I have been meaning to write for quite some time about “Jesus of Nazareth,” the book by Pope Benedict XVI, which was published last May. I read the book in early summer and found it to be wonderful. A second reading is in my plans.
The book is a series of reflections on the Gospel stories presented in 10 chapters. The chronology of the book takes us from the Baptism of Jesus through the Transfiguration. A second volume is set to be published which will include, among other things, commentary on the infancy narratives.
Pope Benedict gave me several “Ah hah!” moments with is explanation of many Gospel stories. Chapter 2, for example, which deals with the temptations of Christ, foreshadows the Passion with a reference to Barabbas. When Pilate offers the crowd a choice between freeing Jesus or Barabbas, they choose Barabbas. Pope Benedict notes that Jesus offers the people spiritual freedom, whereas Barabbas, imprisoned for insurrection, offers political freedom. The people chose the political solution; it is the same choice people always make.
Chapter 5 is devoted to The Lord’s Prayer. This chapter has changed forever the way I will think as I recite this familiar prayer. He looks at each line. Reflecting on the phrase: “Hallowed be thy name,” Pope Benedict notes the importance of names. He notes that knowing someone’s name is the first step for entering into a relationship with them. By authorizing us to call him Father, “God established a relationship between himself and us…He enters into relationship with us and enables us to be in relationship with him.” Pope Benedict notes that the Incarnation began with the giving of the divine name to Moses. “What began in the Sinai desert comes to fulfillment at the burning bush of the Cross.”
I also like the reflection on the line: “Give us this day our daily bread.” Jesus acknowledges our earthly needs. He “invites us to pray for our food and thus to turn our care over to God.” It is so easy to think that we provide for ourselves, but this is a reminder about who really provides for us. Nonetheless, “we have the right and the duty to ask for what we need. We know that if even earthly fathers give their children good things when they ask for them, God will not refuse us the good things that he alone can give.”
Chapter 7 deals with parables. Pope Benedict writes about the older brother as he discusses the parable of the prodigal son. The older brother gives into the temptation of self-righteousness, triggering jealously toward the younger brother. Pope Benedict notes that for the older brother and others like him, “more than anything else, God is Law; they see themselves in a juridical relationship with God and in that relationship they are at rights with him. But God is greater: They need to convert from the Law-God to the greater God, the God of love.” Pope Benedict writes that the bitterness of the older son indicates the limitations of his own obedience. He would have liked the “freedom” that the younger brother enjoyed. “There is an unspoken envy of what others have been able to get away with,” Pope Benedict writes. Folks living in a manner pleasing to the father have real freedom, yet bitterness turns that freedom into slavery.
It is pretty easy for us folks who take our faith seriously to feel as if we are living by the rules. Perhaps we get a little jealous when we look at those flaunting the rules, especially if we see no earthly consequences. Pope Benedict gives us a reminder to check our heart and reconsider whether we really love God, or merely the idea of self-righteousness. Of course we should rejoice whenever someone makes a commitment to their faith, no matter what their stage in life.
Sections of this book will impact readers differently depending on where each individual reader is in their own faith journey. If you are interested in advancing on that journey, however, you can get a real boost by reading “Jesus of Nazareth.” I suspect I will be giving copies of this book at Christmas time.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
A gracious host passes away
In June of 2005, I got to spend an afternoon with Edward M. Gramlich, the eminent policy analyst who died of leukemia on Wednesday at the age of 68.
Gramlich was a governor on the Federal Reserve Board from November 1997 to August 2005. He hosted a group of students from the Stonier Graduate School of Banking at Georgetown University in the board room at the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, D.C., two months before he left the Fed; I was among the students. Hanging on my wall at my office is a picture of the group – Gramlich front and center, me in the back.
We talked about housing, which was his specialty. He warned of the impact of the subprime lending craze before other members of the Fed Board saw it as a problem.
Gramlich was an economics professor at the University of Michigan, where he returned after leaving the Fed.
Gramlich was a governor on the Federal Reserve Board from November 1997 to August 2005. He hosted a group of students from the Stonier Graduate School of Banking at Georgetown University in the board room at the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, D.C., two months before he left the Fed; I was among the students. Hanging on my wall at my office is a picture of the group – Gramlich front and center, me in the back.
We talked about housing, which was his specialty. He warned of the impact of the subprime lending craze before other members of the Fed Board saw it as a problem.
Gramlich was an economics professor at the University of Michigan, where he returned after leaving the Fed.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
A look at the subprime mortgage picture
Foreclosures are up as the subprime mortgage market bottoms out. Politicians are weighing in, expressing concern. President Bush issued a statement yesterday about the importance of housing. Here’s what’s going on, from my perspective as a journalist who covers the banking industry.
The subprime mortgage phenomenon was supply driven. Investment firms like Merrill Lynch figured out how to sell questionable credit from high risk borrowers to pension fund managers and other typical bond buyers. Investment bankers figured out they could create a bond out of very good, or “A,” credits, mixed with questionable, or “C,” credits, to produce a bond with an overall quality of a pretty good, or “B,” credit. Pension fund managers, who typically buy B-rated bonds, showed interest after independent rating agencies blessed the new recipe. This created a new market for C credits in the form of subprime mortgages.
