for a nine-foot tree . . . just about what I would have spent in Irvine for a seven-footer. It was so heavy I couldn’t carry it by myself. A first! With help from my son, I managed to get the tree in place.
I put up the lights, as is my tradition. I’ve used different color schemes throughout the years. This year it was colored mini-lights. (Yes, yes, I know I should be using LED lights, but I still can’t get used to their peculiar color.) When I finished with the lights, Linda took it from there, putting up ribbons and most of the decorations. The rest of us added a few ornaments just to make it a family project.
You can see a picture of the result of our efforts. This is my favorite Christmas tree, not only because of its size, but also its freshness and fullness. When the time comes, we’ll recycle the tree, thus slightly easing my green guilt.
I’ll close this post with a classic German folksong:
O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum,
Wie treu sind deine Blätter!
Du grünst nicht nur zur Sommerzeit,
Nein auch im Winter, wenn es schneit.
O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum,
Wie treu sind deine Blätter!
Topics: Christmas | No Comments »
Just to Bug My Friends in California
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, December 19, 2008
Here’s the next addition to my unusual bumper stickers series. This one is sure to bug my friends in California, who tend to think that Texas has too big an ego. (It’s ironic, really, because many of my anti-Texas friends in California are really rather prideful about their great state.) Anyway, I have freely admitted that sometimes Texans can be a bit too robust in their Texas pride. This bumper sticker is a fine example . . . .
Now, before I get all sorts of nasty comments about Texas from my California readers, I should remind them of something. When I moved to Irvine, California, the city’s motto was “Another Day in Paradise.” Strange, that’s not too far from “On Earth as it is in Texas.” Maybe I just have a way of moving to places that have an overblown sense of pride.
Topics: Bumper Stickers | 5 Comments »
Vote the Bible?
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, December 18, 2008
Yesterday I put up a photo of a curious bumper sticker:
I noted that many people in America share this sentiment. I know people on both right and left of the political spectrum who really do want to “Vote the Bible.”
But, as I mentioned yesterday, this is easier said than done. I have friends who, a month ago, voted the Bible by voting for John McCain. And I have friends who voted the Bible by voting for Barack Obama. Now I realize that some folks would immediately disagree that there is ambiguity in voting the Bible. For some, the Bible is pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion. So voting the Bible means, simply voting for pro-life candidates and against pro-choice candidates. In practice, this usually means voting for Republicans. Yet, for other Christians, biblical clarity points to supporting the Democratic party. They see in the Bible a strong call to care for the poor, and hear much more about this from Democratic candidates than from Republicans. So, for these folks, “Vote the Bible” means “Vote Democratic!”
In this post I’m not going to argue either side of this debate. My point is that it sometimes isn’t easy to know how to “Vote the Bible.” I think those of us who seek to have our votes guided by Scripture would be well-served if we acknowledged this fact.
In the rest of this post, I want to note two main reasons that make voting the Bible more complicated that it might at first seem.
The Bible Isn’t Johnny-One-Note
First of all, the Bible isn’t Johnny-One-Note. It includes a wide variety of themes penned by a wide variety of authors. Even if you believe, as I do, that God is the ultimate Author of Scripture, you still must recognize that God’s agenda isn’t a simple, single-issue one. For example, I am convinced that biblical teaching leads us to conclude that all of human life is sacred, including fetal life. But I will acknowledge that Scripture doesn’t often speak directly about the status of the pre-born infant. At the same time, there is much in Scripture that calls us to care for the poor and the oppressed. Biblical teaching exalts peace and condemns violence. It calls us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek rather than striking them back. Scripture warns us against the dangers of riches and materialism. It also calls us to be good stewards of God’s creation. And this is just the beginning. If you take seriously the breadth of biblical teaching, you’ll find that it isn’t easy to be a single-issue voter. In the end, you’ll have to decide which biblical teachings are most relevant in guiding your vote.
The Bible Doesn’t Directly Address our Political Options
When I last checked, the Bible doesn’t't speak directly to our political options. Let’s take the example of the poor. There’s no question that Scripture calls us to care for the poor and to help them escape from poverty. This should be a high priority for every Christian.
So how should we vote in light of the priority of helping the poor? I have many Christian friends for whom the answer is obvious. Vote Democratic! The Democrats, after all, talk more about helping the poor. They tend to see the government as playing a major role in alleviating poverty through various government programs.
