The ethics problems are supposed to wait until the administration starts

but so far, things aren’t working that way for the Obama administration.  I’d figured the revelation that Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner had failed to pay his self-employment taxes from 2001-04 was pretty much irrelevant—it was carelessness, surely, but understandable, and besides, who was going to raise a fuss?  The GOP certainly wouldn’t, since Geithner’s about the best nominee for the position that conservatives are likely to get; and as for the Senate Democrats, whether they like the nominee or not, there’s no way you can imagine them starting off Barack Obama’s first term by pinning that sort of tag on him.Unfortunately, it appears that Geithner’s carelessness was significantly greater than first reported.  As John Hinderaker summarizes the matter,

IMF employees received additional compensation that was earmarked for their portion of FICA taxes. Their incomes were, as the IMF put it, “grossed up.” Thus, Geithner accepted “reimbursement” from the IMF for taxes that he didn’t pay. Not only that, he certified that he would pay the taxes.

Further, this was in the face of the fact that “the IMF took great care to explain to those employees, in detail and frequently, what their tax responsibilities were.”  As such, Hinderaker concludes—rightly, I think—that this “represents a level of carelessness that is not going to be tolerated in a Treasury Secretary at this moment in history.”  He adds that he expects Geithner’s nomination to be withdrawn.  We’ll see.

The Democratic Congress as an elected dictatorship

Last August, I wrote this:

When I lived in Canada, I used to describe the Canadian government as an elected dictatorship. This is because Canada is a parliamentary democracy in which the standing rules of Parliament gave the Prime Minister an extraordinary amount of power to coerce and punish MPs (Members of Parliament) who don’t cooperate (I don’t believe that’s changed, but I can’t say for certain). As a consequence, the people of Canada elected the parliament every so often, thus determining who would be the PM, and the PM then pretty much ruled as dictator until the next election. To me, it seemed like rather a travesty of democracy (though to the Natural Governing Party, aka the Canadian Liberal Party, it seemed like a pretty good deal, at least during their long stretch in power).It appears, however, that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t share my opinion; judging by her behavior today, in which she attempted to use all the powers of her office to shut up a GOP challenge to her preferred policies, it seems she would like the same ability to dominate, manipulate, and otherwise control the House of Representatives that Jean Chrétien once wielded in the Parliament of Canada. Fortunately for us—and I do mean for all of us; if her tactics work, they might be good for the Democratic Party in the short run, but they’ll be bad for the nation in the medium and long run—some of the House GOP have been displaying unaccustomed backbone in the face of her political thuggery, refusing to go home like whipped curs with their tails between their legs. I particularly appreciated this line from Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter: “This is the people’s House. This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.” Amen to that.

Now, Speaker Pelosi—and Harry Reid, her Senate counterpart—are taking parliamentary dictatorship to the next level.  Indeed, they’ve pushed it so far that even the Washington Post is expressing disapproval.  As the D.C. Examiner put it,

We know Democratic lawmakers have taken their bully-boy tactics too far when even The Washington Post worries about the lack of civility in the 111th Congress. As the Post notes, during the 110th Congress “Democrats brought more measures to the House floor under closed rules—permitting no amendments—than any of the six previous Republican-controlled congresses.” Barring amendments to proposed legislation, of course, means take it or leave it, which renders floor debate all but meaningless. . . .Considering how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are treating Republicans in the new Congress, the brazen muzzling of minority rights will continue. Take the pork-laden $10 billion public lands bill Reid ram-rodded over the weekend. It combined more than 160 discrete bills in one omnibus monstrosity, with no amendments permitted. In fact, it’s been six months since Reid permitted Senate GOPers to offer amendments to any Democratic proposal in the Senate. By stifling GOP amendments, Reid is robbing millions of Americans of their right to be heard in the Senate. As Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, says: “Offering amendments is a right and responsibility of senators, not a special privilege or scheduling inconvenience.”On the House side, in addition to severely limiting the GOP’s right to propose amendments from the floor, Pelosi has even gone after the hallowed minority prerogative of offering a motion to recommit a bill before a final vote on passage. Recommiting a bill sends it back to committee, which usually kills it. During their dozens years as a majority, House Republicans only rarely limited Democrats’ ability to offer recommit motions. Unless Pelosi relents, House Republicans and dissident Democrats will be all but shut out of the legislative process in 2009.