The investment bankers went to the mortgage brokers with the new product and the brokers sold the product like mad. You remember hearing all those ads on the radio and on television, where mortgages were promised to anyone, regardless of credit history. People with marred credit, who otherwise could not get mortgages, responded and bought homes with the easy credit. In many cases, they didn’t even have to put money down.
In the third or fourth year of this game, those C credit borrowers are beginning to show why they were C credits in the first place. They aren’t keeping up with payments and the mortgage holders are foreclosing. That’s the phenomenon that is making so much news lately. But remember, a good number of people losing their homes weren’t in homes prior to the availability of subprime mortgages, and they also aren’t losing much, if any, equity.
The people who are losing money are the people who bought the bonds made up of these mortgages. They are not likely to get all of their investment back, let alone any kind of a market rate on their principal. I feel bad for these guys, but not too bad. Investments, especially those including C credit components, are risky.
Decades ago, when someone wanted to buy a house, they went to the bank or savings and loan to borrowed money for the house. The lender held onto the loan for the life of the mortgage. The lender and borrow stayed closed to one another. If the borrower got in trouble – lost a job or incurred substantial medical expenses – the lender was there to consider the situation. They usually tried to work something out. In the absolute worst cases, the lender might foreclose, but in most cases, the borrower and lender worked something out to keep everything on track.
Today, there are many more players between the borrower and the lender. An investment banker finds a funding source. They then work with a mortgage broker, who finds borrowers. Brokers also find mortgage servicers, who handle the paperwork. The mortgage ends up being a complicated legal document which binds the borrower to the servicer, who is tied to the funder. The broker, who initially works with the borrower, is out of the picture. Consider what incentive the broker has to get the right product for the borrower when they disappear the minute the final papers are signed. The servicer rarely knows the borrower and if the borrower falls behind, the servicer usually has no option than to initiate foreclosure as prescribed by the legal agreement it has with the funder. It’s a much tougher arrangement for the borrower than the mortgage arrangement of decades ago.
But there’s no going back. Access to equity markets for mortgages has a substantial upside as well. Many more people have access to mortgage credit than did under the old direct lending system. But the downside is that over-eager players come up with shaky ideas and sell them to others who don’t look close enough at the product. In the end, it’s the way the market has worked for centuries, and overall, the market always self corrects. That is what is happening now with the subprime mortgages. The politicians really don’t have much of a role in all this.
The subprime mortgage phenomenon was supply driven. Investment firms like Merrill Lynch figured out how to sell questionable credit from high risk borrowers to pension fund managers and other typical bond buyers. Investment bankers figured out they could create a bond out of very good, or “A,” credits, mixed with questionable, or “C,” credits, to produce a bond with an overall quality of a pretty good, or “B,” credit. Pension fund managers, who typically buy B-rated bonds, showed interest after independent rating agencies blessed the new recipe. This created a new market for C credits in the form of subprime mortgages.
The investment bankers went to the mortgage brokers with the new product and the brokers sold the product like mad. You remember hearing all those ads on the radio and on television, where mortgages were promised to anyone, regardless of credit history. People with marred credit, who otherwise could not get mortgages, responded and bought homes with the easy credit. In many cases, they didn’t even have to put money down.
In the third or fourth year of this game, those C credit borrowers are beginning to show why they were C credits in the first place. They aren’t keeping up with payments and the mortgage holders are foreclosing. That’s the phenomenon that is making so much news lately. But remember, a good number of people losing their homes weren’t in homes prior to the availability of subprime mortgages, and they also aren’t losing much, if any, equity.
The people who are losing money are the people who bought the bonds made up of these mortgages. They are not likely to get all of their investment back, let alone any kind of a market rate on their principal. I feel bad for these guys, but not too bad. Investments, especially those including C credit components, are risky.
Decades ago, when someone wanted to buy a house, they went to the bank or savings and loan to borrowed money for the house. The lender held onto the loan for the life of the mortgage. The lender and borrow stayed closed to one another. If the borrower got in trouble – lost a job or incurred substantial medical expenses – the lender was there to consider the situation. They usually tried to work something out. In the absolute worst cases, the lender might foreclose, but in most cases, the borrower and lender worked something out to keep everything on track.
Today, there are many more players between the borrower and the lender. An investment banker finds a funding source. They then work with a mortgage broker, who finds borrowers. Brokers also find mortgage servicers, who handle the paperwork. The mortgage ends up being a complicated legal document which binds the borrower to the servicer, who is tied to the funder. The broker, who initially works with the borrower, is out of the picture. Consider what incentive the broker has to get the right product for the borrower when they disappear the minute the final papers are signed. The servicer rarely knows the borrower and if the borrower falls behind, the servicer usually has no option than to initiate foreclosure as prescribed by the legal agreement it has with the funder. It’s a much tougher arrangement for the borrower than the mortgage arrangement of decades ago.
