Here is a picture of our little girl (LG), the catcher, intimidating the third base runner. You can just hear it, "Go ahead...run...make my day."
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Closing Day
April 25, 2009 was Anya’s and Micah’s last day of t-ball and softball. No sublime or profound thoughts here. We just had a good time watching. Here is Anya’s final team and parent on field celebration.
Here is a picture of our little girl (LG), the catcher, intimidating the third base runner. You can just hear it, "Go ahead...run...make my day."
Here is a picture of our little girl (LG), the catcher, intimidating the third base runner. You can just hear it, "Go ahead...run...make my day."
Monday, March 16, 2009
I Just Don't Get It!
In October, after receiving $85 billion in bail out finds, AIG spend $440,000 hosting a corporate retreat at St Regis Monarch Beach resort, on the California coast. (see http://www.wisebread.com/the-aig-retreat-pictures-why-its-worse-than-you-think). Today we are surprised and indignant that AIG is paying bonuses.
Let me get the big picture in focus. AIG executives manage to loose $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 taking the prestigious record for the largest corporate loss in history. The US government gives these same executives $170 billion in bail out funds to save the company because the company is "too big to fail." Now everyone is surprised that AIG turned around and paid out more than $165 million in bonuses to these same executives. I don’t know who I am more disgusted with: the people who give out our tax dollars, the people who receive them or the people who are suprised that business practices haven't changed. If we give billions of dollars to people who have mismanaged billions of dollars, why are we surprised that the money is mishandled again?
The $165 million was payable to executives by Sunday and was part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue.
AIG reported this month that it had lost $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history. The bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/16/lawmakers-target-aig-executive-bonuses/ (March 16, 2009)
The Sunday shows have paraded a number of solutions:
"Maybe it's time to fire some people," he said, adding that the bonuses were "rewarding incompetence." Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass
Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., chairman of the subcommittee, said in a statement that lawmakers would investigate the bonuses at the hearing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/16/lawmakers-target-aig-executive-bonuses/ (March 16, 2009)
Maybe it’s time to fire some people? Let’s investigate? I propose a very simpler solution.
- Demand the $170 billion back
- Resolve that AIG will not get one more cent of bailout money.
- Make it a deal breaking condition that any company that intends to pay bonuses, or does pay bonuses will receive no bailout money.
How hard is this? If you want help…don’t pay bonuses, don’t take corporate vacations, no raises, use every cent of your capital to strengthen your company until you can stand on your own and pay back what you borrowed. Then you can do what you want.
I can hear it now. But we have contractual obligations! Answer: Not our problem!!! If you want the money, those are the conditions, you figure it out.
The formula is easy:
Pay bonus = LOSE BAILOUT MONEY!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Ambidextrous Faith
When we first moved to Kiev in June, 2003 one family that befriended us was the Burkett family. I remember the first time Joseph went to their apartment to play. After several hours he came back with all kinds of stories about what they did. He was very excited and was talking very fast. I noticed that he wasn’t using many names, so I stopped him and asked what the kid’s names were. He said, “Well, there is the oldest, the youngest, Andrew and the girl.” He had so much fun that he had forgotten to ask their names. We enjoyed their company so when they moved to Lutsk a year later, we rejoiced that God was opening a new work but were sad to see them go. Over the years, Herb, Kim, Josh, Andrew, Ashley and Jacob have had a vibrant ministry in Lutsk and have been a blessing and inspiration to us. They are models what a family can be. The love each other, they serve the Lord together and are kind to the people in their lives. In the picture Andrew is the young man on the bottom right with both hands on the floor. Next to him is his father Herb, then his brother Josh. The next row is his sister Ashley and mother Kim and on top is his little brother Jacob.
Andrew was sick with the flu. Last Monday, he seemed to be worse so they took him to the doctor who diagnosed him with double-pneumonia. They began treatment right away. Andrew’s condition worsened, they were moving him to another hospital when his heart stopped and they were not able to revive him. He died. Just like that. How is the human soul supposed to process such a thing?