I suspect that “dissident Democrats” are the real target here, and that the chief “dissident” they have in their sights is Barack Obama.  It’s pretty clear that Speaker Pelosi et al. want to govern from the hard left, and so far, with his appointments, statements, and actions, the president-elect has been sending strong signals that aside from abortion, he has no intention of cooperating with that agenda; it looks to me like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are marshaling their forces to try to force him to do so.  In order to set the agenda, they have to be sure that if they need to override a veto, they can whip the necessary votes into line; these sorts of measures, combined with the signals they’ve sent that they’re willing to remove committee chairs from their positions for reasons other than death or gross malfeasance, give them at least some ability to do so, and prepare the ground for any further moves they might need to make toward that end.

The (effective) end of the second Bush term

I’ve thought for a while that the thing that shipwrecked President Bush’s second term was the decision to kick it off with an attempt to reform Social Security.  It was brave, because this badly needs to be done (I’ve never talked to anyone in my generation or younger who thinks we’re going to get Social Security when we reach retirement—there seems to be widespread agreement that the program’s going to collapse before we get the chance), but it was also politically stupid, because it gave the Democrats all sorts of chances to beat him up.  There simply wasn’t the political will to address the situation, or any sort of constituency already in place for the effort.  If he’d spent a couple years building that constituency and creating a sense of urgency while he worked on other things, it might have gone somewhere; as it was, all it did was burn all his political capital and leave him defenseless when Katrina hit and Iraq went into reverse.In light of that, it was interesting to note last week that the President appears to agree with me, telling Cal Thomas that if he could do one thing over, he would have given up Social Security and gone to work on immigration reform instead.  As he told Thomas, border security is a real and significant issue, as is the fact that “a system that is so broken that humans become contraband is a system that really needs to be re-examined”; while the political will wasn’t there to address the looming issue with Social Security, “because generally legislative bodies don´t react until the crisis is upon us,” even when they know it’s coming.It’s a good interview of the sympathetic sort, and worth your time to read.

A land of scars

My wife’s cousin Jonathan, who’s a bright and talented sort, has an interesting post up on his blog riffing on a Zimbabwean proverb to the effect that “a coward has no scars.”  Now, if you want a riff on the proverb itself, I’d suggest you look to his blog for that; as will be no surprise to anyone who’s followed this blog a while, my reaction to it was rather different.  Given the news from Zimbabwe—if you were to write a novel about the Mugabe regime, you might call it Tyranny in the Time of Cholera, as that bloody autarch clearly would rather see his whole country die than let go of even one of the reins of power—my thoughts immediately went there.There are a lot of Zimbabweans who aren’t cowards, and they have the scars to prove it; and there were many, during the last presidential “election,” who were scarred badly enough for their opposition that they opted for what you might call a little tactical cowardice—they backed down long enough to live to fight another day.  That even included Morgan Tsvangirai, the chief opposition leader, who bought himself a little time and a little breathing room by pulling out of the “runoff” before diving back in later.  (So far, he’s holding steady and refusing to let Mugabe make a farce out of the power-sharing agreement; as a result, some folks are blaming him for the country’s woes, but I hope he keeps it up.)  They’re proof, I guess, that sometimes the line between bravery and foolhardiness, and that which divides cowardice from prudence, can be awfully fine; and for that matter, that everyone has a limit, and everyone can be broken.There are a lot of Zimbabweans who are badly scarred, simply because they want to live free under a just government that exists to serve its people rather than to leech off them.  I continue to pray that that day will come, and soon.

Deliverance is in God alone

Why do you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord, and my right is disregarded by my God”?
Have you not known? Have you not heard? 
The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; 
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.

