China has just made plain its contempt and hatred for the United States; and certainly has shown its contempt for President Obama.
During the state dinner at the White House, Hu Jintao and his entourage, including the pianist Lang Lang, made it clear that they have no respect for either the USA or its current president. Among Lang's pieces played for the entertainment of the Chinese and American presidents was "Wode Zu Guo" (My Motherland), a piece from a 1950's propaganda film extolling the killing of Americans during the Korean War. After the non-mainstream media broke the story, Lang professed innocence of the origin of the song. I frankly think he's lying through his teeth.
The Chinese Communist government is very careful about the image it projects, yet still likes to prod for weaknesses in its interlocutors. It is why Hu made the right noises about China having "a long way to go" in implementing human rights and the rule of law while making no commitments. But under the smooth exterior, is the head of a ruthless oligarchy that understands its historical mission as being the last, best hope of 20th century totalitarianism. Had Hu wished to simply have a smooth, both-sides-satisfied summit, he would not have allowed such a piece to be played (would the Germans play "Die Wacht am Rhein" when having diplomatic negotiations with the French?). It seems that the Chinese government was betting on general American ignorance of modern Chinese culture, and pulled the stunt to show the folks back home that it is humiliating and insulting America at the heart of American power.
The fact that Lang chose a piece from a post-Korean War propaganda film may also signal that any Chinese noises that it may accept the disappearance of the Communist Kim Dynasty in Pyongyang is probably a subtle trap designed to lull the USA into a new confrontation in northeastern Asia in order to test the prowess of China's rapidly modernizing forces. It should therefore be a signal to any alert officials in the US Government that China is not a friend, but an enemy whose contempt for the USA--accompanied by an underestimation of American strengths and sensibilities--could very well lead to a general conflict in the Western Pacific.
The fact that official US responses to this plain insult are muted is no proof of the patience, forbearance, and wisdom of our leadership, but of their ability to be taken off guard by people who sincerely and deeply hope to catch them off-guard. It seems that nothing has changed since the Chinese General Staff caught former President Clinton off-guard by asking if the US would tolerate a nuclear blast over Los Angeles as retaliation for supporting Taiwan in the face of a Mainland Chinese assault. It would be far better for Obama and Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, to clearly state that the US government feels that Lang Lang's repertoire at the state dinner was in poor taste, suggests that official China has no respect for the USA, and may even hint that Beijing's long-term view of Washington is hostile.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Immigration Reform
As a former consular officer, I have some thoughts about immigration reform. They center on (a) judicious discrimination and (b) enforcing laws and policies already on the books.
Carefully considered, intelligently targeted, and, hopefully temporary discriminatory policies towards states, regions, and groups that have imported other countries' problems to the USA should be implemented in USA immigration law. Discrimination is a dirty word today, but it is necessary for law and society to function. The family "discriminates", even against those outsiders with whom it enjoys respectful and amicable relations; while all professions discriminate in favor of specific sets of skills.
In immigration, the US Congress could pass a law that would give the president, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Defense the right to place visa moratoria on states, regions, and groups deemed inimical to US security and public order. Such visa bans--which would cover even family unification and skills-based immmigrant cases as well as non-immigrant categories--would target problems such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, and the like. These bans could then be lifted when the executive branch agencies deem the crises that require discrimination to be over.
For example, when I was serving as a consular officer in the Far East, much was made of a "Fujianese" problem--alien smuggling from that coastal province, including links to highly effective organized crime. In the aftermath of the 1989 protests, bona fide Chinese asylum seekers from all over China ended up in Thailand, all claiming that they had originally hoped to go to Fujian and find a way to Taiwan, but that the authorities were watching the area too closely for them. Yet, at the same time, the alien-smuggling gangs operating out of the Fuzhou area (the provincial capital and immediately adjacent counties), did not miss a beat. The same human smuggling operations resulted in populations in several American cities that were for all intents and purposes indentured to smuggling gangs, plus the organization of all but impenetrable criminal gangs dealing in narcotics and vice.
But the problem was not really a "Fujianese" problem. It was highly localized in the city of Fuzhou (the provincial capital) and adjacent counties. While in Bangkok, I was called on to translate when the Thai police arrested a smuggler and gave American immigration officials access to the prisoner. The man's wallet was literally stuffed with the name cards of Communist Party Secretaries, high officers of the Fujian Garrison Commmand, and Chinese government officials. Clearly, the operation the people-smuggler represented was well-connected. But later, when I served in Guangzhou as a consular officer, I could not help but note that whereas almost all cases from the Fuzhou area involved former illegals, Fujianese cases from other parts of the province were run-of-the-mill close relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents or students who had been recruited by US companies while in the USA; all legitimate immigration cases under then-current law.
