Drill for Oil? Not in our country!

If you wonder why oil is so expensive and why your money goes from the gas pump to countries that want to kill us, ask your local member of Congress. The geniuses in a House of Representatives subcommittee voted to block drilling in the 100 mile wide outer continental shelf, where estimates place 76 BILLION barrels of oil, enough to keep this country running for 34 years at current use levels. Here is a list of those voting for and against the measure that would allow drilling in the outer continental shelf.

AGAINST
Chair: Norman D. Dicks (WA)
James P. Moran (VA)
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)
John W. Olver (MA)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Tom Udall (NM)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Ed Pastor (AZ)
Dave Obey (WI), Ex Officio

FOR
Minority
Ranking Member:
Todd Tiahrt (KS)
John E. Peterson (PA)
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio


Here is a list of places that Congress has declared off limits to drilling for oil. I just thought you might want to know this.

Washington, the entire state; Oregon, the entire state; Northern California, Central California and Southern California. The eastern Gulf of Mexico except for a portion of land. The South Atlantic, the Mid Atlantic, the North Atlantic, all national marine sanctuaries. All of these are indefinite. The Olympic Coast, Cordell Bank, California, Monterey Bay, California, the Gulf of the Farallones, California, the Channel Islands of California; the Flower Bank Gardens Gulf of Mexico, Straits of Florida and the Florida Keys, Gray's Reef South and Atlantic, Monitor Mid Atlantic, Stellwagen Bank, North Atlantic. That doesn't include the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Next time you fill up, thank your members of Congress for their foresight. They truly are the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.

$4 gasoline?

Read this article and scratch your head. I've touched on this before, but we have oil reserves we are not allowed to tap because of Congressional mandates. If that oil were brought online, we would not be funding dictators of regimes that support terrorism. Nor would we be converting our food to fuel. But this is what the Congress wants.

Now we learn that our leading source of oil, Canada, may not be able to ship the oil from its tar sands to the U.S. because they do not meet the criteria of "renewable energy." It seems as if we are rushing pell-mell to cripple our own economy.

Something weird is afoot here. In the words of Deep Throat, I think we need to "follow the money." In the meantime, the price of gas continues to climb as demand drops. That is not how free markets work.

Have you ever felt like you were being sold out?

I'm getting that vibe from the folks in Washington. First, gas and oil prices are setting records, yet some on Congress do not want us to drill for oil in our own country. ANWR and the continental shelf are off limits, yet they hold enormous amounts of oil that we could use and not be sending money to countries that are avowed enemies ours. But Hugo Chavez is helping Cuba drill off the coast of Florida. And China is now drilling off the Florida coast. But U.S firms are not allowed to do that. Go figure.

Secondly, this whole debacle with the Southern Border has me mystified. Our border is overrun, and the politicians seem to not understand that most Americans are not opposed to immigration, but they are opposed to unchecked illegal immigration.

I truly wonder if our representatives in Washington, regardless of party, have our national interest at heart. Or are they trying to curry favor with a bunch of potential new voters.

FYI - the photo is of clothing ditched by illegals as they cross the border.

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions

The Law of Unintended Consequences has not been repealed. In our zeal, post-Katrina to find alternative sources of energy for our cars, we, as a government, are rushing pell-mell into ethanol production. Never mind that ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline and costs a fortune in agricultural inputs, it is the wave of the future. Enter market economics. As the cover of World Magazine shows, not everyone is happy with our national goal of giant corn distilleries. It seems that our push for ethanol is driving up the price of corn, in some cases, doubling it. And the poor folks who have it as a staple of their diet are suffering.

Never mind that there is ample oil off the coast of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and California, not to mention the ANWR debacle. U.S. companies are not allowed to drill for oil in these zones, but Cuba is. Cuba, with the help of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, is planning to drill for oil within sight of Florida. So much for the environmentalists cause there.

This reminds me of a 235 year-old letter written by John Wesley "To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post'" in 1772. The text is below, courtesy of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology at Northwest Nazarene University. It seems that not much has changed since then. We take food crops and use them for other purposes and disadvantage those who are most vulnerable. Read John Wesley's letter below

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' [25]]

DOVER, December 9, 1772.

SIR,--Many excellent things have been lately published concerning the present scarcity of provisions. And many causes have been assigned for it; but is not something wanting in most of those publications? One writer assigns one cause, another one or two more, and strongly insists upon them. But who has assigned all the causes that manifestly concur to produce this melancholy effect? at the same time pointing out how each particular cause affects the price of each particular sort of provision?

I would willingly offer to candid and benevolent men a few hints on this important subject, proposing a few questions, and adding to each what seems to be the plain and direct answer.