But there’s no going back. Access to equity markets for mortgages has a substantial upside as well. Many more people have access to mortgage credit than did under the old direct lending system. But the downside is that over-eager players come up with shaky ideas and sell them to others who don’t look close enough at the product. In the end, it’s the way the market has worked for centuries, and overall, the market always self corrects. That is what is happening now with the subprime mortgages. The politicians really don’t have much of a role in all this.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Bridge work
Two years ago this month, I covered a speech delivered by U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) in Duluth, Minn. He is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Oberstar used a 30-minute speech to tell a business audience about all the money the nation was preparing to spend on highway construction and other transportation projects. He talked about safety, but only in terms of building better roads which might lead to fewer traffic accidents. About 42,000 people per year die in auto accidents. He never mentioned bridge safety.
Bridge safety, of course, in on my mind because of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse earlier this month. Officials are moving quickly to rebuild. The cost is estimated to be about $250 million and some even say the new bridge could be in place in about a year.
Two years ago, Oberstar talked about passing legislation that would spend $286.5 billion over six years on transportation – a significant amount of money but $90 billion less than Oberstar said he would like to spend.
Oberstar said $2.8 billion of the total would be spent in Minnesota. The impact of that spending would be substantial. He said for every $1 billion spent on highway investment, the state gains 47,000 jobs.
Oberstar provided these details: $448 million of Minnesota’s allocation would be used for Interstate highway maintenance, $190 million for bridge replacement, $115 million to mitigate traffic congestion, $89 million for highway safety, and $23 million to eliminate hazards at railroad crossings, and $18 million to improve border crossings into Canada. He said there would be $1 million to buy child safety booster seats, and $500,000 in motorcycle safety grants.
“All of those initiatives are going to mean good things happening in our state,” he declared. That was two years ago.
A week ago on August 8, Oberstar introduced a program to repair the nation’s bridges. He issued a statement noting that 73,784 bridges in the country are rated “structurally deficient.”
Oberstar’s program would upgrade bridge inspection requirements and create a trust fund setting aside money for bridge repair. I don’t get the sense, however, that we will ever be able to set aside enough money to improve the condition of nearly 74,000 bridges.
Oberstar said addressing this issue will be the first order of business for his committee when Congress returns from its August recess. He will convene a hearing of the committee to look at the problem of structurally deficient bridges on Sept. 5.
Oberstar used a 30-minute speech to tell a business audience about all the money the nation was preparing to spend on highway construction and other transportation projects. He talked about safety, but only in terms of building better roads which might lead to fewer traffic accidents. About 42,000 people per year die in auto accidents. He never mentioned bridge safety.
Bridge safety, of course, in on my mind because of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse earlier this month. Officials are moving quickly to rebuild. The cost is estimated to be about $250 million and some even say the new bridge could be in place in about a year.
Two years ago, Oberstar talked about passing legislation that would spend $286.5 billion over six years on transportation – a significant amount of money but $90 billion less than Oberstar said he would like to spend.
Oberstar said $2.8 billion of the total would be spent in Minnesota. The impact of that spending would be substantial. He said for every $1 billion spent on highway investment, the state gains 47,000 jobs.
Oberstar provided these details: $448 million of Minnesota’s allocation would be used for Interstate highway maintenance, $190 million for bridge replacement, $115 million to mitigate traffic congestion, $89 million for highway safety, and $23 million to eliminate hazards at railroad crossings, and $18 million to improve border crossings into Canada. He said there would be $1 million to buy child safety booster seats, and $500,000 in motorcycle safety grants.
“All of those initiatives are going to mean good things happening in our state,” he declared. That was two years ago.
A week ago on August 8, Oberstar introduced a program to repair the nation’s bridges. He issued a statement noting that 73,784 bridges in the country are rated “structurally deficient.”
Oberstar’s program would upgrade bridge inspection requirements and create a trust fund setting aside money for bridge repair. I don’t get the sense, however, that we will ever be able to set aside enough money to improve the condition of nearly 74,000 bridges.
Oberstar said addressing this issue will be the first order of business for his committee when Congress returns from its August recess. He will convene a hearing of the committee to look at the problem of structurally deficient bridges on Sept. 5.
Monday, August 13, 2007
It's early in the presidential campaign
The Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday opened the lengthy process of selecting nominations for the U.S. Presidential election in 2008. Unlike the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, which are likely to stay in the control of Democrats after the 2008 elections, the White House is up for grabs. Although President Bush’s popularity is low, the Democrats do not have a lock on the election. It could go either way.
The campaign begins early because the primaries are front loaded. The Iowa Caucuses are on January 14, a week after the nation’s first primary, which takes place in the District of Columbia on January 8. On February 5, the first Tuesday of February, 24 states are holding primary elections. During the month of February, 33 states will host primaries, meaning that by the first of March, much of the drama will be over. The front-runners at that point typically get their party nominations.
