Will Rogers: Time Traveler

Will Rogers is one of those people that was seen to represent the common man. Growing up in Oklahoma, not known for being the most flashy of states, Rogers became a voice that rang true in his time as well as ours. Here are just a few of these timeless pearls of wisdom from "Oklahoma's Favorite Son":

Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it's not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.

The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue.

When the Judgment Day comes civilization will have an alibi, "I never took a human life, I only sold the fellow the gun to take it with.

Heroing is one of the shortest-lived professions there is.

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

The only time people dislike gossip is when you gossip about them.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.

Why are they called denominations?

There is a guy named Peter Rollins who is brilliant and is also someone who I have a very difficult time understanding him. It is not because of his accent (he is Irish*) but because he is a philosopher and I am not. In a conversation I heard between him and Science Mike and Michael Gungor and Peter Rollins said something that hit me.

From what I recall, Rollins was talking about metaphor. A metaphor does both describe and negate that description simultaneously. For instance, if you described someone as having a heart of gold, you are both saying something about that person's heart while at the same time saying their heart is not a block of metal. Metaphors both affirm and negate. 

The next step of the conversation was about how all language about God is metaphor. When we say God is father we are both saying something and negating something. God is like a father, but God is also not a literal father. This is the beauty of language about God, it is both helpful and limited. It gives us insight into something but it also leaves us a little lost. 

We Christians have had a habit of elevating one half of the equation while dismissing the latter half. That is to say, we like the side of language that affirms (God is father) but do not like the side of language that negates (God is not father). Rollins points out that the role of religion is to move people to embrace that which is unknown and so religion needs to elevate the side of language that negates in order to help us mature. 

Rollins pointed out that he likes that Christian divisions are called "denominations" - they are groups that de-name. Can we be a denomination that embraces the power of language in it's fullness? Can we be a people that is at ease with both what God is and what God is not? Can we be a people who are courageous enough to look at a situation that is done in the name of God and stand up and say in fact this action is not of God? Are we mature enough to see that God is and at the same time God is not? 

Maybe this is why they are called denominations. They are groups that are trying to be mature enough to embrace the fullness of God, and not just the parts of God we can name.

* I originally identified him as Australian. I apologize to all Australians and Irish and all thinking people.  

What is the power of prayer?

Matthew 6:5-6 has Jesus saying the following:

 ‘And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.'

The usual talk that I have heard around this text is often centered around pubic/private prayer, and this is a fine conversation topic. One of the things that I would want to highlight is just how subversive this is to economics. 

That is right. Economics. 

In the days of Jesus, pious Jewish people would give offerings to God through an animal or grain sacrifice. These sacrifices were not things that you could bring form home to offer up. These sacrifices had to meet a set of criteria to be acceptable and so you would buy your sacrifice on site there at the temple. This purchase had a "temple tax" attached to it so that with every purchase you got the sacrifice but also paid the temple. The temple had a monopoly, and monopolies are susceptible to corruption and abuse. This is part of the reason Jesus turns the tables over in the temple - as a critique of the exploitation of the monopoly.

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/714284

And so you may be able to see that when Jesus calls for private prayer, it is not just a critique of prayer for "show" but a subversive act of protest to the economic system of temple prayer. If we stopped paying the temple taxes in order to have the right sacrifice or the right person or the right "words" then the monopoly falls. 

The same was true for Martin Luther and his critique of the practices of indulgences (money paid to the church in order to receive favor/forgiveness/blessing). The Church had a monopoly on the sale of indulgences and fell prey to the corruption of being a monopoly. 

Prayer has been and will be a tool for justice and action. Or as Gandhi said, “Prayer is not an old woman's idle amusement. Properly understood and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.” 

This is in part what I understand to be the power of prayer. When understood and applied it can undercut entire economic systems. Bring a temple structure to her knees or spark a Reformation. 

The eight degrees of charity

Maimonides was a 12th century Jewish teacher who is new to me but old hat for those who know anything about Judaism and philosophy. While he writes on a wide breath of topics, it is some of his writing on charity that stands out to me this time of year. It was brought to my attention on the podcast "Question of the Day" (trailer below).

Here are the eight degrees of charity that Maimonides puts forth. Just a note that each degree is "greater" than the preceding degree.

8. When donations are given grudgingly.

7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.

3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.

1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

What is interesting to me is degree number two. I have heard much of my time in church work that many people value giving in a way that they know what the money will be used for and they will not give or not give as much if they do not know what the money will be used for. That is to say that for our time it seems we do not value Maimonides' degree #2 as highly has he did.

Could it be that we are missing something in our persistent insistence in having the final say on where the money we donate goes? Could we it be that we are eroding away social Trust when we push aside the second degree for a "lesser" degree?