I. 1. I ask first, Why are thousands of people starving, perishing for want, in every part of England? The fact I know: I have seen it with my eyes in every corner of the land. I have known those who could only afford to eat a little coarse food every other day. I have known one picking up stinking sprats from a dunghill and carrying them home for herself and her children. I have known another gathering the bones which the dogs had left in the streets and making broth of them to prolong a wretched life. Such is the case at this day of multitudes of people in a land flowing, as it were, with milk and honey, abounding with all the necessaries, the conveniences, the superfluities of life!

Now, why is this? Why have all these nothing to eat? Because they have nothing to do. They have no meat because they have no work.

2. But why have they no work? Why are so many thousand people in London, in Bristol, in Norwich, in every county from one end of England to the other, utterly destitute of employment?

Because the persons who used to employ them cannot afford to do it any longer. Many who employed fifty men now scarce employ ten. Those who employed twenty now employ one or none at all. They cannot, as they have no vent for their goods, food now bearing so high a price that the generality of people are hardly able to buy anything else.

3. But to descend from generals to particulars. Why is breadcorn so dear? Because such immense quantities of it are continually consumed by distilling. Indeed, an eminent distiller near London hearing this, warmly replied, Nay, my partner and I generally distil but a thousand quarters of corn a week.' Perhaps so. Suppose five-and-twenty distillers in and near the town consume each only the same quantity. Here are five-and-twenty thousand quarters a week --that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand quarters a year--consumed in and about London! Add the distillers throughout England, and have we not reason to believe that half of the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison--poison that naturally destroys, not only the strength and life, but also the morals of our countrymen!

Well, but this brings in a large revenue to the King.' Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he, then, sell them for that sum to be butchered by their own countrymen? But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.' Not unless they are fed with human flesh? not unless they are fatted with human blood? O tell it not in Constantinople that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the blood and flesh of their countrymen!

4. But why are oats so dear? Because there are four times the horses kept (to speak within compass), for coaches and chaises in particular, than were some years ago. Unless, therefore, four times the oats grew now as grew then, they cannot be at the same price. If only twice as much is produced (which perhaps is near the truth), the price will naturally be double to what it was.

As the dearness of grain of one kind will naturally raise the price of another, so whatever causes the dearness of wheat and oats must raise the price of barley too. To account, therefore, for the dearness of this we need only remember what has been observed above, although some particular causes may concur in producing the same effect.

5. Why are beef and mutton so dear? Because most of the considerable farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed large numbers of sheep or horned cattle, and frequently both, no longer trouble themselves with either sheep or cows or oxen, as they can turn their land to far better account by breeding horses alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach- and chaise-horses, which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers; but much more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea thousands, to France.

6. But why are pork, poultry, and eggs so dear? Because of the monopolizing of farms, as mischievous a monopoly as was ever yet introduced into these kingdoms. The land which was formerly divided among ten or twenty little farmers and enabled them comfortably to provide for their families is now generally engrossed by one great farmer. One man farms an estate of a thousand a year, which formerly maintained ten or twenty. Every one of these little farmers kept a few swine, with some quantity of poultry; and, having little money, was glad to send his bacon, or pork, or fowls and eggs, to market continually. Hence the markets were plentifully served, and plenty created cheapness; but at present the great, the gentlemen farmers, are above attending to these little things. They breed no poultry or swine unless for their own use; consequently they send none to market. Hence it is not strange if two or three of these living near a market town occasion such a scarcity of these things by preventing the former supply that the price of them will be double or treble to what it was before. Hence (to instance in a small article) in the same town, where within my memory eggs were sold eight or ten a penny, they are now sold six or eight a groat.

Another cause why beef, mutton, pork, and all kinds of victuals are so dear is luxury. What can stand against this?

Will it not waste and destroy all that nature and art can produce? If a person of quality will boil down three dozen of neat's tongues to make two or three quarts of soup (and so proportionately in other things), what wonder if provisions fail? Only look into the kitchens of the great, the nobility, and gentry, almost without exception (considering withal that the toe of the peasant treads upon the heel of the courtier), and when you have observed the amazing waste which is made there, you will no longer wonder at the scarcity, and consequently dearness, of the things which they use so much art to destroy.

7. But why is land so dear? Because on all these accounts gentlemen cannot live as they have been accustomed to do, without increasing their income, which most of them cannot do but by raising their rents. The farmer, paying an higher rent for his land, must have an higher price for the produce of it. This again tends to raise the price of land. And so the wheel goes round.

8. But why is it that not only provisions and land but well-nigh everything else is so dear? Because of the enormous taxes which are laid on almost everything that can be named. Not only abundant taxes are raised from earth and fire and water, but in England the ingenious statesmen have found a way to tax the very light! Only one element remains, and surely some man of honour will ere long contrive to tax this also. For how long shall the saucy air blow in the face of a gentleman, nay a lord, without paying for it?