Despite the media’s fascination with Barack Obama, I think you have to assume that the Democratic nomination is going to go to Hillary Clinton. She’s pragmatic; she is the most organized; she knows this drill better than anyone. And she knows how to raise money. When the Democrats emerge from their national convention in Denver, I expect the ticket to be Hillary Clinton, with Obama as her vice presidential running mate.
The ticket is not so easy to predict on the Republican side. I think it is very likely we could get through the entire primary season without a clear leader emerging. Going into the national convention in St. Paul eight weeks before the election, I doubt it will be clear who the Republican candidate for president is going to be. Romney and Giuliani have positives but they also have negatives which will be difficult to get over. I don’t expect McCain to still be in the race at that point.
So if you are responsible for selecting your party’s candidate for president, do you go with one of the leaders, just because they are the ones in the race? Do you go with one of them just because they have weathered the primaries? Do you go with a nominee who you understand has absolutely no chance of beating a Clinton/Obama ticket? No. You have to go for something else. You go with a long shot, a name from completely out of the blue. My guess is, the Republicans will nominate someone who is not even in the race at this time – and I don’t mean Fred Thompson. I mean someone no one is even talking about at this point.
Last March James Carville suggested Jeb Bush would be the nominee (see my April 19 post). I don’t see that happening, but I do have a guess: Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota’s second-term governor who didn’t raise taxes but still managed to balance a state budget that was billions of dollars in the red. The Republican convention is in his back yard in 2008, and Pawlenty is head of the National Governors Association this year, giving him national visibility.
The unknown in this guess is the impact of the collapsed I-35W bridge. Will the disaster get pegged on him? Will opponents say he refused to spend the money to fix the state’s roads and bridges, resulting in this incident? That wouldn’t be fare but, of course, some people will make that argument. The question is, will it stick? A poll conducted by local television station KSTP found that 75 percent of people approve of the Governor’s handling of the situation. It will be interesting to assess the public’s sentiment a year from now.
The campaign begins early because the primaries are front loaded. The Iowa Caucuses are on January 14, a week after the nation’s first primary, which takes place in the District of Columbia on January 8. On February 5, the first Tuesday of February, 24 states are holding primary elections. During the month of February, 33 states will host primaries, meaning that by the first of March, much of the drama will be over. The front-runners at that point typically get their party nominations.
Despite the media’s fascination with Barack Obama, I think you have to assume that the Democratic nomination is going to go to Hillary Clinton. She’s pragmatic; she is the most organized; she knows this drill better than anyone. And she knows how to raise money. When the Democrats emerge from their national convention in Denver, I expect the ticket to be Hillary Clinton, with Obama as her vice presidential running mate.
The ticket is not so easy to predict on the Republican side. I think it is very likely we could get through the entire primary season without a clear leader emerging. Going into the national convention in St. Paul eight weeks before the election, I doubt it will be clear who the Republican candidate for president is going to be. Romney and Giuliani have positives but they also have negatives which will be difficult to get over. I don’t expect McCain to still be in the race at that point.
So if you are responsible for selecting your party’s candidate for president, do you go with one of the leaders, just because they are the ones in the race? Do you go with one of them just because they have weathered the primaries? Do you go with a nominee who you understand has absolutely no chance of beating a Clinton/Obama ticket? No. You have to go for something else. You go with a long shot, a name from completely out of the blue. My guess is, the Republicans will nominate someone who is not even in the race at this time – and I don’t mean Fred Thompson. I mean someone no one is even talking about at this point.
Last March James Carville suggested Jeb Bush would be the nominee (see my April 19 post). I don’t see that happening, but I do have a guess: Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota’s second-term governor who didn’t raise taxes but still managed to balance a state budget that was billions of dollars in the red. The Republican convention is in his back yard in 2008, and Pawlenty is head of the National Governors Association this year, giving him national visibility.
The unknown in this guess is the impact of the collapsed I-35W bridge. Will the disaster get pegged on him? Will opponents say he refused to spend the money to fix the state’s roads and bridges, resulting in this incident? That wouldn’t be fare but, of course, some people will make that argument. The question is, will it stick? A poll conducted by local television station KSTP found that 75 percent of people approve of the Governor’s handling of the situation. It will be interesting to assess the public’s sentiment a year from now.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Awesome reminder
Authorities have identified five people who died when the I-35W bridge collapsed in Minneapolis two days ago; eight people are missing. Although we know the number of deaths will increase as the recovery process continues, the numbers strike me as mercifully low. That’s no consolation to family members of the victims, but I cannot help but think the numbers could have been far higher given the substantial volume of traffic on that bridge, particularly at around 6 p.m. when the disaster occurred.
I don’t know that I have ever thought twice about driving my car across a bridge. But I guess it is a big deal. It takes a lot of work to build a road -- a bridge is exponentially more involved. I have always taken roads and bridges for granted. I shouldn’t.