Perhaps had the law allowed the Secretary of State to issue a ban on immigrants and visitors from Fuzhou city, Lianjiang County, and a handful of other nearby localities, and had the Bureau of Consular Affairs the budget and resources for a thorough anti-fraud effort, legal immigrants would not have been inconvenienced, and a clear message sent to corrupt host country authorities and a population prone to accept the blandishments of the smuggling gangs that the road was closed. This might have given incentive to the host country to attack the problem at its root.
Similarly, in the War on Terror, we would not even need to ban Muslim immigration (as some of the more zealous outside of government have suggested). Rather, terror-supporting groups like Falastin Arab Muslims, Lebanese Shi'ites, most of the population of Pakistan, and certain others might be barred from entering the USA until such time as support for anti-American terror among such groups has clearly dimminished. Yet, at the same time, visas would continue to be available to Iraqi and Iranian Kurds, West Africans, Hui, Circassians, and other Muslims whose support for Islamic supremacism is either lacking or sufficiently muted.
Some may argue that such laws and policies would cut the nerve of American humanitarian concern for asylum seekers. Yet no country should be required to admit its avowed enemies. Many from the Fuzhou area of China abuse the asylum system for admission, yet the Fujian-American Association which they support is outspokenly pro-Beijing. Has anyone heard of a German-Jewish emigre association of the World War II era that would even give the Nazis credit for making the trains run on time? The idea that genuine refugees would support the regime that endangered them is preposterous. Further, it is a national disgrace that members of the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq are allowed to use their problems with Khomeini-ite Iran to gain asylum in the USA. These are people who, in their own circles, boast of being the first "revolutionary fighters" into the "nest of spies" back in 1979. No-one should think that the USA has any moral or humanitarian duty to admit such people. Carefully considered and targeted discrimination could allow immigration officers to ban such doubtful entrants while admitting others.
Things like "Diversity IMmigration" should be done away with. The late Ted Kennedy supported the idea back in the 1980's because (a) he was dismayed that his 1965 reforms didn't re-vitalize the Irish and Italian ghettoes that had guaranteed Democratic dominance in New England and (b) a lot of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean immigrants started voting Republican as soon as the ink on their naturalization certificates was dry, and an uncomfortably visible minority of Latin-Americans, did, too. I've noted among my own students that some of the rare Republicans in the community I serve are recent West African immigrants (small businessmen feeling the tax squeeze). The "diversity visa" lottery was the last gasp of Ted Kennedy's attempt to revitalize an important 20th century Democratic base, failed badly, and was derisively referred to as the "Irish Sweepstakes" by those whose job it was to administer it.
Carefully targeted discrimination in the hands of reponsible and carefully trained officers of executive branch agencies would also allow a frank recognition that some cultures are more mutually assimilable than others. The USA cannot afford the sorts of no-go areas and rape zones that afflict some of the Banlieux of French cities, cities of northern England, or Malmo, Sweden. Groups that have made it clear that they intend to form Sharia enclaves in the Dar-el-Harb could be excluded.
I would also retain birthright citizenship (including for children of the American diaspora) and all the legal protections for non-citizens enshrined in the 14th Amendment. I'd even be lenient on, say, bona fide spouses who marry while visiting the USA and whose American spouses don't bother to do the paperwork until ICE finds them a couple of years later. The only change I would introduce would be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The culture of Islamic polygamy is too dangerous to be allowed to take root in the USA. It was the cradle from which Osama Bin Laden came, and that is enough. As for the current push for homosexual rights, it still remains a clear fact that being raised in a two-parent, heterosexual household is likely to remain best for future generations. Continued vigilance against fraud should be exercised, as well as presumption of fraud in all cases of arranged marriages between persons of great age discrepancies. These, after all, are prima facie opposed to the principle of liberty underlying all of America's founding documents.
Perhaps the chief immigration reforms I would institute would be more funding and staffing for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, ICE, and the Border Patrol in order to better enforce the laws we already have on the books. I'd also deliberately limit asylum to people who are both truly in danger and accepting of American values (i.e., no Communists, pedophiles, or Mojaheddin-e-Khalq). The disfunctionality of the American immigration system seems to be in its being underpaid and overworked, coupled with some of the problems of a corrupt culture in legal and judicial circles in which the lawyer's craft, the temptation of subversion, and political ambition often count for more than either law or justice. But that is a different issue.
more may be said on immigration issues later
Carefully considered, intelligently targeted, and, hopefully temporary discriminatory policies towards states, regions, and groups that have imported other countries' problems to the USA should be implemented in USA immigration law. Discrimination is a dirty word today, but it is necessary for law and society to function. The family "discriminates", even against those outsiders with whom it enjoys respectful and amicable relations; while all professions discriminate in favor of specific sets of skills.