9. But why are the taxes so high? Because of the national debt. They must be while this continues. I have heard that the national expense in the time of peace was sixty years ago three millions a year. Now the bare interest of the public debt amounts to above four millions. To raise which, with the other expenses of government, those taxes are absolutely necessary.

II. Here is the evil. But where is the remedy? Perhaps it exceeds all the wisdom of man to tell. But it may not be amiss to offer a few hints even on this delicate subject.

1. What remedy is there for this sore evil? Many thousand poor people are starving. Find them work, and you will find them meat. They will then earn and eat their own bread.

2. But how shall their masters give them work without ruining themselves? Procure vent for it, and it will not hurt their masters to give them as much work as they can do; and this will be done by sinking the price of provisions, for then people will have money to buy other things too.

3. But how can the price of wheat be reduced? By prohibiting for ever that bane of health, that destroyer of strength, of life, and of virtue, distilling. Perhaps this alone will answer the whole design. If anything more be needful, may not all starch be made of rice, and the importation of this as well as of wheat be encouraged?

4. How can the price of oats be reduced? By reducing the number of horses. And may not this be effectually done (1) by laying a tax of ten pounds on every horse exported to France, (2) by laying an additional tax on gentlemen's carriages. Not so much for every wheel (barefaced, shameless partiality!), but ten pounds yearly for every horse. And these two taxes alone would nearly supply as much as is now given for leave to poison His Majesty's liege subjects.

5. How can the price of beef and mutton be reduced? By increasing the breed of sheep and horned cattle. And this would be increased sevenfold if the price of horses was reduced, which it surely would be half in half by the method above mentioned.

6. How can the price of pork and poultry be reduced? First, by letting no farms of above an hundred pounds a year. Secondly, by repressing luxury, either by example, by laws, or both.

7. How may the price of land be reduced? By all the methods above named, all which tend to lessen the expense of housekeeping; but especially the last, restraining luxury, which is the grand source of poverty.

8. How may the taxes be reduced? By discharging half the national debt, and so saving at least two millions a year.

How this can be done the wisdom of the great council of the land can best determine.--I am, sir,

Your humble servant.

Friction

fric·tion n.

1. The rubbing of one object or surface against another.
2. Conflict, as between persons having dissimilar ideas or interests; clash.
3. Physics. A force that resists the relative motion or tendency to such motion of two bodies in contact.

Friction is one of those morally neutral things that drive us crazy. Friction is good, as in iron sharpening iron. It's bad when it's ball bearings screeching to a halt. We like it when it helps our tires grip the road surface, we don't when it creates static electricity and shocks us when we open the door.

Friction is everywhere. It is why the jet stream is faster than surface winds. It is why the center of a river channel generally flows faster than the area near the edges. Friction is what slows our snow sleds on the hills, unless we pull a Chevy Chase in Christmas Vacation and use some super lubricant to reduce friction.

Friction also exists in our lives in less abstract ways. Friction occurs when you have competing ideas and visions. The two sides may not agree on a particular approach to a subject, but one will carry the day. How that process is handled is extraordinarly important.

If there is no lubricant between the two sides, things can heat up quickly. Just forget to add oil to your engine once to get an idea of what can happen. Heat builds up to a failure point. In relationships the failure point can be words spoken in anger, rash decisions, or a decision to go negative and backbite and gossip about the other person.

Properly managed friction can produce a relationship where the two sides pull together and work for the common good and purpose. In a machine, liberal application of a lubricant such as oil usually does the trick. With people, oil is much less effective.

The lubricants of choice would be love, grace and humilty. Putting those together can make a number of things go much more smoothly. Remembering that the other person is a child of God is always helpful. If the question comes down to purely personal choice, e.g there is no clear right and wrong, then humility needs to be applied. And grace covers a number of bumps along the way.

I say this knowing that I have not always done this. But God continues to work on me to mold me into something useful to him. A pastor once called me "hard-headed and tender-hearted." I took it as a compliment, but realized that the hard-headed needs to be tempered with humility. And God is really good at humbling people.

I know.

Back to the Stone Age

It seems that no matter what we do energy-wise, we are doomed. Let's just face it. We need to go back to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle so that no one can damage the planet or be damaged by any of the modern technology that we are so dependent on.

To wit, I've listed some of the problems with the current and future sources of energy that are being bantered about.

Wind turbines chop up birds and cause medical problems. So much for the "clean, renewable" source of energy. Not to mention that they are unattractive.

Ethanol raises food prices and is inefficient. There goes the Iowa farmer subsidy program. Thank goodness the presidential candidates won't be back there handing out our money for a fuel that is less efficient than gasoline. And I don't see large amounts of acreage dedicated to switchgrass.

Drilling for oil on our coasts would be a catastrophe. So much so that Nancy Pelosi won't even allow the House of Representatives to vote on the issue. Just discussing it would cause harm.