Two days after the disaster, I am discerning a reminder about the nature of work, particularly the kind of work that might be considered routine. The integrity of a bridge is dependent upon frequent and thorough inspections and timely maintenance, not to mention sound design and construction in the first place. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are involved. Each of them have small jobs, but if any one of them misses something, takes a short-cut, okays something that is marginal or delays repair that could be done today, it can make a difference. We saw that over the Mississippi on Tuesday.
Some jobs are so mundane that they seem unimportant. Some jobs seem disconnected from anything significant. Routine, in particular, can lull us into believing that work is really just a way to pass the time. But work is important. Most small jobs are part of something bigger. Every small part is important to the integrity of the whole, whether that is a bridge, a building, a school, a company, or something else.
I don’t know that I have ever thought twice about driving my car across a bridge. But I guess it is a big deal. It takes a lot of work to build a road -- a bridge is exponentially more involved. I have always taken roads and bridges for granted. I shouldn’t.
Two days after the disaster, I am discerning a reminder about the nature of work, particularly the kind of work that might be considered routine. The integrity of a bridge is dependent upon frequent and thorough inspections and timely maintenance, not to mention sound design and construction in the first place. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are involved. Each of them have small jobs, but if any one of them misses something, takes a short-cut, okays something that is marginal or delays repair that could be done today, it can make a difference. We saw that over the Mississippi on Tuesday.
Some jobs are so mundane that they seem unimportant. Some jobs seem disconnected from anything significant. Routine, in particular, can lull us into believing that work is really just a way to pass the time. But work is important. Most small jobs are part of something bigger. Every small part is important to the integrity of the whole, whether that is a bridge, a building, a school, a company, or something else.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Reflections on the moon landing
When I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronaut. The 1960s, when I was growing up, are remembered for a lot of things but I contend one of the decade’s greatest contributions to the world was the hope it offered through the magnificent achievement of the moon landing. I remember the Gemini and Apollo missions, particularly Apollo 11, the highlight of summer, 1969.
Thirty-eight years ago today, man was on the moon for the first time. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended onto the moon in their Lunar Module, which was named Eagle, on July 20. About seven hours after landing, they emerged to have a look around, plant an American flag, and collect rocks.
I remember watching the grainy, black and white images of the two men, bounding around on the moon’s surface, where gravity has only one-sixth the pull it has on earth. I was 8 years old at the time but my parents let me stay up to watch the historic event. As I recall, Armstrong climbed down the ladder on the leg of the Lunar Module at about 10:30 p.m. local time. They spent less than two hours walking on the moon. By the time they returned to their space craft and blasted off to rejoin their orbiting colleague Mike Collins, it was July 21.
Of course, I was too young to contemplate the sacrifice required to get those men to the moon – three astronauts died in an Apollo 7 fire in 1967. And I really had no comprehension of the political nature of the effort. We were trying to beat the Russians to the moon. We won, although the fact that we made it impressed me enough that I didn’t really care that we beat anyone there.
As I grew into my teen years and started riding roller coasters I quickly learned I wasn’t cut out to be an astronaut. If I couldn’t handle a ride at Valley Fair, I certainly couldn’t handle a ride in a space ship. So, for a while I thought I wanted to be one of those engineers at Mission Control…one of those guys with a slide rule on my belt. But it turned out I was better with words than numbers so today I am a writer, only thinking about space exploration, not participating in it.
I learned an interesting fact about Apollo 11 recently while reading volume 2 of Bill Bennett’s America, The Last Best Hope. Surveying American history, Bennett writes about the moon landing and includes the fact that Aldrin conducted a mini communion ceremony in the Lunar Module upon their landing. He brought wine and bread with him. He poured the wine into a cup and broke the bread. He asked for silence from Mission Control so he could pray.
I Googled Aldrin to learn more. Evidently, it is a true story but nothing was said about it at the time because NASA was all ready in trouble for allowing Apollo 8 Astronauts to pray aloud as they circled the moon on Christmas Eve in 1968. I remember that space flight too. In fact, my mother gave me a plaque that displays one of the prayers the astronauts said that evening. NASA was sued by atheists who protested government dollars funding any public display of religion.
Personally, I can’t think of anything more natural upon landing on a new world than celebrating communion. That’s exactly what Noah did after the flood when the ark finally settled on land. (Gen. 8:20)
The internet research I did identified Aldrin as Presbyterian. I don’t know the theology Presbyterians bring to communion, but we Catholics call the communion ceremony Eucharist, which means “thanksgiving.” Noah was grateful for the new world, and so was Aldrin. It is a pity the lawyers prevented the ceremony from being broadcast to the entire world. Many people were very grateful for this moon landing – and all the opportunity it represented, all the hope it offered. I know I was, even to this day.
Thirty-eight years ago today, man was on the moon for the first time. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended onto the moon in their Lunar Module, which was named Eagle, on July 20. About seven hours after landing, they emerged to have a look around, plant an American flag, and collect rocks.
