Morning Everyone,
Myron spent most of the morning and the early part of the afternoon having a MRI done. We was sedated to do this, but the nurses said everything went well. Moving him anywhere is like having a truck convoy tag along with you. All kinds of monitors, machines, IV's and medicines. It is quite impressive. Then all of the tubes have to be long enough to get through the MRI tube, so in other words there is major logistics in setting this thing up.
As I said he did well. The fractures in his back and neck believe it or not are rather low priority at this point and he will wear a back brace, and neck brace for 6-8 weeks
The major area of concern right now is his brain. The right hemisphere is still quite swollen but this is all part of his major concussion, and it is causing him to have swelling and lack of movement on the left side, i.e. arm and leg.
His appearance continues to improve over all, the swelling in his face has disappeared, so he looks more like himself. His night nurse Steve did say they plan on sitting him up today.
Maryanne is having a meeting with the neurological nurse practitioner today at 1 so that all concerned can have questions answered.
At this point, I'm cautiously optimistic. He will probably go to rehab in the near future, but will he be the same person. No one can say right now.
Oh, and one more thing, and this definitely didn't make me happy. He has a slight infection in the lungs with MRSA, or methicillin resist staph. That nasty critter didn't take long to move in. If that gets worse, and it will, he will receive antibiotics.
I'll keep you posted about the meeting.
Thanks for your concern and prayers. There have been some small miracles performed this past week.
Sue
Thanks, Sue, for keeping us informed. Prayers continue for Myron and the family.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Ivor Van Heerden - A Good And Brave Man
From Crooks and Liars:
This week, special for Crooks and Liars readers, download for free, Palast's film for Democracy Now!, "Big Easy to Big Empty: How the White House Drowned New Orleans."
There's another floater. Four years on, there's another victim face down in the waters of Hurricane Katrina, Dr. Ivor van Heerden.
I don't get to use the word "heroic" very often. Van Heerden is heroic. The Deputy Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, it was van Heerden who told me, on camera, something so horrible, so frightening, that, if it weren't for his international stature, it would have been hard to believe:
"By midnight on Monday the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breached. Nobody."
On the night of August 29, 2005, van Heerden was shut in at the state emergency center in Baton Rouge, providing technical advice to the rescue effort. As Hurricane Katrina came ashore, van Heerden and the State Police there were high-fiving it: Katrina missed the city of New Orleans, turning east.
What they did not know was that the levees had cracked. For crucial hours, the White House knew, but withheld the information that the levees of New Orleans had broken and that the city was about to drown. Bush's boys did not notify the State of the flood to come, which would have allowed police to launch an emergency hunt for the thousands who remained stranded.
"Fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line," said von Heerden. He shouldn't have told me that. The professor was already in trouble for saying, publicly, that the levees around New Orleans were no good, too short, by 18". They couldn't stand up to a storm like Katrina. He said it months before Katrina hit -- in a call to the White House, and later in the press.
....
So, even before Katrina, even before our interview, the professor was in hot water. Van Heerden was told by LSU officials that his complaints jeopardized funding from the Bush Administration. They tried to gag him. He didn't care: he ripped off the gag and spoke out.
Grandpère and I know Ivor. For years before Katrina, he'd told us that the levees in New Orleans were not safe. He was like an old vinyl stuck in the groove. He was compelled to speak his warnings. He described the exact scenario of a hurricane which could cause the levees to fail. Katrina was that hurricane. He was right, and he was punished for being right and for bravely continuing to speak out, even after the authorities tried to silence him.
From Wiki:
On 9 April 2009 LSU announced it was firing van Heerden, effective the end of the spring semester 2010. Van Heerden said he was not offered any reason. Van Heerden spoke to Harry Shearer on his Le Show radio program on 12 April 2009 and said, "I learned about not being deputy director through the news media. They basically didn't have the guts to tell me that to my face.... They couldn't tell me why and wouldn't tell me why.
Quotes from Ivor:
"What bothers me the most is all the people who've died unnecessarily."
"Those FEMA officials wouldn't listen to me. Those Corps of Engineers people giggled in the back of the room when we tried to present information."
When it was suggested that tents be prepared. "Their response to me was: 'Americans don't live in tents,' and that was about it."
Thanks to Paul the BB for the link to Crooks and Liars
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Please Pray....
My son asked me to call for prayers for a 44 year old man with whom he once worked who committed suicide today. Three children are now without their father. He was separated from his wife and had declared bankruptcy. It was all too much for him.