Yet I have other friends who do indeed care deeply about the poor and are committed to ending poverty. Yet they vote Republican. Why? Because they believe the best way to alleviate poverty is through business development, and they see the Republicans as those who are generally more pro-business. They believe that big government solutions just don’t work, in the end, and often make matters worse.
So, there are biblically-committed Christians who vote Democratic in response to the Bible’s call to care for the poor, and biblically-committed Christians who vote Republican in response to the Bible’s call to care for the poor. They don’t differ much, if at all, in their understanding of Scripture or its authority. Yet they do differ widely in their views of economics and politics. One side sees government as offering the best way to solve the problem of poverty. They favor bigger government and more taxation to pay for it. The other side sees business in this role. Therefore, they prefer smaller government and less taxation.
At the moment, I’m not interested in who is right or who is wrong in this debate. My point is simply that two people can agree about biblical truth and yet vote quite differently because they differ over ideas that are not clearly taught in Scripture. A big-government Democrat and a big-business Republican will vote the Bible in very different ways, even though they might be equally committed to biblical teaching on care for the poor. (Of course, in these days of giant corporate bailouts, it’s very hard to figure out who’s for big government and who’s against it.)
There are many more reasons why voting the Bible isn’t quite as easy as it sounds. If you have some thoughts about this, please let us know by adding a comment below.
Topics: Christianity and Politics | 8 Comments »
If Only It Were That Clear
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Here’s the next installment in my unusual bumper sticker series. This one expresses a sentiment felt by many Americans. . . .
I’d say Amen to that, except, as a Presbyterian, I don’t say Amen to things.
But I do wonder what it really means to “Vote the Bible.” I think this is much easier said than done. Tomorrow I’ll explain why I think this is much harder than it seems.
Topics: Bumper Stickers | 4 Comments »
A Bumper Sticker You Don’t See Every Day
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, December 16, 2008
I’ve been noting some unusual bumper stickers recently. These are the sort you don’t see every day, not even in Texas. And you never see things like this in California, at least not in my experience.
So I thought I’d share some of my recent sightings with you. Here’s the first. Get ready to laugh, or cringe, or both . . . .
So, take that, Mr. President Elect!
Topics: Bumper Stickers | 8 Comments »
Police Blotter Update
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, December 15, 2008
It’s been a while since I posted excerpts from the Boerne Star police blotter. Here are some of the highlights from the last few months:
July 25
30000 block of Fairway Vista, 8:05 p.m., Several residents reported two salesmen being pushy and aggressive while trying to sell educational books. Police spoke to the men and confirmed that they had gotten solicitors’ permits. [MDR: Ah, but did they get a permit for being pushy and aggressive?]
July 27
200 block of Zoeller Lane, Waring, 9:18 p.m., A resident reported an unknown man wearing blue swimming trunks had come through a closed gate and was standing at her door. Separately, authorities received another call about a group of people tubing on the Guadalupe River who became separated. The second caller said the missing man was wearing blue swimming trunks. [MDR: Whew! Mystery solved!]
Aug. 14
Doeskin Drive, 11:40 p.m., A 15-year-old said that while he was playing with a pair of handcuffs he locked himself up, but the key had been lost years ago. Deputies used bolt cutters to remove the cuffs. [MDR: Did this young man realize that the key had been lost for years before he locked himself up?]
Aug. 16
1500 block of Cordillera Trace, 9:26 a.m., A 44-year-old female called 911 after she ate a green glob that came out of a bottle of pancake syrup. She said she is allergic to penicillin and wanted to be checked out. [MDR: Note to self - Don’t eat green glops that come out of bottles.]
Oct. 29
100 block of Fair Springs, 8:44 p.m., A resident called police after someone rang her doorbell and left a pumpkin on her front steps. The woman said she was afraid to go out and check it. The pumpkin turned out to be filled with candy and had been left for her by a neighbor. [MDR: A little bit paranoid, are we?]
Nov. 3
100 block of Dobie Springs, 8:34 p.m., A resident reported finding a print-out of a Google map to his house and two 12-inch knives left on his front porch with a note that said “never never again.” [MDR: I’m confused.]
Nov. 4
100 block of North Wagon Wheel Drive, 9:52 a.m., A woman reported that her car was stolen. She said she thinks her soon-to-be ex-husband may have taken it. [MDR: Was he the “soon-to-be-ex-husband” before he stole his wife’s car?]
Nov. 7
300 block of North Main Street, 11:08 a.m., A caller reported that someone tried to use his credit card to buy 100 pounds of cat food over the phone. [MDR: It shouldn’t be hard to find the culprit. Just look for a giant cat with a credit card.]