I remember watching the grainy, black and white images of the two men, bounding around on the moon’s surface, where gravity has only one-sixth the pull it has on earth. I was 8 years old at the time but my parents let me stay up to watch the historic event. As I recall, Armstrong climbed down the ladder on the leg of the Lunar Module at about 10:30 p.m. local time. They spent less than two hours walking on the moon. By the time they returned to their space craft and blasted off to rejoin their orbiting colleague Mike Collins, it was July 21.
Of course, I was too young to contemplate the sacrifice required to get those men to the moon – three astronauts died in an Apollo 7 fire in 1967. And I really had no comprehension of the political nature of the effort. We were trying to beat the Russians to the moon. We won, although the fact that we made it impressed me enough that I didn’t really care that we beat anyone there.
As I grew into my teen years and started riding roller coasters I quickly learned I wasn’t cut out to be an astronaut. If I couldn’t handle a ride at Valley Fair, I certainly couldn’t handle a ride in a space ship. So, for a while I thought I wanted to be one of those engineers at Mission Control…one of those guys with a slide rule on my belt. But it turned out I was better with words than numbers so today I am a writer, only thinking about space exploration, not participating in it.
I learned an interesting fact about Apollo 11 recently while reading volume 2 of Bill Bennett’s America, The Last Best Hope. Surveying American history, Bennett writes about the moon landing and includes the fact that Aldrin conducted a mini communion ceremony in the Lunar Module upon their landing. He brought wine and bread with him. He poured the wine into a cup and broke the bread. He asked for silence from Mission Control so he could pray.
I Googled Aldrin to learn more. Evidently, it is a true story but nothing was said about it at the time because NASA was all ready in trouble for allowing Apollo 8 Astronauts to pray aloud as they circled the moon on Christmas Eve in 1968. I remember that space flight too. In fact, my mother gave me a plaque that displays one of the prayers the astronauts said that evening. NASA was sued by atheists who protested government dollars funding any public display of religion.
Personally, I can’t think of anything more natural upon landing on a new world than celebrating communion. That’s exactly what Noah did after the flood when the ark finally settled on land. (Gen. 8:20)
The internet research I did identified Aldrin as Presbyterian. I don’t know the theology Presbyterians bring to communion, but we Catholics call the communion ceremony Eucharist, which means “thanksgiving.” Noah was grateful for the new world, and so was Aldrin. It is a pity the lawyers prevented the ceremony from being broadcast to the entire world. Many people were very grateful for this moon landing – and all the opportunity it represented, all the hope it offered. I know I was, even to this day.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Salvation and free will
The July edition of Christianity Today magazine features an editorial that attempts to explain one of the central beliefs of Evangelical Christians. (The essay is posed below.)
Catholics and Evangelicals differ on the path to salvation – Catholics saying it is a matter of faith and works, and Evangelicals say it is a matter of faith alone. I have discussed this with Evangelical friends many times. The discussion typically devolves into an argument where the Evangelical accuses the Catholic of trying to earn his way to heaven and the Catholic saying Evangelicals believe they can do anything and still get to heaven since their actions have no bearing on their salvation.
I was happy to see Christianity Today acknowledge that their version of Christianity leaves open the question: Why be good? The editors of the magazine try to answer but they ignore the notion of free will, which – at least for me – leaves their argument wholly unconvincing.
As the magazine rightly points out, for Christians, good works do naturally flow out of love for God. But the Christian always has to make a decision about whether to do good or otherwise. He always has that choice. You may be able to argue that people who are strong in their faith do good without thinking about it, but they still have a choice. If they did not have a choice, they would not be living true love for God. Love always gives you a choice. You can always walk away from it. You can always choose to reject the one you love. If you don’t have that choice, it isn’t love.
Catholics are simply acknowledging that a person always makes a choice. If a person chooses to do good, he maintains a loving relationship with God. If he chooses to do otherwise, he damages his relationship with God. Catholics say if you love God, you will show it by choosing to do good. Evangelicals say if you love God, you will do good; Evangelicals leave out the discernment component of the process.
Evangelicals have a point in the sense that if there is no discernment about doing good then those good works are meaningless; they would be no different than a movement in my eyebrow due to a twitch. But our actions are not uncontrollable. Christian or not, we all make decisions about how we are going to act. That is unavoidable. The Catholic view of salvation acknowledges that reality. The Evangelical view seems to ignore it.
Catholics do not believe they can earn their way to heaven. If we did believe that, we would say that it only takes good works to get to heaven. But we don’t say that. We say it takes faith and works. Faith is meaningless if you don’t choose to live it out some way.
Free will makes us human, and images of God. To deny free will is dehumanizing. Animals, for example, don’t have free will. That’s why the Christianity Today essay does not help me. It seems to deny, or at least ignore, free will.
Virtue That Counts
Why justification by faith alone is still our defining doctrine.
A Christianity Today editorial
Evangelicals who visit Rome cannot help but enjoy the stately buildings and stirring sense of history. A few like it so much they never leave. Such is the case with Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In April, the Baylor University philosopher rejoined the Roman Catholic Church.