In immigration, the US Congress could pass a law that would give the president, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Defense the right to place visa moratoria on states, regions, and groups deemed inimical to US security and public order. Such visa bans--which would cover even family unification and skills-based immmigrant cases as well as non-immigrant categories--would target problems such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, and the like. These bans could then be lifted when the executive branch agencies deem the crises that require discrimination to be over.
For example, when I was serving as a consular officer in the Far East, much was made of a "Fujianese" problem--alien smuggling from that coastal province, including links to highly effective organized crime. In the aftermath of the 1989 protests, bona fide Chinese asylum seekers from all over China ended up in Thailand, all claiming that they had originally hoped to go to Fujian and find a way to Taiwan, but that the authorities were watching the area too closely for them. Yet, at the same time, the alien-smuggling gangs operating out of the Fuzhou area (the provincial capital and immediately adjacent counties), did not miss a beat. The same human smuggling operations resulted in populations in several American cities that were for all intents and purposes indentured to smuggling gangs, plus the organization of all but impenetrable criminal gangs dealing in narcotics and vice.
But the problem was not really a "Fujianese" problem. It was highly localized in the city of Fuzhou (the provincial capital) and adjacent counties. While in Bangkok, I was called on to translate when the Thai police arrested a smuggler and gave American immigration officials access to the prisoner. The man's wallet was literally stuffed with the name cards of Communist Party Secretaries, high officers of the Fujian Garrison Commmand, and Chinese government officials. Clearly, the operation the people-smuggler represented was well-connected. But later, when I served in Guangzhou as a consular officer, I could not help but note that whereas almost all cases from the Fuzhou area involved former illegals, Fujianese cases from other parts of the province were run-of-the-mill close relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents or students who had been recruited by US companies while in the USA; all legitimate immigration cases under then-current law.
Perhaps had the law allowed the Secretary of State to issue a ban on immigrants and visitors from Fuzhou city, Lianjiang County, and a handful of other nearby localities, and had the Bureau of Consular Affairs the budget and resources for a thorough anti-fraud effort, legal immigrants would not have been inconvenienced, and a clear message sent to corrupt host country authorities and a population prone to accept the blandishments of the smuggling gangs that the road was closed. This might have given incentive to the host country to attack the problem at its root.
Similarly, in the War on Terror, we would not even need to ban Muslim immigration (as some of the more zealous outside of government have suggested). Rather, terror-supporting groups like Falastin Arab Muslims, Lebanese Shi'ites, most of the population of Pakistan, and certain others might be barred from entering the USA until such time as support for anti-American terror among such groups has clearly dimminished. Yet, at the same time, visas would continue to be available to Iraqi and Iranian Kurds, West Africans, Hui, Circassians, and other Muslims whose support for Islamic supremacism is either lacking or sufficiently muted.
Some may argue that such laws and policies would cut the nerve of American humanitarian concern for asylum seekers. Yet no country should be required to admit its avowed enemies. Many from the Fuzhou area of China abuse the asylum system for admission, yet the Fujian-American Association which they support is outspokenly pro-Beijing. Has anyone heard of a German-Jewish emigre association of the World War II era that would even give the Nazis credit for making the trains run on time? The idea that genuine refugees would support the regime that endangered them is preposterous. Further, it is a national disgrace that members of the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq are allowed to use their problems with Khomeini-ite Iran to gain asylum in the USA. These are people who, in their own circles, boast of being the first "revolutionary fighters" into the "nest of spies" back in 1979. No-one should think that the USA has any moral or humanitarian duty to admit such people. Carefully considered and targeted discrimination could allow immigration officers to ban such doubtful entrants while admitting others.
Things like "Diversity IMmigration" should be done away with. The late Ted Kennedy supported the idea back in the 1980's because (a) he was dismayed that his 1965 reforms didn't re-vitalize the Irish and Italian ghettoes that had guaranteed Democratic dominance in New England and (b) a lot of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean immigrants started voting Republican as soon as the ink on their naturalization certificates was dry, and an uncomfortably visible minority of Latin-Americans, did, too. I've noted among my own students that some of the rare Republicans in the community I serve are recent West African immigrants (small businessmen feeling the tax squeeze). The "diversity visa" lottery was the last gasp of Ted Kennedy's attempt to revitalize an important 20th century Democratic base, failed badly, and was derisively referred to as the "Irish Sweepstakes" by those whose job it was to administer it.