—Isaiah 40:27-31 (ESV)
I think the hardest thing about the Christian life is trusting God.  Maybe I’m overgeneralizing here, but at least for a lot of people, this seems to be true.  Certainly if you look at the history of Israel’s relationship to God in the Old Testament, their failure to trust God was at the root of many if not all of their corporate sins—time and again, they thought they needed the help of other gods to achieve their best life then, or they preferred to trust in their own military and diplomatic maneuvers to defeat their enemies.  When things didn’t go well for them, though, they were certainly quick enough to blame God for that, whether they’d been putting their trust in him to deal with their problems or not.Thus, for instance, in Isaiah 40—when the prophet has just announced the deliverance of God, bringing his people back from exile—the response we hear isn’t gratitude but a skeptical whine:  “God isn’t helping us; he can’t see what’s happening to us, and he doesn’t care that we aren’t getting the justice we deserve.”  You can’t blame the prophet for his disbelief and irritation as he asks, “Don’t you get it?  Are you really that dense?”  God has all power over all creation, because he made all of it, and he knows everything that happens; indeed, he rules through everything that happens.  In his power, in his character, in all of who he is, God is so far above anything we human beings can imagine as to be completely incomparable, completely beyond our ability to describe; as such, he’s also completely beyond our ability, or the ability of our enemies, to baffle, thwart, or evade. He raises up the powers of the earth, and then he brings them to nothing, as he will.  Yes, he intends to deliver his people, and yes, he has the ability to do so any time and in any way he chooses. What is needed is for his people—for them; for us—to trust him.We need to trust him, because only he can see the right timing, and because we simply lack the ability to do anywhere near as well, nevermind any better.  Our own strength is limited; even the best of us wear out and falter.  Even a guy like Michael Phelps can only keep going for so long before he drops from exhaustion. But God says that if we will trust him, wait for him, depend on him, rather than putting our trust in our own strength and our own plans, that he will give us the strength and the endurance we need to do what he calls us to do. We will be able to fly as eagles fly—not by working hard flapping their wings, but by stretching out their wings and letting the wind carry them; we will be able to keep going through the weary times, because when our strength runs out, he will renew us, if we wait on him.This is important for us to remember as a nation, as we enter a new year in very uncertain circumstances; as we consider Iran, and terrorists, and the global economic situation, we need to remember what Isaiah tells us: surely all these problems compared to God are like the bead of condensation that slides down your can of soda, or the bit of dust that settles on the scale when you’re weighing the produce. Yes, economic trends could make our lives much less comfortable than we’ve been used to, and yes, al’Qaeda could hurt our country badly; but though God may permit bad things to happen to us, they will only happen when he permits them, and he will continue to work through them just as he works through the good things we see in life. In all things, well and ill, God is in control and at work to accomplish his purposes.(Excerpted, edited, from “The Incomparable God”)

And you think Congress is obscene now . . .

You’ve probably seen the report that the porn industry wants a $5 billion bailout (I guess they’re getting hammered by free Internet competition just like the newspaper industry—well, maybe not just like, but it’s the same sort of problem); they’ve even offered to give Congress equity stakes.  That’s all we need, Congress helping run the porn industry.  We’d never be able to think of a government stimulus package the same way again.

The Incomparable God

(Isaiah 40; Colossians 1:15-20)

Isaiah is the most theological book of the Old Testament. In the breadth of the prophet’s teaching, the depths of his themes, and the subtle ways in which those themes are woven together throughout the book, it is unmatched in the Hebrew Scriptures; not for nothing has it been called the Romans of the Old Testament. The driving concern all through the book is the contrast between what Israel is called to be—namely, God’s servant among the nations, through whom he will draw all the nations to himself—and what Israel actually is—their idolatry, their injustice, their refusal to trust God, and their insistence on putting their trust instead in themselves and their military power (such as it was).