Please pray for him and his family.
Please pray for him and his family.
Another Nail In The Coffin...(Part 3)
...in which the Anglican Covenant will rest in peace, or such is my hope.
Taking up from where I left off in Part 2, following up on Part 1, from the splendid article in Modern Churchpeople:
COMMUNION, COVENANT AND OUR ANGLICAN FUTURE
MCU's reply to Drs Williams and Wright
I'm no scholar of Christian church history, but even I know that disputes were present in the earliest days in the communities described in Paul's letters and in the Johannine communities in Jerusalem and environs, in which the Christians in the communities were considered still to be members of a Jewish sect.
I don't know what la-la land Williams and Wright inhabit. Consensus beyond the Two Great Commandments of Jesus, the Creeds, and the use of The Book of common Prayer for our common worship is not to be, covenant or no covenant. What's wrong with the Anglican Communion as a loose federation joined in the bonds of affection around the three elements mentioned? If the bonds of affection are not present, a covenant will not force them.
As to Wright's claim that our ecumenical partners need to know 'who speaks for the body they are relating to', he must refer principally to Rome, because the other denominations are even more diffuse than Anglicans. However much the pope may believe that he speaks for the whole of the Roman Catholic Church, indeed, he does not. His church is much more diverse than he will ever admit.
Williams and Wright had best keep in mind that they approach the throne in the Vatican as laymen, because the authorities in Rome do not accept their priestly orders, much less their positions as archbishop and bishop. I may have said this in one of the earlier parts, but I am sick to death of the Anglican powers begging at Rome's door. If I wanted to be in the Roman Catholic Church, I'd still be there, and I'd never have joined the Episcopal Church.
Amen to that. Those who want to tighten central authority do not return us to an undefined golden age of the past, rather they themselves wish to introduce the "major innovation".
Wright softens nothing.
Why the rush? I suspect that those who want a fast-track solution, a quick opening of the as yet incomplete Covenant for bodies to sign on, are afraid that if the Covenant is delayed, it will die a slow death.
And the pièce de résistance from the article:
Can't you see it? The absurdity. The confusion. Do the two gentleman ever give a thought to the consequences that would follow were their suggestions ever put into practice?
And this, my dear readers is the end. If you read through all three parts, you are indeed patient. If you have not, that's fine. Just go read the article in Modern Churchpeople.
Taking up from where I left off in Part 2, following up on Part 1, from the splendid article in Modern Churchpeople:
COMMUNION, COVENANT AND OUR ANGLICAN FUTURE
MCU's reply to Drs Williams and Wright
How centralised should the Anglican Communion be?
Once again we find theory about an ideal church replacing realistic descriptions. Local churches do not always 'seek the judgement of the wider Church'. They relate to each other in a wide variety of ways. Roman Catholicism has a central authority with power to impose decisions; the Baptist Union is a voluntary federation which local churches can join or leave as they choose. The Methodist Conference does not feel obliged to consult the Church of England General Synod or the Baptist Union before making innovations, and the many independent charismatic churches which have arisen in the last generation certainly accept no obligation to consult in the manner Williams proposes. His assumption that they ought to do so expresses his theology, not the theology of all Anglicans let alone all Christians.
The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' may indeed be venerable but to call it 'the conviction of the Church from its very early days' ignores the historical reality of repeated controversy within and between denominations. It has never been a formal part of the Anglican Communion's governance and to introduce it now in the face of immense opposition would indeed be 'some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism'.
For the Anglican Communion to be 'essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common' would be to keep it near enough as it is. Williams' hope of a 'global consensus' in a 'theologically coherent "community of Christian communities"' has never been the historical reality - especially if it implies agreement on ethical issues like homosexuality - and stands no chance of becoming so in the foreseeable future. To make the governance of the Anglican Communion fit this idea would, contrary to his claim, be a major innovation.
I'm no scholar of Christian church history, but even I know that disputes were present in the earliest days in the communities described in Paul's letters and in the Johannine communities in Jerusalem and environs, in which the Christians in the communities were considered still to be members of a Jewish sect.
I don't know what la-la land Williams and Wright inhabit. Consensus beyond the Two Great Commandments of Jesus, the Creeds, and the use of The Book of common Prayer for our common worship is not to be, covenant or no covenant. What's wrong with the Anglican Communion as a loose federation joined in the bonds of affection around the three elements mentioned? If the bonds of affection are not present, a covenant will not force them.