Carefully targeted discrimination in the hands of reponsible and carefully trained officers of executive branch agencies would also allow a frank recognition that some cultures are more mutually assimilable than others. The USA cannot afford the sorts of no-go areas and rape zones that afflict some of the Banlieux of French cities, cities of northern England, or Malmo, Sweden. Groups that have made it clear that they intend to form Sharia enclaves in the Dar-el-Harb could be excluded.
I would also retain birthright citizenship (including for children of the American diaspora) and all the legal protections for non-citizens enshrined in the 14th Amendment. I'd even be lenient on, say, bona fide spouses who marry while visiting the USA and whose American spouses don't bother to do the paperwork until ICE finds them a couple of years later. The only change I would introduce would be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The culture of Islamic polygamy is too dangerous to be allowed to take root in the USA. It was the cradle from which Osama Bin Laden came, and that is enough. As for the current push for homosexual rights, it still remains a clear fact that being raised in a two-parent, heterosexual household is likely to remain best for future generations. Continued vigilance against fraud should be exercised, as well as presumption of fraud in all cases of arranged marriages between persons of great age discrepancies. These, after all, are prima facie opposed to the principle of liberty underlying all of America's founding documents.
Perhaps the chief immigration reforms I would institute would be more funding and staffing for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, ICE, and the Border Patrol in order to better enforce the laws we already have on the books. I'd also deliberately limit asylum to people who are both truly in danger and accepting of American values (i.e., no Communists, pedophiles, or Mojaheddin-e-Khalq). The disfunctionality of the American immigration system seems to be in its being underpaid and overworked, coupled with some of the problems of a corrupt culture in legal and judicial circles in which the lawyer's craft, the temptation of subversion, and political ambition often count for more than either law or justice. But that is a different issue.
more may be said on immigration issues later
Friday, December 31, 2010
New Years Wishes
The New Year is upon us, and I pray that God would indeed "crown the year with goodness" (Ps. 65:1).
Happy New Year, one and all!
Happy New Year, one and all!
Sunday, December 26, 2010
China Sets a Trap [?]
The British periodical _Guardian_ reports that Wikileaks reveals that China is privately ready to abandon North Korea, and may be open to Korean re-unification under Seoul. This sounds very suspicious. It is more likely that Chinese officials are planting misinformation with their American counterparts, possibly setting a military trap.
It is more than conceivable that pretending a willingness to abandon the Kim dynasty of Pyongyang is a way to make America over-confident should Pyongyang re-open the Korean War. A renewed Korean War in which America remains unprepared for massive Chinese Communist support for the North Korean state provides Beijing with a golden opportunity to trap US forces, move on Taiwan, isolate Japan, and possibly remove the American presence from the Western Pacific for good. It would allow Beijing, in a single dramatic conflict, to fulfill a large part of the what the regime sees as its historic mission, namely, to end the legacy of Western imperialism in the Far East. Beijing's official organs never broach the possibility that Taiwan's continuing wariness about reunification, despite its clear lack of international support and a government headed by the pan-Blues, may just have to do with differing indigenous political evolutions on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait; but insist that the existence of a "China Irredentia" can only be because of the nefarious plots of first Tokyo, then Washington. Similarly, the performance of the Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950-53 remains a large part of China's self-image as a rising power. Should a Beijing-Pyongyang alliance win a second Korean War, with Communist absorption of Taiwan as a further benefit to Beijing, China would be in an excellent position to completely eclipse Japan as a power in the Far East.
Naked Chinese pressure on a number of neighboring governments to boycott the Nobel ceremony that honored Liu Xiaobo is a reminder that Beijing remains the last, best hope of 20th century totalitarianism. It is certain that China feels that its rising power permits it to censor critical voices not only at home, but abroad as well. It is therefore inconceivable that a Korea reunified under a multiparty government allied to the United States (and, with reunification, possibly confident enough to undertake a final reconciliation with Japan) could be truly welcome to Beijing's rulers. The Korean minority in China's northeast is already a vector for underground Christian propaganda; and the possibility of their becoming a vector for political dissidence would only be strengthened by Korean reunification on Seoul's terms.
As students of Sunzi, China's leaders know that one of America's great weaknesses is a deep desire to believe that the Chinese Communist regime is fundamentally benign, internationally responsible, and not really represented by the continuing anti-American message found in China's government-controlled media. This is something they know they can use for political and military leverage, just as they have used it to gain international economic respectability in the face of such practices as using prison and child labor.
Hence, the US Government should take such feelers from Beijing with a large grain of salt.