Nuclear Power is fraught with peril. Didn't we all see The China Syndrome? And what to do with the waste since Harry Reid won't allow the Yucca Mountain containment facility to be built.

Hydroelectric power destroys fish habitat. Salmon can't migrate past those massive dams.

Coal causes global warming. And we know Al Gore and his private jet are running around showing his movie and Nobel prize to remind us of that.

Solar power technology is not there yet. Presumably because Big Oil has the secret formula locked away with the 100 mpg carburetor somewhere in their vault.

My advice to you all is to go buy some land and livestock, and begin reading the Little House on the Prairie books for advice on how to live. If the politicians get their way, we will all need to step into our "Way Back Machine" and dramatically reduce our energy usage. Learn to cook over a wood fire and use all-natural materials. The 21st century is calling.

Come Lord Jesus, Come.

The cheapest mental health counsel you will ever receive

Stop watching the news. Especially the local news, or what passes for local news in most markets. One of the saddest things I have witnessed in my career is how the local news has become essentially irrelevant other than the weather forecast and occasional sports report. Local news has adopted the cable news motto of "infotainment at the lowest common denominator" and it is truly sickening to watch. Which is why I have stopped watching. Maybe I am a bit of a Luddite, but I get my news from the Detroit News, Wall Street Journal and Monroe Evening News, along with a few internet web sites.

Our local Fox affiliate sent a reporter to Hollywood to cover the American Idol finale, and gave that report as much time as the weather and sports reports. The news division is now shilling for the entertainment side, and it is becoming more obvious. The morning talking head shows talk about the TV shows from the night before, and lead that night's programming. Meanwhile, in our great state of Michigan, we have a $1billion state budget deficit, an imploding housing market, jobs leaving in droves, a feckless governor and a legislature that is unwilling to face the reality that trimming around the edges and accounting gimmicks aren't going to make this go away. We have the 2nd highest gas tax in the country, and the legislature is worried about oil companies gouging. According to an opinion piece in today's Detroit News, the state takes in $7.80 in tax off of a typical gas tank filling, while the oil company profits $2.20. Who is gouging? Yet the media mavens have our attention on the Kodak Theater.

What we see on the news is celebrity gossip, fluff, and the latest body count on the streets from murders, rapes and robberies. I have spoken with TV news producers who tell us this is what their research shows the viewers want. If that is true, then I am truly saddened. Do we really want more "investigative" reporters running around trying to justify their existence? They do a service occasionally with their reporting, but 5 nights per week with three networks leads to some pretty thin stories getting hyped.

I'm looking forward to a vacation. I can't hide my head in the sand. But I don't have to watch the pablum that is being served up under the moniker of 'News." I'm sure I can stay informed some other way without supporting that mess.

The Morality of Ethanol

I hate to say "I told you so" but I will say it. Actually, I take a little satisfaction in saying that. It seems that I was prescient in my thoughts on this. Global food prices are rising, and we still continue to divert food to energy production while ignoring the oil reserves in our own country.

In the meantime, food prices are rising and putting more pressure on the poor, who are struggling to feed their families. This is just plain wrong, at so many levels. Yet no one in Washington seems to listen or care.

I just have a nagging sense that we are being sold out. This is completely irrational at a policy level, yet it continues.

Why are we punishing the poor and middle class here?

This article has a good take on the current energy policy of the United States.  Interestingly, the author is a Democrat who is taking the current administration to task for their tightened regulations on deep water drilling.  The rise in energy prices punishes those at the bottom of the economic ladder the hardest, since they have the least amount of flexibility in their budget to deal with sudden spikes in gas prices.

I really don't understand why we are refusing to harvest our own resources and insist on importing oil from countries that do not have our best interest at heart.  I'm sure this will be a presidential campaign issue,

Better late than never I guess

It seems that the United Nations is finally going to shut down the inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The war there started more than four years ago, and it has been a foregone conclusion that whatever weapons were in Iraq have pulled an "Elvis has left the building" move some time ago. Yet the U.N. keeps paying its staff out of the Oil-For-Food boondoggle fund that Kofi Annan's family enriched themselves with.
At least they can start to face a little bit of reality, albeit belatedly.

Another way to save the planet

Stop buying bottled water. Follow the advice of New York's mayor and drink tap water, which is just as safe and much less expensive. If you pay $1 per 1/2 liter of water (which is less than most convenience stores and vending machines), you are paying north of $7.50 per gallon of bottled water. You are also using up a great deal of energy in the bottling, transportation and disposal of the containers when you are finished with them. If you paid $7.50 for gas, I can only imagine the screams of protest about 'Big Oil." But I hear very little about "Big Water" from my conspiracy-theorist friends.

Buy a Brita pitcher and keep it in the fridge. You won't taste difference, you will save some cash, and you will be doing a little bit to help out planet Earth.

Just some friendly advice.