In a book by Philip Yancey, I read that Gregory of Nissa once said that Basil th
e Great had ambidextrous Faith. He explained that his faith was ambidextrous because Basil welcomed pleasures with his right hand and afflictions with his left. Later, Yancey talks about John Donne (17th century poet and dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London). Donne lived and ministered during a time a great pain. The bubonic plague took tens of thousands and eventually Donne himself fell sick and suffered greatly. At first Donne’s devotions reveal a fearful struggle with God. He often asked God, “Why me?” Gradually, his question changed to “Will I trust God with my pain, anger and fear?” This is, of course, the correct and more difficult question. Donne realized that the source of the pain was not at issue, the response to the pain was at issue. That is ambidextrous faith.
e Great had ambidextrous Faith. He explained that his faith was ambidextrous because Basil welcomed pleasures with his right hand and afflictions with his left. Later, Yancey talks about John Donne (17th century poet and dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London). Donne lived and ministered during a time a great pain. The bubonic plague took tens of thousands and eventually Donne himself fell sick and suffered greatly. At first Donne’s devotions reveal a fearful struggle with God. He often asked God, “Why me?” Gradually, his question changed to “Will I trust God with my pain, anger and fear?” This is, of course, the correct and more difficult question. Donne realized that the source of the pain was not at issue, the response to the pain was at issue. That is ambidextrous faith.As I ponder the lives of men like Basil, Donne and the Burketts and compare the many blessings in my life, I am ashamed at my decidedly “right handed faith”. I am ready to praise God and thank Him for any and all blessings. When pain, hardship – even minor ones, come, I am so quick to ask “Why me?” “Lord, why don’t You simply spare me the pain?” My heart runs to the wrong question. Why don’t I instinctively respond with the question, “Will I trust, will I bless?” It is because my faith is right handed. I desire and fear to develop ambidextrous faith. I fear it because there is only one way for it to grow - on the job training – practical experience. I desire it because I want to be like Jesus.
As I grieve with the Burkett family from afar, I am amazed at their ambidextrous faith. I pray that they will continue to trust God as they bare the weight of this tragedy with their left hand. May they have the strength to mourn, trust and bless.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
True to our Founding Documents
As I watched the 44th President of the United States of America take the oath of office this morning and listened to his first speech, I thought the tone solemn and appropriate. I was also struck and pleasantly surprised by one particular phrase.
At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents. (President Barak Obama, January 20, 2009).
At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents. (President Barak Obama, January 20, 2009).
President Obama seems to be indicating that he places a high value on the ideals of our forbearers, and…our founding documents. I find this encouraging because our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and even the Federalist Papers are not often consulted when policy is being discussed. I pray that President Obama intends to keep the intentions of our forbearers in mind as he leads our country. I pray that he doesn’t see our founding documents as “living documents” in the sense that they are understood by the axiom “What does this mean to me?”. I pray that the he follows the more appropriate axiom, “What did the author intend?”
Taking an example from Deuteronomy 17:14ff, I suggested in an earlier entry (He Shall Write for Himself), that the next president might want to consider, as an early act in office, hand copying each document and have each copy approved by an appropriate expert. The pledge to read them regularly and use these hand written documents as his personal reference copies. I think this act (maybe about 30 hours of our President’s time) would do wonders for helping him direct the country.
When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,” you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves….Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:14-15, 18-20)
Joy of Life 27
One of the greatest joys in my life is watching my kids grow (physically and intellectually). This year we decided to home-school Joseph and Micah. That means that Julie does most of the schooling and I teach only music, math (to Joseph) and some PE. Last November Julie was away taking care of family business and I kept the Mosse home school room open. It was pretty easy since Julie prepared all the lessons. Well Micah was studying the War of 1812 and she wrote the following paragraph. We are very proud of her.
Micah Mosse (9 years old), 11/7/2008
In the year of 1814 Caroline and Mary sowed a huge flag. They gave it to For McHenry. The battle began. The British started firing their rockets and bombs. A little before the battle started, Francis Scott Key got a prisoner free, but they had to stay on Frances’ boat. Anyway, they British began firing. But the ships were too far for Fort McHenry to shoot back! In the middle of the night some boats from the ships were sailing to the shore to attack the fort from behind, but someone saw them. Fort McHenry began firing at them and they went back. In the morning, Caroline and Francis (both from a different direction) saw the flag. Francis begin writing the poem (song).