It is more than conceivable that pretending a willingness to abandon the Kim dynasty of Pyongyang is a way to make America over-confident should Pyongyang re-open the Korean War. A renewed Korean War in which America remains unprepared for massive Chinese Communist support for the North Korean state provides Beijing with a golden opportunity to trap US forces, move on Taiwan, isolate Japan, and possibly remove the American presence from the Western Pacific for good. It would allow Beijing, in a single dramatic conflict, to fulfill a large part of the what the regime sees as its historic mission, namely, to end the legacy of Western imperialism in the Far East. Beijing's official organs never broach the possibility that Taiwan's continuing wariness about reunification, despite its clear lack of international support and a government headed by the pan-Blues, may just have to do with differing indigenous political evolutions on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait; but insist that the existence of a "China Irredentia" can only be because of the nefarious plots of first Tokyo, then Washington. Similarly, the performance of the Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950-53 remains a large part of China's self-image as a rising power. Should a Beijing-Pyongyang alliance win a second Korean War, with Communist absorption of Taiwan as a further benefit to Beijing, China would be in an excellent position to completely eclipse Japan as a power in the Far East.
Naked Chinese pressure on a number of neighboring governments to boycott the Nobel ceremony that honored Liu Xiaobo is a reminder that Beijing remains the last, best hope of 20th century totalitarianism. It is certain that China feels that its rising power permits it to censor critical voices not only at home, but abroad as well. It is therefore inconceivable that a Korea reunified under a multiparty government allied to the United States (and, with reunification, possibly confident enough to undertake a final reconciliation with Japan) could be truly welcome to Beijing's rulers. The Korean minority in China's northeast is already a vector for underground Christian propaganda; and the possibility of their becoming a vector for political dissidence would only be strengthened by Korean reunification on Seoul's terms.
As students of Sunzi, China's leaders know that one of America's great weaknesses is a deep desire to believe that the Chinese Communist regime is fundamentally benign, internationally responsible, and not really represented by the continuing anti-American message found in China's government-controlled media. This is something they know they can use for political and military leverage, just as they have used it to gain international economic respectability in the face of such practices as using prison and child labor.
Hence, the US Government should take such feelers from Beijing with a large grain of salt.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
A Christmas Meditation
Matthew 1:1-21
I don't really make that much about Christmas. It was not commanded in Holy Scripture, so its observance cannot be imposed on the conscience. However, I have nothing afainst people who choose certain times to focus on the great events of Jesus Christ's life among us; and Christmas is a time when many are open to hearing something about the Savior, so here goes with a meditation.
I love the Gospel stories about the birth of Christ--Matthew 2 and Luke 2. I love the prologue to John, the Gospel that reminds us up front how Jesus isn't just man, but God Incarnate and "pitching his tent" among us.
But, believe it or not, I really love Matthew One, with all of its boring "begats".
Why, Uncle Cephas? Are you just a dull old man?
The Genealogy of Jesus reminds us of several things, not least of which is how God the Son chose to identify with real, flesh-and-blood people, despite all of our fallenness and misery.
Jesus, like all the rest of us, has a history. His genealogy in Matthew One shows us that this history is the long, long history of ancient Israel. His line begins with Abraham, passes through Kings David and Solomon, the greatest of Israel's kings, and moves on down to that point which the Apostle Paul calls "the fullness of time", when world-empire belonged to Rome and Herod the Great sat on the throne of Judaea. Jesus identified with a people and its story.
This, perhaps, is why Matthew plays with the idea of fourteen major generations from Abraham to the Babylonian Exile, then fourteen from the Exile to the Messiah (which is just the Anglicization for M'shiach, or "Anoiinted One", which in Greek is "Christos"). Seven is the number of perfection, fourteen is perfection doubled. Matthew's point isn't that he's playing a game of "Catch me if you Can in my Knowledge of Biblical genealogy"--one, by the way, that he loses, since many a Bible student has found gaps in his genealogy--but that the flow of Hebrew history isn't random, but follows a divine plan that meets its fulfillment in the Redeemer of the world.
As an American, I know this doesn't particularly flatter me; nor does it flatter my dear spouse who was born Chinese. But it is a reminder that God has his own purposes in history, and they are not necessarily purposes there to aggrandize me and mine. But it should be enough for us that God was concerned enough with us as historical persons that when he chose to become one of us, that he did not ignore history with all its lumps, warts, and imperfections. And, perhaps, in choosing a relatively small nation for his own, he reminds us that our notions of power, greatness, and national glory are not necessarily his.
Apart from God's guiding hand in human history, Jesus' genealogy reminds us that God chose to identify with sinners.
Many have the idea that the Savior of mankind had to come from the great and good. As a descendant of kings and Persian satraps from David to Zorobabel (Zerubbabel in the Old Testament), Jesus does descend from the great. But a reading of the Old Testament reminds us that Jesus does not necessarily descend from the good. The incarnation of God the son is not about congratulating mankind on a job well done, but about the redemption of sinners.