As to Wright's claim that our ecumenical partners need to know 'who speaks for the body they are relating to', he must refer principally to Rome, because the other denominations are even more diffuse than Anglicans. However much the pope may believe that he speaks for the whole of the Roman Catholic Church, indeed, he does not. His church is much more diverse than he will ever admit.
Williams and Wright had best keep in mind that they approach the throne in the Vatican as laymen, because the authorities in Rome do not accept their priestly orders, much less their positions as archbishop and bishop. I may have said this in one of the earlier parts, but I am sick to death of the Anglican powers begging at Rome's door. If I wanted to be in the Roman Catholic Church, I'd still be there, and I'd never have joined the Episcopal Church.
Similarly, when Wright argues that 'the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally' he is not making a factual statement about what normally happens at present; he is telling us what he thinks ought to be the case. To make it the case would be a major innovation. If there is any doubt that it would involve centralising power, his point about 'ecumenical credibility' makes it clear: he wants a small number of people who can attend meetings with patriarchs and cardinals and declare authoritatively what the Anglican position is. From this perspective it is easy to understand why this English bishop has no time for the more democratic American system with its Presiding Bishop instead of an archbishop and a governing body which only meets once every three years. Others think it is a price worth paying to avoid authoritarianism. Instead of trying to match the declarations of cardinals about what Roman Catholics believe, if we honestly told them that Anglicans disagree with each other this might help them reflect on the differences of opinion within their own denomination.
Amen to that. Those who want to tighten central authority do not return us to an undefined golden age of the past, rather they themselves wish to introduce the "major innovation".
The Anglican Covenant and a two-track Communion
As we would expect, Williams and Wright defend the proposal for an Anglican Covenant, and in these papers the emphasis is on the 'two-track' Communion' which would probably result.
Williams softens his position. In 'Challenge and Hope' (2006) he looked forward to a distinction between 'constituent' (covenanting) churches and 'churches in association', and suggested the relationship 'would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church'. In this recent paper however he stresses that churches which do not sign the covenant will not be treated as second rate Anglicans. The aim of the proposals is 'to intensify existing relationships'. For those who do not sign the Covenant 'there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness - existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily'.
Nevertheless churches which do not sign the Covenant will be excluded from some activities.
Wright softens nothing.
In reality, he believes, 'schism has already happened'. It 'is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact'.
An important strand of Wright's argument is the urgency of a solution. He writes at length about it. There is no time to wait for more committees to meet: the matter must be settled now. TEC's General Convention will not meet again until 2012, so this is the earliest time they can vote on a Covenant. Wright considers this a 'delaying tactic' which 'must be seen for what it is, and headed off':
Why the rush? I suspect that those who want a fast-track solution, a quick opening of the as yet incomplete Covenant for bodies to sign on, are afraid that if the Covenant is delayed, it will die a slow death.
And the pièce de résistance from the article:
He adds other proposals for an immediate separation of the two. One is to enable individuals and parishes in Track 2 dioceses to opt into Track 1 by adopting the Covenant in some way. He proposes some kind of 'Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight' (11, 21). What the plans for a separation overlook is that if whatever is made available to supporters of the covenant in non-covenanting dioceses will also need to be available to opponents of the covenant in covenanting dioceses. The overall effect will be to drive a wedge between the two. If the Church in Wales votes against the Covenant, will the Diocese of Monmouth be able to vote in favour and transfer its allegiance to England? Will a group of villages in the Lleyn Peninsula be able to do the same? In a combined benefice will one parish be able to join England while the other stays in Wales? Will the 10 am congregation go one way and the 6 pm congregation the other? Or the organist one way and the choir the other? If, as Wright suggests, the answers to all these questions is 'yes', and if England does vote in favour of the Covenant, the same questions arise the other way round. Will the Province of York be able to vote against? The Diocese of Leicester? The Parish of St Luke's, Liverpool? The DCC of St Bride's within the Parish of St Luke's? One thing we can be certain of: if permission to accept the covenant is given to parishes in non-covenanting provinces, covenanting provinces will lose parishes to non-covenanters whether permission is given or not. We have seen how the 1993 Act of Synod had the unfortunate effect of producing a denomination within a denomination; the current proposals would be far more divisive.