Such defections always provoke a little evangelical soul-searching, in this case about the classic doctrine of justification. Beckwith found the Protestant view, which assumes that sanctification follows justification, inadequate.
"As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so," Beckwith told Christianity Today. "Now [in Catholicism] there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something."
Beckwith, in describing his confusion, has done us a favor, giving us an opportunity to explore a question that frankly many Christians ask: Why be good?
The Virtue of Christ
Justification by faith, which gives us assurance of our standing before God, is not just a pastoral doctrine. It goes to the very core of our theological tradition. Martin Luther described it as the "first and chief article" of Protestantism "on which the church stands or falls." It is no surprise then that recent affirmations of justification have attracted evangelicals as diverse as Tom Oden and R. C. Sproul, Pat Robertson and Ron Sider. Still, don't be surprised to see more debates about justification unfolding. Next month's cover story, by British scholar Simon Gathercole, will look at how some evangelical scholars are reinterpreting Paul's teaching on justification.
So what is the "first and chief article of Protestantism"? Scripturally, it goes like this: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Alienated from God, hostile in mind, we practice evil behavior (Col. 1:21). Though we offend his perfect holiness, God acquits those who trust in him and in what he has done for us through Christ: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).
Theologically, we understand it like this: In his perfect life and obedient death, Jesus succeeded where Adam failed and became the head of God's new family. We belong to Christ; we belong to this new humanity. Christ is judged righteous, and we who believe are made alive in him.
The late medieval church framed its understanding of God's grace in terms of merit: personal merit was never enough, and the infinite merits of Christ were available only through the sacramental channels of the church. Luther and the other Reformers used Paul to challenge the church monopoly on merit. They rightly taught that only Jesus' merit counted before God and that only through faith could his merit be ours. God credits Jesus' righteousness to those who trust in him, declaring them just and acquitting them of their sins.
Such a radical idea has caused many to think: This is too good to be true. Surely I must contribute something to the process. But we contribute nothing. We don't even contribute faith. With God's gift of faith, we paradoxically deny the meritorious nature of human action and affirm the work of Another. It is not faith in faith, but faith in Christ.
Thus, Protestants from John Calvin to John Wesley have agreed: We have peace with God by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Flaunted Freedom
Another question that has troubled Christians since the days of Paul is this: "Why bother to be good when it seems to make no difference to our salvation?"
Paul has little patience for such an attitude, partly because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens in justification. It is not only about getting rid of personal guilt; it is also about taking on a new corporate identity. "We died to sin," Paul says. "How can we live in it any longer?" (Rom. 6:2). We have been baptized into Christ's death; shouldn't we live with him in resurrection life? As members of his new humanity, shouldn't we live like it? Paul's conclusion: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body" (Rom. 6:12).
Simply put, those who are truly justified will lead lives of holiness, knowing with Paul that "we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Eph. 2:10).
Sadly, many in our churches have sold the extraordinary gift of justification for the pottage of therapeutic religion. Rather than finding assurance in Christ, some assure themselves they have done nothing so bad as to deserve condemnation.
Even worse, others flaunt their freedom, abusing the truth that Jesus covers a multitude of sins. As Paul said of people who accused him of teaching that we should sin to bring more grace: "Their condemnation is deserved" (Rom. 3:8).
Such attitudes do not exemplify trust in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who treats holiness with deathly seriousness. They turn the old notions of merit on their heads, treating a priceless gift—Jesus' righteousness—as if it had no value.
The Bible says this type of faith—faith without good works—is as good as no faith at all. It's as dead and meaningless as the selling of indulgences.
So, Professor Beckwith, virtue does count for Protestants—it signals our understanding that Christ's virtue counts for everything, and that any good the Holy Spirit enables us to do is but a grateful response to God's gift of justification.
When the church gets that, it gets our "first and chief" message, a message that still turns people's worlds upside down.
Catholics and Evangelicals differ on the path to salvation – Catholics saying it is a matter of faith and works, and Evangelicals say it is a matter of faith alone. I have discussed this with Evangelical friends many times. The discussion typically devolves into an argument where the Evangelical accuses the Catholic of trying to earn his way to heaven and the Catholic saying Evangelicals believe they can do anything and still get to heaven since their actions have no bearing on their salvation.
I was happy to see Christianity Today acknowledge that their version of Christianity leaves open the question: Why be good? The editors of the magazine try to answer but they ignore the notion of free will, which – at least for me – leaves their argument wholly unconvincing.
As the magazine rightly points out, for Christians, good works do naturally flow out of love for God. But the Christian always has to make a decision about whether to do good or otherwise. He always has that choice. You may be able to argue that people who are strong in their faith do good without thinking about it, but they still have a choice. If they did not have a choice, they would not be living true love for God. Love always gives you a choice. You can always walk away from it. You can always choose to reject the one you love. If you don’t have that choice, it isn’t love.
Catholics are simply acknowledging that a person always makes a choice. If a person chooses to do good, he maintains a loving relationship with God. If he chooses to do otherwise, he damages his relationship with God. Catholics say if you love God, you will show it by choosing to do good. Evangelicals say if you love God, you will do good; Evangelicals leave out the discernment component of the process.