Judah and Tamar (Judas and Thamar in verse 4, following the Greek spellings) show us a sordid tale of deception, anger, and violation, in which a man lies with his daughter-in-law when she is disguised as a prostitute (Genesis 38). We see as well Rachad (Rahab) the harlot, who with her house was the only survivor of the city of Jericho following its capture by Joshua. And from which of David's numerous marriages did the Savior come? From David's adultery with Bathsheba and and the murder of Uriah the Hittite (Urias in the Greek spelling)--the very crime for which, as Nathan the prophet announced, the blood would not depart from David's house (II Samuel 11).
Following these unedifying tales come the kings of Judah. What a contrast the books of Samuel and Kings offer to the boasting chronicles of virtually every other ancient nation! Yes, wise Solomon, and the pious kings Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah are mentioned. But Solomon, for all his wisdom, was the one who multiplied wives and horses, contrary to the mitzvot of Deuteronomy 17, and whose foreign wives--the staple of ancient Middle Eastern diplomacy--distanced him from the God he originally served. And Solomon's glorious, extensive kingdom, stretching from the wadis of the Sinai peninsula (the Brook of Egypt) to the Euphrates River, came into the hands of his son Rehoboam (Roboam), who ignored the counsel of the older, wiser men and took that of his contemporaries, that he might oppress the people of Israel, showing a "little finger thicker than [his] father's waist" and putting aside the whips with which Solomon chastised men to chastise them with scorpions. And to this, the ten northern tribes answered with secession under Jeroboam.
Most of the other kings are not remembered as good men. Throughout the books of the kings sound the gloomy refrains "he did evil in the sight of the LORD" or "He walked in the way of Jeroboam, who taught Israel to sin". They culminate in Manasseh, who, the Old Testament tells us, walked in all the Canaanite abominations, for which Israel was commanded to cleanse the land. It was for the sins of Mannaseh that Judah herself was condemned to destruction and exile.
And here is a reflection of how Jesus puts the importance of family in persepctive--especially since Christmas is a time of family gatherings and remembrances. Many of us wish to think of ourselves as good people, who descend from good people, and whose families are exemplars of what is right rather than of what is wrong. Hence the ancestral cult found in many cultures across the globe. Hence the importance to many of "good family". But Jesus' genealogy reminds us that we worship a transcendent and holy God rather than dead men; and that we need not walk in the sins and follies of our fathers.
The genealogy ends with the naming of Jesus. He is the namesake of Joshua, who led Israel into the promised land, bearing a name that means "YHWH saves", for Jesus' mission is to save his elect people from all nations, kindreds, people, and tongues from their sins (Mt.1:21; Rev. 7:9). This he accomplished in his life of obedience to divine law in the place of our law-breaking, his sacrificial death on the cross in which he bore our sins, and his resurrection--body AND soul--from the dead.
Reading this genealogy, I am floored by how the sinless Son of God identifies with sinful men. If any had the right to disown his family, it was Jesus Christ. Yet he did not; and through his apostle, shows us his identification with sinners for the sake of their salvation. I pray that from meditation on this passage, I and other Christians would put aside the "holier than thou" facade that comes too easily. It is not the case that we were wiser and better than others that brings us to salvation, but rather that our salvation comes from God's grace shown in Christ. I pray that this witness would be effectual to the salvation of many more.
Matthew One is the great testimony to the humanity of Jesus Christ (even if Matthew confesses Jesus' divinity in recording the apostles' awestruck "who is this, that even winds and waves obey him?"), just as John One is the great testimony to his divinity (even if John also records Jesus' humanity in his weeping over the death of Lazarus). As the Epistle to the Hebrews says, it reminds us that despite our sin and shame, the Lord is not ashamed to call us brethren, and partakes of our nature for the sake of bringing us salvation (Hebrews 2:12 ff.). It is my prayer that many will hear this message in this time of year, and that Christmas of 2010 may be the start of spiritual renewal and salvation for many.
I don't really make that much about Christmas. It was not commanded in Holy Scripture, so its observance cannot be imposed on the conscience. However, I have nothing afainst people who choose certain times to focus on the great events of Jesus Christ's life among us; and Christmas is a time when many are open to hearing something about the Savior, so here goes with a meditation.
I love the Gospel stories about the birth of Christ--Matthew 2 and Luke 2. I love the prologue to John, the Gospel that reminds us up front how Jesus isn't just man, but God Incarnate and "pitching his tent" among us.
But, believe it or not, I really love Matthew One, with all of its boring "begats".