In the year of 1814 Caroline and Mary sowed a huge flag. They gave it to For McHenry. The battle began. The British started firing their rockets and bombs. A little before the battle started, Francis Scott Key got a prisoner free, but they had to stay on Frances’ boat. Anyway, they British began firing. But the ships were too far for Fort McHenry to shoot back! In the middle of the night some boats from the ships were sailing to the shore to attack the fort from behind, but someone saw them. Fort McHenry began firing at them and they went back. In the morning, Caroline and Francis (both from a different direction) saw the flag. Francis begin writing the poem (song).
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Straw Man vs. Lisa Miller
In her Newsweek editorial, Our Mutual Joy, Lisa Miller argues for the Biblical support of gay marriage. She opens with the intent to “define marriage as the Bible does.” She begins her definition with the examples of Abraham, his grandson Jacob, then King David and his son Solomon. Her conclusion is, “…all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.” The implications seem clear. The Old Testament teaches polygamy as the norm for marriage; therefore Biblical norm does not apply to the issue of gay marriage today. Next she moves to the New Testament and teaches that Jesus preached “indifference to earthly attachments – especially family”. Further, Paul saw marriage as “a last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust.” Her conclusion in the first paragraph is that the Bible is not a “how-to script” for marriage.
Miller’s editorial is lengthy and touches on so many points that it is difficult to respond to them all. However, I do think that it is necessary to respond to every point. There is one major point, demonstrated in this first paragraph that colors the entire article. Miller’s stated purpose is to “define marriage as the Bible does”, but what she demonstrates is how poorly she understands the Bible. She not only demonstrates her ignorance of the Bible but also her ignorance of how serious conservatives understand the Bible. What we have in this editorial is a classic example of the “Straw man” fallacy. The straw man fallacy is when you build an argument that looks like your opponents argument but is much weaker. You refute the weaker argument and claim to have refuted the real argument. This is analogous to building a straw man and dressing it up to look like your opponent. Then you beat up the straw man and claim to have beaten your opponent. In both cases you have neither beaten up your opponent nor refuted his arguments. A survey of the first paragraph is enough to show how poor Millers understanding really is. The rest of the article consists of more of the same type of straw man beatings.
First, she picks four Old Testament heroes (Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon) that practiced polygamy and implies that this is the normative teaching of the Old Testament. The first thing that jumped out at me was that she didn’t mention Abraham’s son (also a patriarch), Isaac. Isaac had one wife, Rebekah. Why skip from Abraham to Jacob? I can’t say for sure because I don’t to put words in Miller’s mouth but I can guess that it would cast some doubt on the argument that the Old Testament model of polygamy was normative. Second, she sets this model forward as normative but makes no mention of any mandate to multiple marriage or blessing of multiple marriages. In fact the opposite can be found. Solomon, one of the heroes cited by Miller, wrote in Proverbs, “Drink water from your own cistern…should your springs be scattered abroad…let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth.” (Proverbs 5:15ff). It seems that Solomon’s advice is to love the wife (singular) of your youth and not look for others. Third, Miller makes no mention of the jealousies and problems that resulted from these men’s polygamy. Her assumption seems to be that if you can find it in the Bible, then God must approve. The enormity of the foolishness of such an assumption is beyond my ability to express in words. The Bible consists of many different genres of writing and the different books are written for different purposes and this background information can drastically color the ability of the reader to understand the author’s intent. Finally, she also makes no mention of the many men, especially prophets, who had just one wife. If we just used numbers of marriages in the Old Testament, most were between one man and one woman, yet Miller finds this so insignificant that she doesn’t even deem it worthy of mentioning in her editorial.
Now let’s turn to the New Testament examples mentioned by Miller, Jesus and Paul. She states that Jesus was “indifferent to earthly attachments – especially family.” She gives no reference but I can guess where maybe she got that impression. Perhaps she got it from Mark 3:35, Jesus said, “Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother”. Or how about in Matthew 10:37 when Jesus said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” These are difficult saying to be sure. And an argument could be made that these statements show that Jesus put a high value on family. The Christian’s love for Jesus should be stronger than his/her strongest earthly tie. Jesus uses the family relationship as an example of this strongest of earthly ties. It is amazing how someone could read such a statement and classify the speaker as indifferent toward family. Such is the scholarship of Miller. But there is yet more to Jesus indifference to family. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for encouraging people to give money to the temple that should be used to care for their parents (Mark 7:9-13). Further, one of His last thoughts on the cross was of his mother. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, you son!’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” (John 19:26-27). Again, I find it hard to believe that one could read such a tender moment and define Jesus’ attitude toward family as indifferent.