Nov. 11
7200 block of Dietz Elkhorn, 9:20 p.m., A man reported receiving a threatening phone call from a caller who said “boogidee-boogidee boo, I’m coming to get you.” [MDR: No, I did not make this up.]
Topics: Police Blotter | No Comments »
Snow in Boerne
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, December 13, 2008
One night this last week it snowed in Boerne. Now if you’re from places like Minnesota or New England, you’ll probably find it odd that I’m excited about a half-inch of snow. But even a dusting of snow is a big deal in the Texas Hill Country. And it’s even a bigger deal for transplanted Southern Californians, like me and my family.
During my seven years living in the Boston area while I was in school, I experienced plenty of snow, including one storm that dropped 29 inches and shut down classes for several days. But, since then, I lived for more than two decades in the flatlands of Southern California, where snow falls about once every century, if that. I missed the excitement of snow, along with the way it transforms the world. My wife and children have never lived in place where snow falls. So we all enjoyed the surprise of snow in Boerne last week.
The weather in Texas never ceases to amaze me. Last Tuesday, it was unseasonably warm during the day, with the high in Boerne reaching 77 degrees. But, in the late afternoon the temperature began to drop quickly. By 11:00 p.m. it was 34 degrees. By 11:15 it was snowing. When we awoke the next morning, it was 29 degrees, and there was a modest dusting of snow covering our house and yard. Here are some photos to prove that I’m telling the truth
My family, dog included, enjoying the first few snowflakes.
My dog ran a few dozen “puppy laps,” but then settled in to enjoy the snow.
Our house the next morning. As I said, a dusting. But that’s more than we ever got in Irvine.
Topics: Texas | 2 Comments »
Bill Maher, Jay Leno, and the State of Moral Reasoning in America, Part 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, December 12, 2008
In my last two posts I’ve been examining some recent statements by Bill Maher on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. His comments about the estate tax, though admittedly laced with humor, reflect a distressing though relatively common shallowness in moral discourse in America. Maher’s best argument for the estate tax is that it doesn’t impact you or me, unless we’re rich. In other words, it’s a shameless appeal to self-interest. As long as something doesn’t hurt me, it’s just fine.
Jay Leno demonstrated a similar kind of logic when talking about the recent defeat of Proposition 8 in California, which made limited marriage to a man and a woman, thus making same-sex marriage unrecognized by the state. Leno, who obviously opposed Prop 8, had this to say on the issue of same-sex marriage:
“I’ve been married 28 years. I don’t know how two people getting married will suddenly ruin my marriage. I was told this will ruin my marriage. How? What does it matter to me?”
I’ve heard this sort of argument all the time from married heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage: It won’t hurt my marriage, so it’s just fine. Here, once again, is a moral argument that says “As long as something doesn’t hurt me, it’s just fine.”
Ironically, many of those who made this argument with respect to Proposition 8 in California were supporters of Proposition 2, the so-called the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. Prop 2 would have made illegal farm raising animals in a way that confined them. Though some arguments in favor of this proposition claimed health benefits for humans, my informal survey of Prop 2 supports found that the vast majority were concerned about the well-being of the animals. They voted for this proposition even though would in all likelihood lead to higher prices and layoffs in the egg-producing business of California. So, it appears that millions of Californians were persuaded to vote against Prop 8 because of the “it doesn’t hurt me” argument, but voted for Prop 2, even though the caging of animals doesn’t hurt them, and the passage of Prop 2 might even hurt them in their pocketbooks. (I suppose Prop 2 supporters might answer, “Yes, the caging of animals does hurt me. It makes me feel sad for the animals.”)
Putting aside the question of whether one should have voted for or against Prop 2 and Prop 8, I want simply to note the simple selfishness of Jay Leno’s argument. Would Leno vote for a proposition that made slavery legal on the grounds that “it doesn’t hurt me”? I doubt it. He’s more compassionate and reasonable than this. In fact, I expect that Jay Leno has certain beliefs about homosexuality, marriage, government, and the social good that informed his position on Prop 8 . . . at least I hope so.
Now I’m sure there were some supporters of Prop 8 who believed that allowing same-sex marriage would in some way hurt their marriages. But, on the basis of my informal observation of California voters, supporters of Prop 8 were concerned about the impact of same-sex marriage on the wider culture, and especially on children. They believed, right or wrong, that making same-sex marriage legal threatened society and would harm children. They might be wrong about these things, of course. But my point is that their moral arguments in favor of Prop 8 didn’t have to do with themselves, but with others, and especially with the larger social good.