The first five chapters set out the broad themes of the book, and then in chapter 6 we have the story of God calling Isaiah as a prophet. Chapters 7-39 are the first main section of the book, showing us Isaiah’s prophetic ministry in Judah, which was the southern kingdom—when the northern ten tribes seceded from the kingdom of David and Solomon, they took the name “Israel” with them; the south became known as “Judah” after its dominant tribe. When Isaiah begins his ministry, during the reign of King Ahaz, the main threats to Judah are Israel and Syria. Isaiah goes to Ahaz and tells him, “This is what God says: Israel and Syria are plotting to invade you, but just trust me—they won’t do it, because I’m going to stop them. Ask me for a sign—anything—and I’ll give it to you to confirm this.” But Ahaz refuses, because he already has his own plan: he’s going to ally himself with the Assyrian empire and use them to take care of Syria and Israel.

In consequence, God, through the prophet Isaiah, responds with anger and frustration, telling Ahaz that because of his refusal to trust in God, Assyria is going to come down hard on Judah; the Assyrians won’t quite conquer Judah, but they’ll do everything but. Over the course of time, Assyrian power rises, and their threat to Judah rises—though Isaiah tells the people several times along the way that the real threat is the one coming along behind them, the Babylonians—culminating in the Assyrian invasion, which comes in chapter 36, as the Assyrian armies take all the cities of Judah except for the capital city of Jerusalem. This time, however, Hezekiah is king; unlike his father Ahaz, he puts his trust in God, and God delivers the nation. But then, in chapter 39, he makes a critical mistake: when envoys come from the king of Babylon—Babylon about whom Isaiah has been warning his people all these years—Hezekiah does everything he can to make an ally of them, putting his trust in them rather than in the God who has already delivered his nation once from the power of Assyria. He makes essentially the same mistake Ahaz made, and the word comes in response: Babylon will conquer Judah, and your people and treasures will be carried off into exile.

As we noted a few weeks ago, though, that could not be the last word; the story of the people of God could not end that way, or it would invalidate everything God had ever said about himself. Thus begins the second great section of the book, Isaiah 40-55, which answers the question, “What now?” God will bring his people back from exile, that has to be established—and it is, in the first 11 verses of this chapter, the immediate response to the word of judgment pronounced in chapter 39—but on what basis? What will God do with this people who refuse to be the servant people he called and created them to be? Will they respond to their exile by repenting and changing their ways, or will God’s work have to go forward some other way? Will he ultimately have to set his people aside?

The answers to those questions will be worked out over the course of chapters 40-55, which we’ll be studying over the next number of weeks; right from the beginning, though, even in the great word of comfort and hope that opens this section, we have hints that God’s people will not respond as they should. It’s my contention that we see two primary things happen in these chapters; the first is widely agreed on, while the second is not so much. First, in what are known as the “Servant Songs,” we see the focus shift from the nation as God’s servant to God raising up a particular servant, one human being, through whom he will accomplish his purpose—and these prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Thus we’ll spend some time during this series in the gospels, and in other passages that point explicitly to Christ, as our passage from Colossians does this morning. Second, I believe we see in these chapters a shift away from Israel to the nations—since Israel would not take up the mission to the nations, the Servant will begin that mission himself; the salvation of Israel will have to come through the nations, instead of the other way around. This engages with Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11, in which he wrestles with this issue, and so we’ll spend some time reading there as well.

The argument begins here in chapter 40, though, with the announcement of deliverance; and that announcement is founded in the assertion that God, and only God, is capable of delivering his people. We see the first statement of that in verse 10: “See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him”; and then in verse 12, Isaiah begins to argue this out in detail. The central question of this section comes in verse 18: “To whom will you compare God?” The answer is clear: nobody. Verse 12 asks, who can compare with God’s power in creation? The imagery here is remarkable—for all the vastness of the heavens, God measured them with a span, which is the distance from here [tip of thumb] to here [tip of spread pinky]. That’s how big the universe is compared to God. Verses 13 and 14 ask, who can compare with God’s wisdom and knowledge—who was even in a position to offer him advice? Clearly, no one.

