Syncretism and Christmas

There was an article in USA Today on December 10 based on a recent Pew religious survey that had some statistics from the survey on current U.S. religious beliefs. The findings included things like 1 in 5 Roman Catholics and 1 in 4 of the overall population believe in reincarnation, about 1 in 4 believe in astrology, and 65% have incorporated some elements of far eastern or New Age beliefs into their thinking. This mixing of contradictory beliefs is called syncretism, and it is nothing new even though the article seems to think it is.

This subject tends to come up at Christmas time because of the mixture of various Christian and non-Christian elements in our Christmas traditions. Things like Christmas trees have roots in pagan traditions in Europe, along with mistletoe, lights, and yule logs. There is also the often crass commercialism of the holidays that stands in stark contrast to the baby born in poverty on that first Christmas. The Pilgrims forbade things like Christmas trees along with overt feasting, feeling that it detracted from the spiritual significance of the day.

I think syncretism has always been a cause for concern, though I am not overly concerned about the Christmas traditions. Nowadays I am concerned about what I see as an easy acceptance by many Christians of things like abortion, homosexuality, and unmarried co-habitation whle at the same time ignoring things like the meaning of baptism, the Lord's supper, and personal holiness. While this is not an incorporation of different religions into Christianity, it is an incorporation of godlessness into their lives and a willful ignoring of anything beyond the very basics of the faith.
This is not exactly syncretism but it is a weakening of the faith in a manner similar to syncretism. And I have no doubt that there are also some who are so ignorant of the faith that they mindlessly include new age, eastern, and other beliefs in their beliefs as well as simple godlessness.

Christmas trees, lights, yule logs, and such do not bother me, though. Perhaps if I had been living at a time when those things were done by pagans who later converted I would have been more concerned. In those days, many centuries ago, the practices would have been associated directly with non-Christian beliefs. But these things have been practiced by serious believers for so long and their meaning so thoroughly re-interpreted (or co-opted some would say) that they do not carry pagan connotations any longer. Indeed, the Islamic world would no doubt reject them because they are so thoroughly associated with Christians.

Syncretism is and always has been an issue for Chritianity, but today it is not Christmas trees that should cause concern.

Visions

In the sermon at our church this past Sunday the topic was Joseph and the announcement to him of Jesus birth by an angelic vision, convincing him to go ahead and take Mary as his wife despite her pregnancy. It is easy for me to relate to the idea that it would take something very dramatic to convince a man to go ahead with a marriage when he finds his betrothed to be pregnant, so the idea of God doing something very convincing is not hard to understand. However, visions seemed to be a thing that God used more often in Biblical times than we see now. We get detailed vision stories with Peter and Paul in Acts, one regarding 'unclean' foods and taking the Gospel to the Gentiles and the other for Paul's conversion. Paul mentions other visions later, being caught up to 'the third heaven'. There are many instances in the Old Testament.



One point in the sermon was that in undeveloped countries, especially where the Bible is banned or most people cannot read, missionaries sometimes meet people who claim to have heard about Jesus in a vision before the missionary arrived and are prepared to accept Christianity when the missionary shows up. This has been heard in a fair number of instances in these kinds of countries but not in developed countries where the Bible is readily available.



Jews were different for their day in that literacy was more common than in many countries because of their being 'people of the book', where the Torah was revered. But, we don't know much about Joseph, and don't really know if he could read. However, even if he could read the materials for writing were very expensive and most ordinary folks would not have any written material in their home. That would be all the more true in a backwater village like Nazareth. If their local synagogue were financially able to have a Torah scroll, it would normally have only one and it was very precious. Even for 'people of the book', having the scripture in the home was prohibitively expensive. Even after Gutenberg made printing more affordable, it wasn't until the industrial revolution with its mechanized papermaking that Bibles in every home could be practical. That would be 17 centuries later than Joseph.



I lose sight of things like that today, with our low cost access to all things written. Visions make a lot more sense to me, however, in the context of a time when very few could read and even those who could would go through life in most cases without ever having a written document in their own home.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

When I was in the 5th grade at Pleasant Run Elementary school, I heard something new. As far as Christmas music was concerned, I had grown up with shape note music at a country church, with Gene Autry on the radio singing about Rudolph, with Alvin and the Chipmunks, and with American Bandstand playing things like Bobby Helms 'Jingle Bell Rock' and Elvis' 'Blue Christmas'. Just before we moved to the suburbs in the summer between 4th and 5th grade, we did a concert trip at Washington Elementary school in Camp Washington to see the Cincinnati Symphony and ballet do 'The Nutcracker', but that was not everyday fare for me. At church we did the usual hymns like 'Silent Night' but not with a choir, and with a distinct 'country' sound. So when my teacher in 5th grade played 'Do You Hear What I Hear' and 'Little Drummer Boy' from a brand new album release performed by the Harry Simeon Chorale I was stunned. I just had never heard anything quite like that before. I thought it was the grandest music I had ever heard.