The more things change...

Some things are just so predictable. The sun will rise in the east, and set in the west. Winter is cold, summer is warm. And the Secretary General of the United Nations will blame the United States for whatever is wrong in the world.

In a predictable fashion, Kofi Annan scolded the United States about abandoning its democratic ideals in the war on terror. Is this the same guy who ran the corrupt Oil For Food program with Saddam where billions was siphoned off from humanitarian purposes to feed Saddam loyalists and his army? The UN didn't sanction its members who participated in this, but individual countries have.

Is this the same United Nations that did nothing in the Balkan crisis, and the US and NATO intervened without their blessing to stop a genocide?

Is this the same United Nations whose "peacekeepers" were sytematically raping and torturing young girls in the Congo while they were supposed to be protecting them?

Thanks for the input Kofi. Now take your corrupt team and get off of the world stage. Your time has been a disgrace at an organization seriously in need of a purpose. This is just one more evidence of why we need to put our faith in God, not in man, or institutions created by man. They will always disappoint us and are prone to corruption. Even those started with high ideals.

Am I just dense?

Or is there something here that escapes me? You know my issues with the incoherent energy policy in these United States. So I wrote my congressman, who happens to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Here is his response to my concerns dated April 28, 2008:

Dear Mr. Richardson:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding drilling off the shore of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

We can all agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; however, I do not think that new drilling off our coasts is the best solution. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked for a balanced energy policy, which takes care of our needs as a nation while conserving one of our natural resources. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is the committee through which much of our environmental legislation must go, and as Chairman of that Committee I must often make decisions regarding the environment. To this end, during the 110^th Congress I intend to look into investing in clean and renewable energy.

You may be pleased to know that during the 109^th Congress, the House took a number of actions meant to financially encourage the development and usage of alternative energy. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress mandated that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol would have to be incorporated as a gasoline additive by 2012. Ethanol, a much cleaner alternative to gasoline, would significantly decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Hybrid cars also are being promoted to consumers via tax credits. Up to $3200 is available in tax credits for a new owner of a hybrid. Congress already offers many other smaller tax credits to conscientious consumers. This type of encouragement on the homeowner level provides motivation for manufacturers to continue to invent and produce more energy efficient models of appliances.

Though these incentives are a good start in promoting continued exploration of alternative energy practices, they are not the finish line. Energy efficiency is a worthy aim and one that our government's policies and practices should seek to encourage, but not at the cost of our environment. You may rest assured that that I will keep your views in mind should legislation regarding alternative energy come before me for consideration.

Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to receive my e-newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of concern.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

John D. Dingell Member of Congress

So, if I understand what Rep. Dingell is saying, he is advocating diverting our food supply to fuel to protect the environment. Never mind the starvation and gross immorality of that action, the environment is more important than the people who live in it.

That is eye-opening to say the least.

Our Theology of Creation Care

The care of the environment has become a front-burner public issue the last few years with all of the Global Warming hoopla, oil prices rising, hurricanes and other events that seem to grasp the attention of the public and those folks in Washington, D.C.

This article has an interesting take on Creation Care from an evangelical viewpoint. I'll try to address it more completely later, but I wanted to throw it out there for you to chew on.

Maybe they are finally getting the message

It seems that the political class is starting to feel the heat of $4 gas and their ineptitude over the years that has discouraged or even prohibited domestic oil and gas production. Today the White House joined the fray, and there is a bill before Congress to allow drilling in the outer continental shelf.

Call your member of Congress. Their attention span is short, and now is the time

A surefire way to improve your gas mileage

No, it isn't a gadget you attach to your car or an additive in your gas or oil. Here is the big secret.


LOSE SOME WEIGHT.

Read this article and you will see that "Americans are burning nearly 1 billion more gallons of gasoline each year than they did in 1960 because of their expanding waistlines. Simply put, more weight in the car means lower gas mileage."

I hear you. I'm actively seeking to reduce my gravitational attraction with some modest success. Maybe saving a few bucks at the pump will help motivate me.

Lord knows I need help.

Earth Day 2008

Tuesday, April 22 is Earth Day, and there will be much hoopla over the rising price of gas, oil and food caused by the increased production of ethanol. Rather than engage in endless hand-wringing and navel-gazing, I offer you some tips. Most of them come from Creation Care, a site I encourage you to visit.

Stop junk mail. It reduces landfill waste.

Check out these guidelines from Creation Care.

Stop buying bottled water. Install a filter and use a reusable water bottle.

Ride your bike or walk instead of driving. It will help your body and save you some gas money.

Plant a garden and grow your own veggies. It will save on cost and transportation fuel use to get your food to market.

This is but a partial list. There are many more, and I encourage you to check out the Creation Care website.

Enjoy the world God has given us. But remember to worship God and not the creation.