You can see egocentric moral reasoning throughout our society today. Presidential candidates of both parties use it and pander to it by promising tax cuts to people, who, presumably are going to vote their own self-interest. Period. How sad!
What we need in our country today is a new model of moral reasoning, one that appeals to foundational principles and that advances a compelling vision for our nation and, indeed, the whole world. So, one might oppose estate taxes on the grounds that it is legalized stealing, and stealing is wrong. Or one could support estate taxes on the ground that shifting money from the wealthy to the poor is a good thing. I could see Bono, for example, arguing that estate taxes should be used to help feed the hungry. No matter who is right in this argument, at least it appeals to something more than raw self-interest.
The moral of the story? Don’t base your moral judgments on the things you hear on late night television. The other moral? Learn to consider your choices in light of something more than self-interest. Seek transcendent principles. Think in terms of a broad vision for society. And, whatever you do, think about others, and not just yourself.
Topics: Moral Reasoning | 12 Comments »
Bill Maher, Jay Leno, and the State of Moral Reasoning in America, Part 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, December 11, 2008
Yesterday I began examining a statement by comedian and commentator Bill Maher. He made this statement on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, in a context of discussing what the Republicans need to do to become a viable party. According to Maher, they should, among other things, stop their opposition to the estate tax:
“The estate tax is the perfect tax. I mean, we gotta tax somebody, right? This is a tax on rich dead people: people who literally have estates, otherwise known as not you. People who don’t need money, on account of that whole being dead thing.”
Yesterday I noted how much Maher’s argument plays upon personal self-interest. It also seems to assume that the government can decide how much money somebody needs, and take whatever is extra. I’d be surprised if Maher, a wealthy libertarian, really wants to make this argument.
Part of what perplexes me about what Maher says is what he doesn’t bother to say about estate taxes. I’d like to know why he thinks is morally right, not just expedient, for the government to take somebody’s money just because they died. For some strange reason, this seems to me rather more like stealing than taxing.
Here’s a thought experiment to focus our thinking: Suppose there is a man who worked very hard throughout his life. At twenty, he worked in a construction company as a carpenter. In time he became a superintendent. He put in long hours. He and his family lived conservatively, trying to invest whatever they could. At fifty, the man had the chance to buy the construction company. In the years that followed, he worked even harder, putting in longer hours than he had before. The company thrived, owing to his hard work and practical wisdom. He continued to invest a fair amount of money because his family lived relatively frugally compared to their income level. Of course the man paid lots of income taxes throughout his life. His lifetime total added up to several million dollars in Federal income taxes alone. Finally, he sold his company and retired. When he died at age 85, his estate was worth $30,000,000. Because his wife had predeceased him, this money would be passed on to their children. But should a major portion of his estate be taken by the government?
Okay, this man was rich and now he’s dead. We can agree on that. Not counting the $2,000,000 that is exempt from the estate tax, this man will owe multiple millions of dollars to the government. This is true even though he already paid income taxes on this money. So here’s what I don’t get. Why is it moral for the government to tax this man’s estate? Why is it right for the government to take a substantial chunk of money he fairly and legally earned? Shouldn’t he be free to do what he likes with his money through his will?
Bill Maher would say that this man doesn’t need the money. Fine. But do we believe that it’s right for the government to take money we don’t need? Is this the standard of fair taxation? Bill Maher would also point out that the government is taking money from someone else, not me, so I should like it. But does that give me any moral foundation on which to stand in my support for the estate tax?
Bill Maher exemplifies the kind of shallow and selfish arguments that plague moral and political discourse in America. His cleverness allows him to make what seems like a moral argument for the estate tax, when mostly it’s an appeal to pure self-interest. Ugh!
Just for the record, I doubt that estate tax issues will ever be relevant to me personally. Those from whom my family and I will someday inherit money don’t have enough to pay estate taxes, and neither will I when my time on this earth is up. So I’m not motivated here by my own self-interest. In fact, as someone who has worked in non-profit organizations all of my life, I am probably an indirect benficiary of the current laws, since people sometimes make tax deductible contributions to churches and other organizations to avoid having to pay estate taxes. So I’m not moved by self-interest. What does move me, however, is curiosity about the kinds of moral arguments that people make . . . and the lack thereof. I’ll bring up another example tomorrow when I comment on something Jay Leno said in his conversation with Bill Maher.