I like a wide range of music. My collection of Christmas music covers country, classical, pop, and jazz. I like it all. But it wouldn't be Christmas without choirs. There is still nothing quite like it. I don't like most of what our church high school choir does, because it mostly isn't really choir music. It is rock n roll in disguise. Choirs don't really do rock n roll. At least, they don't do it well. To catch the magic of a choir at Christmas, it needs to be SATB parts at least; maybe more parts than that. And the music needs to be majestic. It can still be fun like 'Children Go Where I send Thee', but it needs to be majestic. Adult choirs do that best.



I have been to 2 choir performances so far this year, with one more 2 days from now. It's great. And Christmas just wouldn't be the same without it.

The Incarnation and Bodily Life

As Christmas nears it is a good time to ponder the significance of the Incarnation, God becoming man. The December issue of First Things reviewed a new book titled Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible which tries to address some of the findings of neuroscience and how bodily problems (spine damage, Alzheimers, chemical imbalance) can seemingly change a person dramatically. The book reaffirms that we are not souls that happen to have a body, but we are thoroughly integrated, embodied creatures in which body, soul, and spirit are all critical. This is my greatest disagreement with the Grace Walk folks, who insist that we are souls that just happen to have a body. Not so. The Incarnation of Christ is one important part of understanding this.

This is not to say that our mortal bodies are not fallen. They are. And as Paul pointed out, this mortal must put on immortality to be worthy of being in the immediate presence of God, so it must be changed. Christ demonstrates this for us. He took on mortal flesh, to fully experience our bodily existence, and in His resurrection demonstrated how it must change. His body changed so much that the Emmaus road disciples did not recognize him even though his wounds remained visible. But even in His resurrecton He maintained His connection with us, with a body. And in all the Biblical discussion of eternity with God it is clear that our life will be bodily, but in a new body. Bodily existence is integral to our existence, and it will always be so.

This has lots of implications for mortal life. One reason that 'two becoming one' in marriage includes bodily union is that our bodies are integral to who we are. Marriages in which there is no bodily union are candidates for annulment in the Catholic church for that reason, and that is grounds for divorce in public law as a result of this even though secular philosophy would probably no longer acknowledge this. A marriage without bodily union denies a fundamental part of our identity. This is one reason that Paul in his writing on marriage warns against staying apart for more than short periods of time. In death, one reason we treat the body with respect even after the spirit and soul have departed is in recognition that this was an integral part of the person during life. It is also why recreational sex and promiscuity is a serious sin: it violates the sanctity of the total person and is not just 'something your body does' as if your body is separate from the real you. It is also a reason why homosexuality is fundamentally disordered: it violates the fundamental reality of who we are as people who were intended for 'one flesh' marriage with the opposite gender. Our bodies are in many ways integral to who we are. Pope John Paul wrote about this much more completely in his Theology of the Body (which could be on my Christmas list, for anyone so inclined!), but at Christmas as we ponder the coming of God in the flesh it is a good time to ponder if we are treating our flesh as the Creator intended.

Queueing Theory and Health Care

I attended a seminar last week on improving R&D effectiveness and part of the discussion involved queueing theory. Wherever queues form waiting time increases and productivity goes down. Some things make queues worse, including things like 'free' resources: resources that are perceived to be 'free' or at least prepaid. These 'free' resources are nearly always over-utilized as folks seek to 'get their money's worth'. So, for example, if expedited testing costs no more than normal testing, everyone will try to 'rush' their testing. If a corporate testing lab is paid for by allocating the cost to everyone regardless of how much they use it then people will try to use it as much as they can to get their money's worth. All of this reminded me of the health care debate.