Miller also declares that Paul has a lukewarm attitude toward marriage. It is true that he said that it is better to marry than to burn. He also told husbands “…love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it…In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, as Christ does the church. For we are parts of his body-of his flesh and of his bones. That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Eph 5:25ff). I find it difficult to define someone as lukewarm when he commands husbands to nourish and tenderly care for their wives. Paul is writing about the mystery of the church and marriage and this is a difficult passage. But the point here is that one cannot read such profound thoughts and describe the author “lukewarm” toward the marriage relationship.
Miller also makes no mention of Peter. Peter was married and said things like, “In a similar way, you husbands must live with your wives in an understanding manner, as with a most delicate vessel. Honor them as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing may interfere with your prayers. (I Peter 3:7). At the end of the first paragraph Miller asks the question, “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple…turn to the Bible as a how-to script?” She answers, “Of course not.” I answer, “Of course”. If all the husbands of America simply took to heart this one sentence of Peter’s as a “how to” guide for marriage, we would have a very different picture of marriage in this land of ours.
Now, I think this short analysis of just the first paragraph of Miller’s editorial clearly demonstrates the depth of her scholarship when it comes to the Bible. Sadly, her scholarship doesn’t seem to reach even the depth of surface understanding. Yet, the fact-checkers and editors at Newsweek deem her opinion worth not just of publication but of the lead editorial.
The kindest explanation of Miller’s poor presentation of the Biblical teaching concerning marriage is that she did not know that the Old and New Testaments presented a rich and complex number of examples of marriage and teaching about marriage. In this case, she simply didn’t do her homework and neither did the Newsweek fact checkers. In the worst case scenario, she understood the complexity of the Biblical teaching and presented an erroneous picture. In either case I don’t see why anyone would take her opinion on Biblical matters seriously.
Miller’s editorial is lengthy and touches on so many points that it is difficult to respond to them all. However, I do think that it is necessary to respond to every point. There is one major point, demonstrated in this first paragraph that colors the entire article. Miller’s stated purpose is to “define marriage as the Bible does”, but what she demonstrates is how poorly she understands the Bible. She not only demonstrates her ignorance of the Bible but also her ignorance of how serious conservatives understand the Bible. What we have in this editorial is a classic example of the “Straw man” fallacy. The straw man fallacy is when you build an argument that looks like your opponents argument but is much weaker. You refute the weaker argument and claim to have refuted the real argument. This is analogous to building a straw man and dressing it up to look like your opponent. Then you beat up the straw man and claim to have beaten your opponent. In both cases you have neither beaten up your opponent nor refuted his arguments. A survey of the first paragraph is enough to show how poor Millers understanding really is. The rest of the article consists of more of the same type of straw man beatings.
First, she picks four Old Testament heroes (Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon) that practiced polygamy and implies that this is the normative teaching of the Old Testament. The first thing that jumped out at me was that she didn’t mention Abraham’s son (also a patriarch), Isaac. Isaac had one wife, Rebekah. Why skip from Abraham to Jacob? I can’t say for sure because I don’t to put words in Miller’s mouth but I can guess that it would cast some doubt on the argument that the Old Testament model of polygamy was normative. Second, she sets this model forward as normative but makes no mention of any mandate to multiple marriage or blessing of multiple marriages. In fact the opposite can be found. Solomon, one of the heroes cited by Miller, wrote in Proverbs, “Drink water from your own cistern…should your springs be scattered abroad…let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth.” (Proverbs 5:15ff). It seems that Solomon’s advice is to love the wife (singular) of your youth and not look for others. Third, Miller makes no mention of the jealousies and problems that resulted from these men’s polygamy. Her assumption seems to be that if you can find it in the Bible, then God must approve. The enormity of the foolishness of such an assumption is beyond my ability to express in words. The Bible consists of many different genres of writing and the different books are written for different purposes and this background information can drastically color the ability of the reader to understand the author’s intent. Finally, she also makes no mention of the many men, especially prophets, who had just one wife. If we just used numbers of marriages in the Old Testament, most were between one man and one woman, yet Miller finds this so insignificant that she doesn’t even deem it worthy of mentioning in her editorial.