Can't you see it? The absurdity. The confusion. Do the two gentleman ever give a thought to the consequences that would follow were their suggestions ever put into practice?
And this, my dear readers is the end. If you read through all three parts, you are indeed patient. If you have not, that's fine. Just go read the article in Modern Churchpeople.
Daily Meditation - Richard Rohr
THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED
If religion is not primarily a belonging system, but is truly a transformational system, one would need, it seems to me, a very different kind of authority. One would need the guidance and conviction of one who has actually walked a journey of transformation himself or herself. One would need the authority of a person who can say, “I know what God does with pain. I should be blaming or bitter, but because of God and grace, I am not.” Not just the authority which says, “You must believe in this and you must believe in that” when often there is no evidence that the authority has ever drunk “of the cup that I must drink” as Jesus put it.
This utterly changes the nature of all true spiritual authority. I will offer you a simple litmus test to determine whether a person has healthy or unhealthy religion. What do they do with their pain—even their daily little disappointments? Do they transform their pain or do they transmit it? People who are practiced in transforming actual life pain, like Jesus on the cross, are the only spiritual authorities worth following. They know. They can lead and teach. The rest of us just talk.
Adapted from The Authority of Those Who Have Suffered
Indeed, Rohr gives us a picture of the Kingdom of God here on earth, with authority from a worldly view turned upside down.
From the Center for Action and Contemplation.
If religion is not primarily a belonging system, but is truly a transformational system, one would need, it seems to me, a very different kind of authority. One would need the guidance and conviction of one who has actually walked a journey of transformation himself or herself. One would need the authority of a person who can say, “I know what God does with pain. I should be blaming or bitter, but because of God and grace, I am not.” Not just the authority which says, “You must believe in this and you must believe in that” when often there is no evidence that the authority has ever drunk “of the cup that I must drink” as Jesus put it.
This utterly changes the nature of all true spiritual authority. I will offer you a simple litmus test to determine whether a person has healthy or unhealthy religion. What do they do with their pain—even their daily little disappointments? Do they transform their pain or do they transmit it? People who are practiced in transforming actual life pain, like Jesus on the cross, are the only spiritual authorities worth following. They know. They can lead and teach. The rest of us just talk.
Adapted from The Authority of Those Who Have Suffered
Indeed, Rohr gives us a picture of the Kingdom of God here on earth, with authority from a worldly view turned upside down.
From the Center for Action and Contemplation.
Story Of The Day - Soul Mate
How can you be sure it has a soul? she
said. You can't, I said, unless you've got
one yourself.
Dedicated to Jon and Max.
From StoryPeople.
In Thanksgiving For Myron - Please Pray
Morning all,
There is some encouraging news concerning Myron this morning. He gave one of the doctors a thumbs up yesterday when a he was asked to do so, and blinked at Stephanie when she asked him if he could hear her to blink.
A MRI should finally be done today to see what type of breaks are in his back. I've been a bit anxious that that be done for the over all picture of all the fractures. BTW he fractured ALL of his ribs..
He also may extubated, meaning the tube would be removed from his throat, and a trach put in place.
I didn't go to the hospital yesterday as I needed a break from the family dynamic, and Bill expressed concern that I might get an infection from being there. I hadn't thought of that at all. Silly me.
So I'll head to Christiana Care this morning and hopefully come away with more information.
Sue
Thanks be to God, the medical staff, and all who care for Myron. Pray for Myron's full restoration to health and for the family - including Sue.
There is some encouraging news concerning Myron this morning. He gave one of the doctors a thumbs up yesterday when a he was asked to do so, and blinked at Stephanie when she asked him if he could hear her to blink.
A MRI should finally be done today to see what type of breaks are in his back. I've been a bit anxious that that be done for the over all picture of all the fractures. BTW he fractured ALL of his ribs..
He also may extubated, meaning the tube would be removed from his throat, and a trach put in place.
I didn't go to the hospital yesterday as I needed a break from the family dynamic, and Bill expressed concern that I might get an infection from being there. I hadn't thought of that at all. Silly me.
So I'll head to Christiana Care this morning and hopefully come away with more information.
Sue
Thanks be to God, the medical staff, and all who care for Myron. Pray for Myron's full restoration to health and for the family - including Sue.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Bishop Charles Jenkins Signs Anaheim Statetment
From The Living Church:
The Anaheim Statement endorsed by 34 bishops at the close of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif., has added two more bishops to its list of supporters.