What about the nations? The kings of Judah, as we’ve seen, spent much of their time focused on the threat from this nation or that nation, and hoping to use this other powerful nation over here as an ally to deal with the perceived threat; and if they could have, they no doubt would have been looking for nations which they could invade and conquer in turn. What about these powers? The kings of Judah didn’t trust God to deal with them, preferring their military efforts and diplomatic intrigues; were they justified? Are the nations too great for God to handle? No, says Isaiah, of course not. All their power and glory are nothing, just the speck of dust that settles on the scale—completely inconsequential. Not only is their power no rival to that of God, the very idea is utterly ludicrous, totally absurd. They’re not “worthless”—that’s not a good word choice by the NIV; it’s not as if God doesn’t value them, because he clearly does. The point is, rather, that as God measures power, they don’t even register.

Ah, but some might say, that’s comparing apples to dragons. The nations are certainly far greater and more powerful than Israel, so surely their gods must be greater and more powerful than Israel’s God, right? That would have seemed obvious to most people; but to Isaiah, it’s the most ridiculous idea yet. In verses 19-20, we get the first of several polemics against idols that we’ll see in this section—this one’s brief, but when Isaiah returns to this theme and these images later on, he’ll do so at greater length. Are the gods of the nations powerful? No, they’re nothing at all. People make them out of stuff. Sure, it’s valuable stuff—that “poor man” is a mistranslation, because in that part of the world, wood that wouldn’t rot was actually very expensive, and it required a skilled craftsman to shape it—but it’s just stuff, made by people, set up by people, protected by people. It can’t even stand up by itself—it has to be secured with chains or fastened down in some other way to keep it from falling over. And this is supposed to rival the God who made the whole universe (including that stuff that people bow down and worship) out of nothing, not even needing anyone to advise him? Not likely.

Just to make sure you got the point, Isaiah goes back over all of it. Creation, kings, nations—don’t you get it? he asks; are you really that dense? All these things are God’s creation, and he does with them as he will; even the sun, moon, and stars, which the peoples of the ancient world thought governed their lives, are his creation and his servants. In his power, in his character, in all of who he is, God is so far above anything we human beings can imagine as to be completely incomparable, completely beyond our ability to describe; as such, he’s also completely beyond our ability, or the ability of our enemies, to baffle, thwart, or evade. He raises up the powers of the earth, and then he brings them to nothing, as he will; no opposition to him will be allowed to endure.

From Israel’s perspective, though, what really mattered was their own circumstances, and when things weren’t going the way they wanted, they were inclined to distrust God; and so here we get the first appearance of their grumbling skepticism. “God isn’t helping us; he can’t see what’s happening to us, and he doesn’t care that we aren’t getting the justice we deserve.” To that, Isaiah says once again, “Don’t you get it?” God has all power over creation, and he knows everything that happens; and no, he’s not too tired to help his people, either, because he never gets tired. God intends to deliver his people, and he has the ability to do so any time and in any way he chooses. What is needed is for his people—for them; for us—to trust him.

Our own strength is limited; even the best of us wear out and falter. That second word translated “young men” means “chosen ones”—the elite, the hand-picked, like our own Olympic athletes. Even a guy like Michael Phelps can only keep going for so long before he drops from exhaustion. But God says that if we will trust him, wait for him, depend on him, rather than putting our trust in our own strength and our own plans, that he will give us the strength and the endurance we need to do what he calls us to do. We will be able to fly as eagles fly—not by working hard flapping their wings, but by stretching out their wings and letting the wind carry them; we will be able to keep going through the weary times, because when our strength runs out, he will renew us, if we wait on him.

This is important for us to remember as a nation, as we enter a new year in very uncertain circumstances; as we consider Iran, and terrorists, and the global economic situation, we need to remember what Isaiah tells us: surely all these problems compared to God are like the bead of condensation that slides down your can of soda, or the bit of dust that settles on the scale when you’re weighing the produce. Yes, economic trends could make our lives much less comfortable than we’ve been used to, and yes, al’Qaeda could hurt our country badly; but though God may permit bad things to happen to us, they will only happen when he permits them, and he will continue to work through them just as he works through the good things we see in life. In all things, well and ill, God is in control and at work to accomplish his purposes.