The Good Samaritan

The story of the Good Samaritan is one of those biblical stories that has been interpreted so many ways that it is kind of like tofu – you can make it into whatever you want it to be. That is a dangerous thing to do with Scripture. Interpreting scripture is one of those things that can be done well or it can be done in ways that do violence to what the text actually means. I learned that in hours of hermeneutics lectures, where Dr. Hahn pounded the thought that we have to begin with this question: What did this mean to the original readers or hearers? None of the authors of the Gospels or any other bit of scripture were writing to us in the 21^st Century. They were writing to the audience of their day, and anything in the text has to make sense to the readers of the day. Our task is to try to understand the hearers of that day and as best we can put ourselves into their situation as we read the text.

That is really more difficult than you might think. When the adult life group was studying Revelation, one of the points the author made was that for a white American, Revelation makes little sense. But for someone on the underside of power, someone in an oppressed minority, someone who might live in fear of the law such as undocumented aliens or escaped slaves, Revelation makes much more sense. It was written to an oppressed people being hunted by the government. We, who enjoy the top side of power and protected rights, have a hard time understanding the message of hope that John put in that letter. The same can be true of the Good Samaritan.

To give you some background, Jews hated Samaritans, whom they considered heretics. Does anyone know what the basis of their disagreement is? {ask the congregation for input}. Their main issue was over the temple. The Samaritans had built their own temple on Mount Gerazim, and counted the Pentateuch as scripture, but not the other Old Testament books. To say that there was a lot of built up hostility would be understating the issue by an enormous amount. Jews viewed Samaritans as “half-Jews” and would not allow them to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. This hostility went all the way back to the Assyrian exile in the Old Testament, when the Samaritans were placed there by the Assyrian king and intermarried with the Assyrians and Babylonians. This is the setting in which we find ourselves today.

Turn in your Bibles to Luke 10: 25-37. Hear the word of the Lord:

²⁵ Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.^j “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” ²⁷ He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁸ And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

²⁹ But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” ³⁰ Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. ³¹ Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. ³² So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. ³³ But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. ³⁴ He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. ³⁵ The next day he took out two denarii,^k gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ ³⁶ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” ³⁷ He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

This story should be familiar to many of us. It is so familiar, in fact, that Samaritan has become a common noun like Kleenex, Xerox, Coke (in the south). It stands for an entire category or genre of things, not just the thing it originally stood for. But if we stopped at reading this as a prescription for how to be a person willing to help others, we would be missing so much in this story. Also, if we, as so many have done, make this into a giant allegory where everything stands for something else, we will shortchanging the text. This is a fascinating look at Jesus taking the religious rules and conventions of the day and giving them the Alice in Wonderland – up is down and down is up- treatment.

Let’s dive into this thing.

Our story opens with Jesus being confronted by a lawyer. It seems that in the past 2000 years, the stereotype of a lawyer hasn’t changed much. J This lawyer is trying to pin Jesus down on some matters of faith. So he asks him a somewhat loaded question “What must I DO to inherit eternal life? Has anyone here ever received an inheritance from an earthly relative? Did you have to do anything to receive it? Wash the car? Clip toenails? Seriously, you don’t have to do anything to inherit. You typically inherit because of who you are not because of your works. Jesus, sensing the trap, throws the question back and asks “What does the Law say?” The Lawyer, then starts looking for a loophole. So he drops in the question “Who is my neighbor?” He seems to be saying “who do I have to be nice to in order to merit favor from God? You could look at it as him asking what the minimum is. He could be viewed as self-righteous “I did this therefore I deserve eternal life.” Or you could look at it as him trying to trap Jesus, this guy who has a habit of eating with tax collectors, sinners, talking to Samaritan women at wells, and other unsavory types. Regardless, I don’t think we can say that the lawyer was honestly looking for some religious guidance that would make him a better human being.

‘Who is my neighbor?’ the lawyer wants to vindicate himself to the teacher, wants to show his cleverness, he wants to manage his responsibility. And who is my neighbor? The way the lawyer asks this question puts him in the driver’s seat. He is in control. He is the one who loves. He is the one who decides if another person is truly his neighbor or not. This is his game. With his question to Jesus, he’s just trying to estimate the size of the pitch and identify his teammates.

In answer to this question, then, Jesus’ story becomes quite odd indeed. One of the two main characters, the man set upon by robbers, is passive and unconscious for virtually all of the story, left half dead in a ditch. He doesn’t even have a speaking part. We know almost nothing about him other than that he is most likely an Israelite, like the lawyer. And we know that throughout this story he is passive, exposed, vulnerable. In answering the lawyer’s question, Jesus effectively turns it on its head: who is my neighbor? Is not a question that we answer out of our own power, by our own decision, through our own control. Determining who our neighbor is not a matter of carefully vetting likely candidates and finding some who are really worth bothering with. No; in the event, our neighbor is who we are given.