The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Jenkins, III, Bishop of Louisiana, and the Rt. Rev. Harry W. Shipps, retired Bishop of Georgia, have endorsed the letter affirming their loyalty to the Anglican Communion in the wake of the adoption of resolutions C056 and D025 ending the moratoria forbidding the consecration of partnered gay clergy as bishops and the authorization of rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
However, Bishop Jenkins also was one of the bishops who voted against D025 but in favor of C056. He later said he voted for C056 because his colleagues had responded well to his plea for graciousness. “I felt I was honor-bound to vote for it because these bishops had done what I had asked them to do," he said. " I felt that the process was a ray of hope for The Episcopal Church.”
I was pleased that Bishop Jenkins was not included in the original list of those who signed the Anaheim Statement, and I'm sorry to see his name added to the list, although I know that he still supports the moritoria.
Mark Harris says of Bishop Jenkins, "I for one am sorry that Bishop Jenkins s retiring, although I believe he is right to do so. He is an amazing man and a fine Christian."
I second Mark's words wholeheartedly. Bishop Jenkins retires at the end of the year. I shall be sorry to see him go, although I believe he will remain in the neighborhood. I hope so.
Another name added to the list is The Rt. Rev. Harry W. Shipps, retired Georgia.
H/T to Mark Harris at Preludium.
The Anaheim Statement endorsed by 34 bishops at the close of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif., has added two more bishops to its list of supporters.
The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Jenkins, III, Bishop of Louisiana, and the Rt. Rev. Harry W. Shipps, retired Bishop of Georgia, have endorsed the letter affirming their loyalty to the Anglican Communion in the wake of the adoption of resolutions C056 and D025 ending the moratoria forbidding the consecration of partnered gay clergy as bishops and the authorization of rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
However, Bishop Jenkins also was one of the bishops who voted against D025 but in favor of C056. He later said he voted for C056 because his colleagues had responded well to his plea for graciousness. “I felt I was honor-bound to vote for it because these bishops had done what I had asked them to do," he said. " I felt that the process was a ray of hope for The Episcopal Church.”
I was pleased that Bishop Jenkins was not included in the original list of those who signed the Anaheim Statement, and I'm sorry to see his name added to the list, although I know that he still supports the moritoria.
Mark Harris says of Bishop Jenkins, "I for one am sorry that Bishop Jenkins s retiring, although I believe he is right to do so. He is an amazing man and a fine Christian."
I second Mark's words wholeheartedly. Bishop Jenkins retires at the end of the year. I shall be sorry to see him go, although I believe he will remain in the neighborhood. I hope so.
Another name added to the list is The Rt. Rev. Harry W. Shipps, retired Georgia.
H/T to Mark Harris at Preludium.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Tom Daschle with the president-elect in Chicago in December.
From the New York Times:
Six months have passed since the morning when Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, under fire for not paying certain taxes, called President Obama in his study off the Oval Office to withdraw his nomination as health secretary and reform czar.
But these days it often seems as if Mr. Daschle never left the picture. With unrivaled ties on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, he talks constantly with top White House advisers, many of whom previously worked for him.
He still speaks frequently to the president, who met with him as recently as Friday morning in the Oval Office. And he remains a highly paid policy adviser to hospital, drug, pharmaceutical and other health care industry clients of Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm.
And, of course, the fact that Daschle is "highly paid" by the lobbying group does not influence his thinking one iota. You look doubtful? Well now, it COULD be.
Now the White House and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward a blueprint for overhauling the health system, centered on nonprofit insurance cooperatives, that Mr. Daschle began promoting two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan.
It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association. And it is drawing angry cries of accommodation from more liberal House Democrats bent on including a public insurance plan.
Friends and associates of Mr. Daschle say the interests of Alston & Bird’s clients have no influence on his views. They say he sees no conflict in advising private clients on the one hand and advising the White House on the other, because he offers the same assessment to everyone: Though he has often said that he favors a government-run insurance option, the Senate will not pass it.
The fact that Daschle is pushing a plan that dovetails with the interests of the people who pay him big money smells, and not of perfume. I've heard before that Daschle is quite knowledgeable about health care, and, of course, about passing legislation, but I must wonder where his true loyalty lies.