Why, Uncle Cephas? Are you just a dull old man?
The Genealogy of Jesus reminds us of several things, not least of which is how God the Son chose to identify with real, flesh-and-blood people, despite all of our fallenness and misery.
Jesus, like all the rest of us, has a history. His genealogy in Matthew One shows us that this history is the long, long history of ancient Israel. His line begins with Abraham, passes through Kings David and Solomon, the greatest of Israel's kings, and moves on down to that point which the Apostle Paul calls "the fullness of time", when world-empire belonged to Rome and Herod the Great sat on the throne of Judaea. Jesus identified with a people and its story.
This, perhaps, is why Matthew plays with the idea of fourteen major generations from Abraham to the Babylonian Exile, then fourteen from the Exile to the Messiah (which is just the Anglicization for M'shiach, or "Anoiinted One", which in Greek is "Christos"). Seven is the number of perfection, fourteen is perfection doubled. Matthew's point isn't that he's playing a game of "Catch me if you Can in my Knowledge of Biblical genealogy"--one, by the way, that he loses, since many a Bible student has found gaps in his genealogy--but that the flow of Hebrew history isn't random, but follows a divine plan that meets its fulfillment in the Redeemer of the world.
As an American, I know this doesn't particularly flatter me; nor does it flatter my dear spouse who was born Chinese. But it is a reminder that God has his own purposes in history, and they are not necessarily purposes there to aggrandize me and mine. But it should be enough for us that God was concerned enough with us as historical persons that when he chose to become one of us, that he did not ignore history with all its lumps, warts, and imperfections. And, perhaps, in choosing a relatively small nation for his own, he reminds us that our notions of power, greatness, and national glory are not necessarily his.
Apart from God's guiding hand in human history, Jesus' genealogy reminds us that God chose to identify with sinners.
Many have the idea that the Savior of mankind had to come from the great and good. As a descendant of kings and Persian satraps from David to Zorobabel (Zerubbabel in the Old Testament), Jesus does descend from the great. But a reading of the Old Testament reminds us that Jesus does not necessarily descend from the good. The incarnation of God the son is not about congratulating mankind on a job well done, but about the redemption of sinners.
Judah and Tamar (Judas and Thamar in verse 4, following the Greek spellings) show us a sordid tale of deception, anger, and violation, in which a man lies with his daughter-in-law when she is disguised as a prostitute (Genesis 38). We see as well Rachad (Rahab) the harlot, who with her house was the only survivor of the city of Jericho following its capture by Joshua. And from which of David's numerous marriages did the Savior come? From David's adultery with Bathsheba and and the murder of Uriah the Hittite (Urias in the Greek spelling)--the very crime for which, as Nathan the prophet announced, the blood would not depart from David's house (II Samuel 11).
Following these unedifying tales come the kings of Judah. What a contrast the books of Samuel and Kings offer to the boasting chronicles of virtually every other ancient nation! Yes, wise Solomon, and the pious kings Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah are mentioned. But Solomon, for all his wisdom, was the one who multiplied wives and horses, contrary to the mitzvot of Deuteronomy 17, and whose foreign wives--the staple of ancient Middle Eastern diplomacy--distanced him from the God he originally served. And Solomon's glorious, extensive kingdom, stretching from the wadis of the Sinai peninsula (the Brook of Egypt) to the Euphrates River, came into the hands of his son Rehoboam (Roboam), who ignored the counsel of the older, wiser men and took that of his contemporaries, that he might oppress the people of Israel, showing a "little finger thicker than [his] father's waist" and putting aside the whips with which Solomon chastised men to chastise them with scorpions. And to this, the ten northern tribes answered with secession under Jeroboam.
Most of the other kings are not remembered as good men. Throughout the books of the kings sound the gloomy refrains "he did evil in the sight of the LORD" or "He walked in the way of Jeroboam, who taught Israel to sin". They culminate in Manasseh, who, the Old Testament tells us, walked in all the Canaanite abominations, for which Israel was commanded to cleanse the land. It was for the sins of Mannaseh that Judah herself was condemned to destruction and exile.
And here is a reflection of how Jesus puts the importance of family in persepctive--especially since Christmas is a time of family gatherings and remembrances. Many of us wish to think of ourselves as good people, who descend from good people, and whose families are exemplars of what is right rather than of what is wrong. Hence the ancestral cult found in many cultures across the globe. Hence the importance to many of "good family". But Jesus' genealogy reminds us that we worship a transcendent and holy God rather than dead men; and that we need not walk in the sins and follies of our fathers.