Evangelicals have a point in the sense that if there is no discernment about doing good then those good works are meaningless; they would be no different than a movement in my eyebrow due to a twitch. But our actions are not uncontrollable. Christian or not, we all make decisions about how we are going to act. That is unavoidable. The Catholic view of salvation acknowledges that reality. The Evangelical view seems to ignore it.
Catholics do not believe they can earn their way to heaven. If we did believe that, we would say that it only takes good works to get to heaven. But we don’t say that. We say it takes faith and works. Faith is meaningless if you don’t choose to live it out some way.
Free will makes us human, and images of God. To deny free will is dehumanizing. Animals, for example, don’t have free will. That’s why the Christianity Today essay does not help me. It seems to deny, or at least ignore, free will.
Virtue That Counts
Why justification by faith alone is still our defining doctrine.
A Christianity Today editorial
Evangelicals who visit Rome cannot help but enjoy the stately buildings and stirring sense of history. A few like it so much they never leave. Such is the case with Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In April, the Baylor University philosopher rejoined the Roman Catholic Church.
Such defections always provoke a little evangelical soul-searching, in this case about the classic doctrine of justification. Beckwith found the Protestant view, which assumes that sanctification follows justification, inadequate.
"As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so," Beckwith told Christianity Today. "Now [in Catholicism] there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something."
Beckwith, in describing his confusion, has done us a favor, giving us an opportunity to explore a question that frankly many Christians ask: Why be good?
The Virtue of Christ
Justification by faith, which gives us assurance of our standing before God, is not just a pastoral doctrine. It goes to the very core of our theological tradition. Martin Luther described it as the "first and chief article" of Protestantism "on which the church stands or falls." It is no surprise then that recent affirmations of justification have attracted evangelicals as diverse as Tom Oden and R. C. Sproul, Pat Robertson and Ron Sider. Still, don't be surprised to see more debates about justification unfolding. Next month's cover story, by British scholar Simon Gathercole, will look at how some evangelical scholars are reinterpreting Paul's teaching on justification.
So what is the "first and chief article of Protestantism"? Scripturally, it goes like this: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Alienated from God, hostile in mind, we practice evil behavior (Col. 1:21). Though we offend his perfect holiness, God acquits those who trust in him and in what he has done for us through Christ: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).
Theologically, we understand it like this: In his perfect life and obedient death, Jesus succeeded where Adam failed and became the head of God's new family. We belong to Christ; we belong to this new humanity. Christ is judged righteous, and we who believe are made alive in him.
The late medieval church framed its understanding of God's grace in terms of merit: personal merit was never enough, and the infinite merits of Christ were available only through the sacramental channels of the church. Luther and the other Reformers used Paul to challenge the church monopoly on merit. They rightly taught that only Jesus' merit counted before God and that only through faith could his merit be ours. God credits Jesus' righteousness to those who trust in him, declaring them just and acquitting them of their sins.
Such a radical idea has caused many to think: This is too good to be true. Surely I must contribute something to the process. But we contribute nothing. We don't even contribute faith. With God's gift of faith, we paradoxically deny the meritorious nature of human action and affirm the work of Another. It is not faith in faith, but faith in Christ.
Thus, Protestants from John Calvin to John Wesley have agreed: We have peace with God by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Flaunted Freedom
Another question that has troubled Christians since the days of Paul is this: "Why bother to be good when it seems to make no difference to our salvation?"
Paul has little patience for such an attitude, partly because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens in justification. It is not only about getting rid of personal guilt; it is also about taking on a new corporate identity. "We died to sin," Paul says. "How can we live in it any longer?" (Rom. 6:2). We have been baptized into Christ's death; shouldn't we live with him in resurrection life? As members of his new humanity, shouldn't we live like it? Paul's conclusion: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body" (Rom. 6:12).
Simply put, those who are truly justified will lead lives of holiness, knowing with Paul that "we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Eph. 2:10).
Sadly, many in our churches have sold the extraordinary gift of justification for the pottage of therapeutic religion. Rather than finding assurance in Christ, some assure themselves they have done nothing so bad as to deserve condemnation.
Even worse, others flaunt their freedom, abusing the truth that Jesus covers a multitude of sins. As Paul said of people who accused him of teaching that we should sin to bring more grace: "Their condemnation is deserved" (Rom. 3:8).
Such attitudes do not exemplify trust in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who treats holiness with deathly seriousness. They turn the old notions of merit on their heads, treating a priceless gift—Jesus' righteousness—as if it had no value.
The Bible says this type of faith—faith without good works—is as good as no faith at all. It's as dead and meaningless as the selling of indulgences.
So, Professor Beckwith, virtue does count for Protestants—it signals our understanding that Christ's virtue counts for everything, and that any good the Holy Spirit enables us to do is but a grateful response to God's gift of justification.
When the church gets that, it gets our "first and chief" message, a message that still turns people's worlds upside down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)