Now let’s turn to the New Testament examples mentioned by Miller, Jesus and Paul. She states that Jesus was “indifferent to earthly attachments – especially family.” She gives no reference but I can guess where maybe she got that impression. Perhaps she got it from Mark 3:35, Jesus said, “Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother”. Or how about in Matthew 10:37 when Jesus said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” These are difficult saying to be sure. And an argument could be made that these statements show that Jesus put a high value on family. The Christian’s love for Jesus should be stronger than his/her strongest earthly tie. Jesus uses the family relationship as an example of this strongest of earthly ties. It is amazing how someone could read such a statement and classify the speaker as indifferent toward family. Such is the scholarship of Miller. But there is yet more to Jesus indifference to family. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for encouraging people to give money to the temple that should be used to care for their parents (Mark 7:9-13). Further, one of His last thoughts on the cross was of his mother. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, you son!’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” (John 19:26-27). Again, I find it hard to believe that one could read such a tender moment and define Jesus’ attitude toward family as indifferent.
Miller also declares that Paul has a lukewarm attitude toward marriage. It is true that he said that it is better to marry than to burn. He also told husbands “…love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it…In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, as Christ does the church. For we are parts of his body-of his flesh and of his bones. That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Eph 5:25ff). I find it difficult to define someone as lukewarm when he commands husbands to nourish and tenderly care for their wives. Paul is writing about the mystery of the church and marriage and this is a difficult passage. But the point here is that one cannot read such profound thoughts and describe the author “lukewarm” toward the marriage relationship.
Miller also makes no mention of Peter. Peter was married and said things like, “In a similar way, you husbands must live with your wives in an understanding manner, as with a most delicate vessel. Honor them as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing may interfere with your prayers. (I Peter 3:7). At the end of the first paragraph Miller asks the question, “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple…turn to the Bible as a how-to script?” She answers, “Of course not.” I answer, “Of course”. If all the husbands of America simply took to heart this one sentence of Peter’s as a “how to” guide for marriage, we would have a very different picture of marriage in this land of ours.
Now, I think this short analysis of just the first paragraph of Miller’s editorial clearly demonstrates the depth of her scholarship when it comes to the Bible. Sadly, her scholarship doesn’t seem to reach even the depth of surface understanding. Yet, the fact-checkers and editors at Newsweek deem her opinion worth not just of publication but of the lead editorial.
The kindest explanation of Miller’s poor presentation of the Biblical teaching concerning marriage is that she did not know that the Old and New Testaments presented a rich and complex number of examples of marriage and teaching about marriage. In this case, she simply didn’t do her homework and neither did the Newsweek fact checkers. In the worst case scenario, she understood the complexity of the Biblical teaching and presented an erroneous picture. In either case I don’t see why anyone would take her opinion on Biblical matters seriously.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
So. Cal. Home school
Julie has been away for several days. That means that I get to do the lion’s share of home-school with Joseph and Micah. Home school on Wednesday reminded again of how much I love California. On Wednesdays Joseph and Micah have an “academic” day. That doesn’t mean that the other days are not academic, it means that they get to go to an actual classroom and learn from a different teacher. Well, Micah had a class from 9:30am to 11:30am then Joseph had a class from noon to two. The meeting place is about a 30 minute drive from our house so it is not worth it to return home while one of them is in class. Luckily, there is a park next to the class meeting place. But, it is November 5th, we can’t study outside….Ahhh but this is Southern California.
Above, Joseph does his math next to the lake. To the left, he is sitting at a bench taking a break from history to talk to a crow in a tree.
Joseph and I enjoyed a splendid morning of math and history by the lake. After lunch with Micah, Joseph went to class and Micah and I enjoyed a lovely afternoon of the “War of 1812”, “Supreme Court” and the concept of “Checks and Balances” by the lake. I miss Odessa, but I love this place.
Finally, here is a picture of my with Dave Tucker last November in Odessa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