And what a neighbor this man is given. A priest and a Levite both see the man, half-dead, and pass by on the other side of the road. These fellow Israelites are most likely afraid that this man is not half dead but all dead, and in that case coming into contact with him would render them unclean. So his countrymen and co-religionists pass him by. Instead, a Samaritan comes upon him and helps.

But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. ³⁴ He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. ³⁵ The next day he took out two denarii,^k gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ ³⁶ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” ³⁷ He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

This is where Jesus’ story starts to get really dicey with his audience. As we said before, Samaritans were looked down upon in that society. But Jesus makes the Samaritan the hero in the story. The Samaritan pays the equivalent of 2 days wages to the innkeeper, which would have been enough for several days in an inn of the era. The Samaritan bandaged his wounds, put him on his animal, took him to the inn and paid for his care with the promise to pay for any more care that the man may incur.

Now here is where we ought to be careful and try to bracket out our contemporary notions about Samaritans. To an Israelite of Jesus’ day, a Samaritan would have been repugnant. There had been hatred and animosity between the Jews and Samaritans for centuries, as the Israelites held the Samaritans to be idolaters and betrayers of the faith. And the Samaritans gave as good as they got. Roughly 25 years before Jesus would have told this parable, a group of Samaritans entered the Temple in Jerusalem and scattered human bones around, desecrating the place. In our story today, once the Samaritan comes on the scene, the lawyer most likely would have thought that he would come upon the half-dead Israelite and finish the job. To the lawyer, the Samaritan’s help would have been shocking, even scandalous. And that, of course, is just why Jesus used him in the story in the first place.

What’s more, the help that the Samaritan gives is extravagantly over the top. He doesn’t just give first aid, but takes him to an inn. He gives the innkeeper an amount of money that, at that time, would have sustained a person for three weeks. And he doesn’t even stick around for a thank you. In fact, there is no sense at all that this half-dead Israelite ever even knows who saved his life.

Jesus, in one story, has just offended the religious sensibilities of all of his hearers. He has constructed a scenario that none of them would have even considered, and he took a group of people that may have been as hated as the Romans, and made them the hero. During Frog Club this summer, the kids took a stab at recontextualizing this story in terms they could understand. We rewrote the story using characters from TV shows and movies familiar to them and switching the roles around. In one of them Darth Vader was the Samaritan. In another, Squidward was the Samaritan. I think you get the idea of how this story is so important

How might that look for us today? I’ve take a stab at rewriting the story for a 21^st century conservative, evangelical audience.

A man was driving from Auburn Hills to Toledo through the inner city of Detroit, and fell into the hands of a gang of thugs, who carjacked him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead in the street. ³¹ Now by chance a minister was going down that same road; and when he saw him, he drove by went home, and called 911. ³² So likewise a church board member, when he came to the place and saw him, drove by, went home and also called 911. ³³ But a Mormon church member, while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. ³⁴ He went to him and administered first aid, bandaged his wounds, having treated him with Neosporin. Then he put him in his car, drove him to the hospital, and checked him in. ³⁵ After ensuring the man was being cared for, he took out his credit card,^k paid the hospital finance officer, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ ³⁶ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the gang members?” ³⁷ He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Who is our neighbor? Suddenly, in the logic of the parable, we’re not calling the shots; we are not so sure just who our neighbor is. Suddenly we’re not so sure just who our self is. If I’m to love another as my ‘self’ then the upshot is that I’m not even totally familiar with who I am, as I seem constantly to find that self facing me in others. And here we find the most radical challenge, for in this we see that no boundary will finally stand in the way of us and our neighbor, if we are to love them as our self. There are certainly distinctions: yes; love doesn’t seek to make everything else the same. But boundaries? No. There are no boundaries to our neighbors, no limits to whom we are to find our very selves in, no restrictions to whom we are to love unstintingly in God.

Sisters and brothers, in this day of the internet, international travel, and globalization the world seems to grow smaller; it is clearer now more than ever that any line we draw to limit our neighbors will simply be arbitrary. And so we discover that we have neighbors far and near: your family who sits at the dinner table with you, the young woman across the counter at the Coffee Beanery, the Baptist or the Muslim or the atheist who lives down the street, the unemployed young man who lives across town, the politician we disagree with so ardently, even the worker in a different country who picked the fruit you ate with breakfast or who sewed the shirt you’re wearing right now. Who is my neighbor, who I am to love? Who isn’t my neighbor?

We might even be surprised to find, in fact, that God is our neighbor. That’s not to parrot the words of that song from the nineties that God might be ‘one of us’. What I mean is that the story of the Good Samaritan is also a parable of God’s grace. The man who is half-dead and abandoned, who is unable to do anything on his own encounters a freely given and extravagant healing love from a surprising source, without conditions. This love gives him back his life and allows him to be a neighbor to others. This is the mercy and love of God that we meet through Christ, and that empowers us to love our neighbor. And so here we find that love of God and love of neighbor meet.