P.S. A friend of mine wrote a thoughtful email about this issue. In it he suggested that estate taxes might have to do with the government’s belief that the nation would be better off without an aristocracy based on inherited wealth. Estate taxes, from this perspective, would be used to keep the economic and political playing field more or less level in our society. It still feels to me as if the government is stealing rather than taxing. But I appreciate a decent argument for estate taxes, even if, in the end, I don’t buy it. Ironically, my friend’s view of estate taxes is a little bit like the Year of Jubilee legistation in Scripture.
Topics: Moral Reasoning | 11 Comments »
Bill Maher, Jay Leno, and the State of Moral Reasoning in America, Part 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, December 10, 2008
A couple of weeks ago I tuned in to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. (One of the happy benefits of living in the Central Time Zone is that most television programs come on an hour earlier than on the east and west coasts. So I can catch a little bit of Leno before bed and still be asleep by 11:15. On this particular night, Jay’s guests included singer/actress Kristen Chenoweth (always fun!) and political comedian Bill Maher (always obnoxious!). You can watch the recording on Hulu, if you’re so inclined.
Bill Maher is a clever, cynical, critical man who gets attention by saying outlandish things. Maher, as you may recall, recently released the film Religulous, that made fun of religion and religious people, mostly with a series of cheap shots. Thus it came as no surprise to me when, in a conversation with Jay Leno about homosexuality, Maher wondered if Jesus had been gay. “It wouldn’t make him any worse!” Maher explained, assuming that Jesus was already bad enough. Maher’s evidence for Jesus’ gayness? He was “a gentle guy” who “never got married” and ended every prayer with “Ah . . . men!” See what I mean by cheap shots?
Maher did have a few funny lines. On the election of Obama, he said, “It’s a new chapter in America. Unfortunately, it’s Chapter 11.” But his making fun of Sarah Palin was lowball even for Maher. His sexual innuendos were both offensive and unbelievably sexist for someone who claims to be a an enlightened human being.
I could waste the rest of this blog post picking on Maher. But I want to take seriously something he said about taxation, of all things. I want to analyze his ideas and examine his moral reasoning because I think it’s instructive and, to an extent, representative. You hear this kind of argument, not just from eccentric comedians like Maher, but from much more mainstream leaders and lots of regular Americans.
Maher’s comments came while he was giving advice to the Republican Party as it considers its future. He condemned Republicans as the people who are against estate taxes. Maher explained further:
“The estate tax is the perfect tax. I mean, we gotta tax somebody, right? This is a tax on rich dead people: people who literally have estates, otherwise known as not you. People who don’t need money, on account of that whole being dead thing.”
Now I realize Maher was exaggerating to be funny. But he wasn’t just telling jokes. He was also advocating a position that, I’m quite sure, he actually holds. (This is ironic because Maher claims to be a libertarian. It’s hard to imagine a true libertarian thinking that the government should take money from people just because they died.)
Maher is partly right, partly wrong, in what he claims. I’m no expert on estate taxes, but I’m pretty sure that in the U.S. today, the first two million dollars of one’s estate are exempt from the estate tax. So the only people who would pay estate taxes are those who have more than two million in net worth and who are dead. Of course, in a sense the estate tax is actually a tax on the heirs of the deceased. They’re the ones who will have less money in the end. So it’s not just a tax on dead people, as if the money the government takes would otherwise be buried in the ground along with the deceased.
I find most interesting Maher’s statement that an estate tax is a tax on “people who literally have estates, otherwise known as not you.” This is an open argument from self-interest. We should support the estate tax, he says, because other people will have to pay, not us. Now that’s an argument I could get behind, given my natural instinct towards selfishness! But should I?
Maher offers some justification for making others pay, namely: they “don’t need the money, on account of the whole being dead thing.” Yes, of course. But the money is really coming from the heirs, who, presumably, don’t need it.
I wonder if Maher would be willing to argue the general principle: It is right for the government to take from people whatever money they don’t need. That would sure open up a can of worms, wouldn’t it? Who gets to decide what somebody needs? Suppose the government decided that nobody needs more than $250,000 a year. Would it be right for the government to take whatever extra somebody makes? I’ll bet Bill Maher makes a whole lot more than this. Does he need all he makes? Would he be happy to let the government take every thing he doesn’t need? (At this point I’d love to see Maher’s tax return, not only to see how much he makes, but also to see how much he gives away to charity.)