Critics, though, say his ex officio role gives Alston & Bird’s health care clients privileged insights into the policy process. They say Mr. Daschle’s multiple advisory roles illustrate the kind of coziness with the lobbying world that Mr. Obama vowed to end. If he had been confirmed as health secretary, Mr. Daschle would have been subject to strict transparency and ethics rules.
His position, some liberals say, raises at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. “I hope the president can make a decision based on what the country wants, not what a handful of Daschle’s clients want,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the progressive caucus.
No sh*t! You bet your sweet bippy that it is "at least an appearance of a conflict of interest". It seems to me that Daschle would need to be super-human to resist the pressure to lean in favor of the health care industry. Why does Obama do this sort of thing?
If the industry wants the co-ops, then they can't be good for us, right? In the end, the co-ops must benefit the industry's bottom line. They are making record profits now, and it's hard for me to believe that they will push a policy that will reduce their profits.
He [Daschle] both recommends and predicts an incremental approach.
“We are not going to see this happen overnight,” Mr. Daschle told a biotechnology trade group in May. “It can’t. It is too big a shift in the economy.” If the legislation can begin to “ramp up” coverage for all, health information technology and some cost controls, he said, “we will have succeeded.”
We will NOT have succeeded in passing real health reform. Incremental means that some will be left out in the cold. This is not my idea of reform. The progressives have already compromised by giving up on a single payer plan. Are we now to give up the public option for co-ops, whatever they are?
And then there's this from TPM:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has a proposition: If the government is going to mandate that Americans buy health insurance from private companies, they should know how much of that money actually goes to paying health insurance costs. And insurers aren't happy about it.
On Friday, Rockefeller sent letters to executives at the 15 largest health insurance companies in the country, asking them to compile data on this question for the Senate Commerce Committee by September 8.
And why not? Why shouldn't we know how much of the mandated premiums go into actual health care and how much into the pockets of the CEOs and the stockholders - and into lobbying and advertising to kill real health care reform?
"It's another page out of the same playbook," says Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans. "There's an effort to shift the focus to the health insurance industry rather than on the bills in Congress."
Damn right we need to shift the focus to the greedy.
(My emphases throughout the post)
Sign The Petition
From Sojourners:
A Christian Creed on Health-Care Reform
As one of God's children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.
I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).
I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ's ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God's new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.
I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).
I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).
I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).
I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and "mourning and crying and pain will be no more" (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).
Amen.
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]
Sign the petition here. It's the least you can do.
Sunday, as we were eating lunch at a Mexican restaurant nearby, a pentecostal preacher of our acquaintance stopped by our table to greet us and asked us if we were for Obamacare. I knew where he was coming from, so I quickly said, "Yes, I am." (with my fingers crossed, because I want much more than Obama seems willing to give us) Then, he said, "I'm going on Medicare next month." I asked, "Are you aware that Medicare is a federal program?" (one can't be sure these days) He said he was. The dissonance! The dissonance!
Anyone want to bet that the preacher is not actually preaching against Obamacare?
After the preacher left us, Grandpère wanted to know what Obamacare was. He doesn't know the code words and was mystified by the question, so I had to explain. Before we left the restaurant, we went over to the preacher's table, which included a rather large party of his wife, his son and daughter-in-law, and his assistant minister and his family, and I asked him, "Where is your sangría?" Take that!
H/T to Fr. Jake.
A Christian Creed on Health-Care Reform
As one of God's children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.
I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).
I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ's ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God's new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.
I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).
I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).
I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).
I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and "mourning and crying and pain will be no more" (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).
Amen.
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]
Sign the petition here. It's the least you can do.
Sunday, as we were eating lunch at a Mexican restaurant nearby, a pentecostal preacher of our acquaintance stopped by our table to greet us and asked us if we were for Obamacare. I knew where he was coming from, so I quickly said, "Yes, I am." (with my fingers crossed, because I want much more than Obama seems willing to give us) Then, he said, "I'm going on Medicare next month." I asked, "Are you aware that Medicare is a federal program?" (one can't be sure these days) He said he was. The dissonance! The dissonance!
Anyone want to bet that the preacher is not actually preaching against Obamacare?
After the preacher left us, Grandpère wanted to know what Obamacare was. He doesn't know the code words and was mystified by the question, so I had to explain. Before we left the restaurant, we went over to the preacher's table, which included a rather large party of his wife, his son and daughter-in-law, and his assistant minister and his family, and I asked him, "Where is your sangría?" Take that!
H/T to Fr. Jake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)