We don’t love God because it is a commandment. It is ‘written in the Law’ because God loves us first. God’s love elicits love from us. We respond to that love with love; and we find that even the love we respond with is a gift from God. This responding love is then worked out in loving our neighbor. Loving God and loving neighbor are not two different projects, for love begets love. The love we receive is the love that we love those around us with; and it is with that same love that we graciously receive from our neighbor, who is also beloved of God.

We know how the lawyer in today’s story answered Jesus’ question, but we don’t know what he did after that. Was his life changed? Did he ‘go and do likewise’? Or was he so turned off that he went and looked for a different venue to plead his case in? Or did he, perhaps like most of us, walk away convinced that Jesus was right, yet also knowing how far he was from it, nevertheless trying to love others with the love that he had found in Christ? Of course, we can only speculate about him. But I hope that as we go out in the wake of this story we will be both challenged and comforted by what we find here: by the surprising Samaritan, by the neighbor in our life we do not choose but are given by God, and most of all by the extravagant love and grace of God. In that way, may we better grasp this story, better love this story, and above all, be better grasped by the love we find in it.

Folks, we have neighbors we didn’t choose right here by the church. Some of you have noticed them, others may not have. I don’t want to focus on the neighbors and their various needs, misdeeds and the like. I would rather focus on Jesus’ admonition to the lawyer to go and do likewise. What kind of neighbors do we want to be to these people? What kind of neighbor do we want to be to the people who live near our homes? To the people we work with, come in contact with at Kroger, the gas station, at high school sporting events, in school? In many ways the point of this story is about the lawyer. How do we take the extravagant love that has been given to us and share it with the world around us? That is the question we as a congregation need to wrestle with. There is no easy answer that I can give you other than to love extravagantly .

Foot in mouth disease

Day 2 of the Pat Robertson digesting his foot saga is upon us.

Now, the leader of the Christian Coalition (that name makes me wince because of his propensity to step in a pile) says he was misquoted yesterday about advocating the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela.

Robertson claims he meant kidnap or something other than kill Mr. Chavez. Hmmm. Here is the quote and I'll let you decide:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we are trying to assassinate him, we should go ahead and do it," Robertson said Monday. "It's a whole lot easier than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would think Robertson had it in for Chavez after that statement. Clearly The Associated Press made the whole story up out of whole cloth.

Someone take his microphone away before he brings more embarrassment on himself and further damages the cause of Christ.

Coping with disaster

On Christmas Day, 2004, a massive earthquake hit the Indian Ocean and the ensuing tsunamis have killed at least 40,000 persons in India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Sumatra. Seeing the pictures of bodies littering beaches and massive open-air morgues is heartbreaking. Then to hear the head of the United Nations Humanitarian organization criticize the response from Western Countries as "stingy" just sickens me. Click here for story. One of the most corrupt organizations in the world, one that allowed Saddam Hussein to steal millions from the Oil-for-food program, now criticizes the countries giving to help alleviate the suffering in these devestated areas? What Chutzpah!

This isn't a political issue for me though. Disasters like this can easily overwhelm the senses and make it difficult for an individual to comprehend what is going on. Then to have the relief agencies chiding the donors, just reinforces the belief that there are those in power at the UN who are more interested in their own power and issues than they are in the work they are supposed to be performing.

The good news is that while the UN and donor states are calling each other names, private NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) are stepping in and leading the relief efforts. Here is a list of groups helping out with the damage in SE Asia. One group that has a special place in my heart, simply because I am aware of what they do and how they do it is Nazarene Compassionate Ministries, an arm of the Church of the Nazarene. They provide disaster relief as well as local economic development assistance in more than 140 world areas. Click on the link for the latest on their efforts with this disaster.

The world has clearly seen bigger disasters -the eruption of Krakatoa in the 1880's created a sound heard 2900 miles away and killed thousands with the tsunamis it created. The earth is a violent place, but above all we know that God is in control. On days like Christmas, 2004, it may not seem like He is in control. Or it may not seem like he cares very much about us when He lets things like this happen, but we know that he loved us enough to sacrifice his one and only Son so that we might be reconciled to Him and live with him forever. This may not seem like much, sacrificing one for many, but imagine the enormity of that sacrifice:

1) Jesus left the perfection of heaven for the stinking, rotten mess that is our planet.
2) Jesus gave up most of his power to be limited as a human being. He was limited to being in one place, and not knowing all as he did in heaven.
3. Jesus took upon himself sin he did not commit, all of the sin of the world, out of love for us.

Does this make understanding the tsunami any easier? Not really. But it does remind me that God does love us and is not cruel or indifferent. He has a lot invested in us and is hoping for a huge return on his investment.