The genealogy ends with the naming of Jesus. He is the namesake of Joshua, who led Israel into the promised land, bearing a name that means "YHWH saves", for Jesus' mission is to save his elect people from all nations, kindreds, people, and tongues from their sins (Mt.1:21; Rev. 7:9). This he accomplished in his life of obedience to divine law in the place of our law-breaking, his sacrificial death on the cross in which he bore our sins, and his resurrection--body AND soul--from the dead.
Reading this genealogy, I am floored by how the sinless Son of God identifies with sinful men. If any had the right to disown his family, it was Jesus Christ. Yet he did not; and through his apostle, shows us his identification with sinners for the sake of their salvation. I pray that from meditation on this passage, I and other Christians would put aside the "holier than thou" facade that comes too easily. It is not the case that we were wiser and better than others that brings us to salvation, but rather that our salvation comes from God's grace shown in Christ. I pray that this witness would be effectual to the salvation of many more.
Matthew One is the great testimony to the humanity of Jesus Christ (even if Matthew confesses Jesus' divinity in recording the apostles' awestruck "who is this, that even winds and waves obey him?"), just as John One is the great testimony to his divinity (even if John also records Jesus' humanity in his weeping over the death of Lazarus). As the Epistle to the Hebrews says, it reminds us that despite our sin and shame, the Lord is not ashamed to call us brethren, and partakes of our nature for the sake of bringing us salvation (Hebrews 2:12 ff.). It is my prayer that many will hear this message in this time of year, and that Christmas of 2010 may be the start of spiritual renewal and salvation for many.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Dhimmitude and Secularism
There's an interesting column and discussion over at Robert Spencer's _Jihad Watch_:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/the-soft-dhimmitude-of-secularism.html
My caveats about the post are that the author, one Roland Shirk, does not seem to see the importance of theological [specifically, Reformed Christian] ideas in the nurturing of Western ideals of rule of law, consent of the governed, and political compact. Further, it is probably also time to open the question about whether ignorance of theological tradition (including their own) has not crippled Western states, peoples, and governments from squarely facing the jihadist menace.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/the-soft-dhimmitude-of-secularism.html
My caveats about the post are that the author, one Roland Shirk, does not seem to see the importance of theological [specifically, Reformed Christian] ideas in the nurturing of Western ideals of rule of law, consent of the governed, and political compact. Further, it is probably also time to open the question about whether ignorance of theological tradition (including their own) has not crippled Western states, peoples, and governments from squarely facing the jihadist menace.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Thinkers, musicians, etc.
Here are bits of miscellaneous doggerel which I wrote in my spare time. For some odd reason, I have always loved the limerick, although I cannot claim to have any connection with the city that named it.
Old Hobbes said out loud, with a snort,
That particular lives of the sort
Unfettered by kings
Are most unhappy things:
Being nasty, brutish, and short!
Rousseau, the great libertarian,
Celebrated the noble barbarian.
Using science abysmal,
He said society's dismal,
And made politics contractarian.
Rousseau said that people are good,
And that the nasty young thugs in the hood
Obtain notoriety
From evil society,
And not out of nature or blood.
A pastor named Martin Rinkart--
His flock must have wounded his heart!
When plague killed half of them
He penned a great hymn
Entitled "Nun Danket Alle Gott".
Beethoven justly may boast
That in music he did more than most.
His setting to Shiller-
's "Ode to Joy" is a thriller,
Although he was deaf as a post.
Igor said "My_Sacre du Printemps_
Created a great contretemps.
Some Petersburg louse
Booed it out of the house,
So I took myself off to douce France!"
A guy named Muhammad said, "God
Must think it incredibly odd!
The Christians and Jews
Greet my message with boos,
And the Qureish want me under the sod!"
Old Hobbes said out loud, with a snort,
That particular lives of the sort
Unfettered by kings
Are most unhappy things:
Being nasty, brutish, and short!
Rousseau, the great libertarian,
Celebrated the noble barbarian.
Using science abysmal,
He said society's dismal,
And made politics contractarian.
Rousseau said that people are good,
And that the nasty young thugs in the hood
Obtain notoriety
From evil society,
And not out of nature or blood.
A pastor named Martin Rinkart--
His flock must have wounded his heart!
When plague killed half of them
He penned a great hymn
Entitled "Nun Danket Alle Gott".
Beethoven justly may boast
That in music he did more than most.
His setting to Shiller-
's "Ode to Joy" is a thriller,
Although he was deaf as a post.
Igor said "My_Sacre du Printemps_
Created a great contretemps.
Some Petersburg louse
Booed it out of the house,
So I took myself off to douce France!"
A guy named Muhammad said, "God
Must think it incredibly odd!
The Christians and Jews
Greet my message with boos,
And the Qureish want me under the sod!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)