Tomorrow I’ll finish up my critique for Bill Maher’s moral reasoning before moving on to Jay Leno.
Topics: Moral Reasoning | 6 Comments »
Advent Conspiracy
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Thanks to my sister, I recently learned of a fascinating new approach to Christmas and Advent. Started by five pastors in 2006, Advent Conspiracy encourages us to: Worship Fully, Spend Less, Give More, and Love All. Check out this short (2 minutes, 39 seconds) video introduction to Advent Conspiracy. No matter how you respond, it will surely make you think.
Topics: Advent | 4 Comments »
Zombie Shoppers
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, December 8, 2008
Are shoppers turning into zombies? Yes, they are, ccording to John Morris, a Wachovia retailing analyst. “You walk the mall, and consumers look like zombies. They’re there in person, but not in spirit.” Why zombie shopping? Because of the nation’s rising unemployment rate and the disappointing sales figures reported in October.
I saw this comment by John Morris in the “Verbatim” section of TIME Magazine. It was also picked up by the New York Times. Zombie shoppers . . . now that’s a striking image.
I have to wonder if John Morris saw the 1978 George Romero film, Dawn of the Dead. I must confess that I saw it in my early twenties. It was, by far, the most goriest film I have ever seen. I do not recommend it under any circumstances. Having made this clear, Dawn of the Dead did feature a bunch of zombies in a shopping mal, the Monroeville Mall in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, to be precise. There was some ironic social commentary here, though it was largely obscured by the extreme violence of the film. At one point, a couple of characters are wondering why the zombies are invading the mall. Here’s the dialogue:
Francine Parker: What are they doing? Why do they come here?
Stephen: Some kind of instinct. Memory, of what they used to do. This was an important place in their lives.
Well, I don’t suppose we’ll know whether John Morris was inspired by Dawn of the Dead to compare shoppers to zombies. So I’ll move on to a more edifying conversation.
I’m fascinated by Morris’s description. Consumers in the mall look like zombies. Why? Because “they’re there in person, but not in spirit.” What spirit are they lacking? The spirit of consumerism, the spirit that is energized by having money to spend.
Jesus may have had a name for that spirit, actually. He called it Mammon (see Matthew 6:24). Mammon was the Aramaic word for money or wealth, and it found its way into the Greek New Testament in the statement: “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth [mammon].” Jesus was not saying that we should never use money. But he was pointing out the power of Mammon to rule our lives. If you’re a slave to the spirit of Mammon, then you can’t be free to serve the Lord. For Jesus this isn’t a matter of both/and, but either/or.
If the spirit that animates shoppers is, indeed, Mammon, then one might very well say that energetic consumers are just as much zombies as the lifeless, moneyless folk bemoaned by John Morris. Their “zombieness” lies below the surface, however. They look quite alive, but may well be dead on the inside.
If you go shopping because that’s all you know to do with your spare time, if you wander about in the mall when you don’t even have any money to spend, then you may well have become lifeless zombie. But if shopping for things you don’t really need takes up a disproportionate amount of your time and money, then you may also be a zombie, a person who is alive on one level but missing out on real living.
If you don’t have money for shopping but you go to a mall, what does that say about you? After all, you could have gone to a park, or taken a nap, or painted a picture, or read poerty, or played a game with your children, or . . . . But you went to a mall, not to shop, but just to walk about in a sad, moneyless trance.
I wonder what would happen in our culture if people stopped going to malls, other than to buy things they really need, and started doing things that weren’t centered around consumerism. Oh, I expect the economic impact wouldn’t be favorable, because so much of our prosperity as a nation is predicated on people buying lots of things they don’t need. But what might your life be like if, instead of rambling around in a mall when you had a couple of free hours, you took a quick stroll around your neighborhood. You just might end up healthier and happier. You might even get to chat with your neighbors. Fancy that!
Maybe, just maybe, economic crisis in which we find ourselves has an upside. It could help us to rediscover some of life’s richest joys . . . the ones that don’t cost a dime. When you don’t have money for shopping, why not go to a park rather than a mall? Why not take a nap, or paint a picture, or read a good book, or play a game with your children, or . . . ?
As you think about whether or not you’re a zombie shopper, let me encourage you to reflect on a few passages from Scripture:
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).
“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? . . . Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matthew 6:24-25, 31-33)
You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:1-7)
In this season of preparation for Christmas, may you be fully alive through the grace of God in Christ!
Topics: Cultural Commentary | 2 Comments »