This is also important for us to remember as a church. We know we have some challenges; we know that given the size and age of our congregation, the giving level we’ve seen, and the size of our budget, our current situation is not sustainable. Change will come, one way or another, that’s inevitable—the only question is whether we will be proactive in creating change, or just let change happen to us (in which case it will almost certainly be bad). What we need to bear in mind is that we must not make the same mistake King Ahaz made, in choosing to put his trust in his own wits and schemes and plans—a mistake that came because he focused too much on the problems he could see, and lost sight of the fact that God is much bigger than all those problems. As the Session gathers next Sunday to begin to develop a vision and a plan for this body, as we bring our work to the congregation at the annual meeting next month, as we work over the course of this coming year to get everyone committed to going forward together in ministry in a new way, we need to remember whose wisdom we need to seek, and whose will we need to follow, and whose strength and whose power will make it all happen—namely, God. Our incomparable God who made all that is and who dwarfs every challenge we face has a part for us in his plan, and he desires to bless us as a part of that; we just need to follow.

This means that while our own efforts are important—God doesn’t call us to passivity—the most important thing we can do is pray. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if you’re a part of this community of faith, your first responsibility before all others is to be in prayer for the church; if you didn’t get the sheet I put together suggesting ways to be praying for this body, let me know and I’ll run you off a copy. In particular, and especially this year, we as the Session need your prayers, as we seek to discern where God is leading us.

Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats: already on the rocks?

So suggests Jennifer Rubin, drawing on a piece in Politico on the Burris fiasco, and she identifies two main causes.  One is the President-Elect’s maladroit handling of the situation; according to Politico, Democrats in the Senate are

complaining that he kept his distance from the Burris controversy then jumped in at the end to claim the mantle of peacemaker—much as he did in the flap over Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support of Republican John McCain’s presidential bid.

As Rubin points out, letting his party’s Senate caucus hang itself without intervening may work fine for a presidential candidate (especially when one’s opponent obligingly jumps into the situation), but it’s a really bad idea once you’re elected president.  Not only will it be necessary for him “to resolve food fights before they spatter him,” but even if they don’t spatter him, the Senate still won’t respond well to being mishandled—particularly if that mishandling results in the Senate looking bad.  If he’s unwilling to spend any of his political capital to help Senate Democrats out, they aren’t likely to play along when he wants them to compromise, or to stick their necks out for him.All of this, however, can be put down to inexperience, and that’s something that can be fixed; as long as President Obama proves a quick enough learner (and he’s certainly bright enough), this shouldn’t be a long-term handicap for his administration.  The other problem Rubin identifies, however, is considerably more serious:

the Senate Democrats don’t much like or respect Reid. Republicans might cackle that the Democrats are just coming around to this realization. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a Senate leader of the opposite party, whose job it is to annoy, frustrate and criticize the White House, and a Senate leader of the same party, whose job it is to build coalitions to pass the President’s agenda and grease the skids for legislation. Reid seems spectacularly ill-suited to fill the latter role. But he’s the chosen leader, and unless more calamities befall the Senate, that’s the position in which Reid will remain. The Senate Democrats’ success (and many of their members’ re-election prospects) will depend as will, to a great extent, the Obama legislative agenda, on the extent of Reid’s finesse. Good luck, fellas.

I have been quite skeptical—some might say, extremely skeptical—about Barack Obama and the kind of president he will prove to be; but the upside to his sketchy record and short political career (which constitute one of my main reasons for skepticism) is that, combined with his impressive natural gifts, there is a substantial possibility that I’ve misread him, and that he’ll prove to be a significantly more effective president than I expected.  (Based on his first round of appointments, he’s certainly bidding fair to be a different president than I expected.)  The same, however, cannot be said of Harry Reid; he’s been doing this long enough that he’s not going to surprise anybody—what you see is what you get.  There may not be any greater problem for the Democrats in 2009-10 than that.Update:  David Broder sees some additional reasons for concern in this affair.

For Bill and Bird: another contender

that being a band, incidentally, that U2 admired a great deal, that influenced them and was influenced by them in turn:  Big Country.  I’ll grant U2 the lyrical edge (especially for their theological depth), but musically I’d take BC over either U2 or Rush.
Remembrance Day

Song of the South

The Storm

In a Big Country

Look Away

The Seer

Heart of the World