It seems to me that by rushing towards a plan that just provides more 'free' resources to more people we may be making things worse, not better. We have not taken time to define the problems with the health care system but have only been fixated with spreading more health care 'free' or prepaid benefits to more people at a time when everyone agrees that cost and overconsumption is already a big part of the problem. This is similar to the corporate problem mentioned above: when health care is prepaid or perceived as 'free', people will over-consume. If their cost is fixed to a set co-pay, they will not shop for a better price. When the provider is not penalizing his patient via higher cost to prescribe excess testing to cover himself against a suit because their co-pay does not change, he will also cause over-consumption. To provide more insurance to more people will simply provide the incentive for over-consumption to still more people without addressing any root causes.

Another R&D problem related to this is that some resources, like pilot plants, tend to be managed for high utilization of the assets. Excess capacity is seen as 'bad'. But for every 5% increase in utilization beyond about 70%, wait time doubles in the queue. As a result, high utilization results in slower product development. High utilization for low cost results in slow speed to market and lost sales. Often the cost savings are no where near compensating for the lost sales and growth that could have been. To lower health care costs there is much talk of better utilization of resources, and the queue time will necessarily increase exponentially when it is managed that way. This simply trades one problem, over-consumption, for another one, long wait times, without ever attempting to address the root causes.

We also have a resource allocation issue in health care. We have excess capacity in specialty areas where much money can be made while other areas like general practice and obstetricians go under-served. Much of this is due to malpractice issues and much to the cost of med school and the huge debt many doctors start with. Insuring more people does nothing to help move resources to underserved areas, though it may well drive out some of the specialists by dramatically cutting their pay if the government does as it proclaims it will to lower their fees. This may well simply make every area short of capacity.

It seems to me that we would do better to address some underlying issues before trying to add more people to coverage. Some things that come to mind include:

• Move toward medical insurance that is primarily aimed at avoiding catastrophic costs and bankruptcy, while letting routine care be directly felt by the consumer. This would reduce over-consumption and promote shopping for price.
• Provide incentives for practice in under-served areas by offering forgiveness of med school loans in return for service in rural areas; also limit malpractice liability.
• Require posting of prices and quality ratings by doctors and hospitals. This may require some sort of Consumer Reports type of agency to standardize quality assessments, but this would allow patients to compare cost and quality.

Some of this has been mentioned in the current debate, but none of it seems to be getting addressed. The effort seems to be more about buying votes than about fixing the real problems.

Remembering

Today is November 18, my dad's birthday. He would have been 88 today. He left us 51/2 years ago now on another birthday (Jonathan's). I have been at a seminar in Chicago this week, and one of the men at my table was from Luxemburg and we were chatting at a reception at the end of the first day about Europe and Switzerland came up for some reason, along with the watch industry there. Since I wear dad's watch most days that conversation reminded me of how he would never have purchased this watch for himself; it was a long service award from his work. He did eventually get accustomed to the idea of a fancy watch, though, and after not wearing it at all for the first few years he had it he eventually wore it most of the time for about 20 years. That makes it all the more valuable to me.


While I was there I was able to watch the documentary WWII in HD on the History Channel, and I find myself looking for him or his unit or the type of anti-aircraft half-track he manned whenever I watch those programs about WWII. It was on each night this week. Since I don't get the History Channel at home, that also put me in mind of dad.

I have been reading in Job recently and last night I read the famous passage in which Job comments, ' I know that my redeemer liveth...and after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes..' Dad had that same confidence, which in turn gives me confidence of a reunion with him someday.

Then today is his birthday. While I am reminded of him whenever I put on the watch, it seems that this week many things have brought him to mind. So, dad, I just wanted to let you know that I am thinking about you today. Happy birthday!

The Evil Rich and Righteous Poor?

‘Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’; so says the Luke version of the beatitudes (Luke 6:20). The Matthew version says ‘blessed are the poor in spirit…’ and I suspect that Jesus used both versions. I was reminded of this recently in thinking about the current economic recession and as a result of seeing a PBS program a couple of days ago about the 1929 market crash that led to the Great Depression in which my parents grew up. This verse on the poor is in contrast to the passage on how difficult it is for the rich to be saved, like a camel going through the eye of a needle. A result of this contrast has been a teaching, especially of the social gospel proponents, of the ‘righteous poor and the evil rich’.

There is some basis in common experience for this, of course. Many rich have gained their wealth in unrighteous ways, whether from usury, trafficking in drugs or sex, extortion, slavery or any number of other evils including armed conquest. Until the industrial revolution, producing more than what you consumed was a difficult task indeed, which limited the ability to create wealth. As a result, when wealth was accumulated it quite often was due to unethical, if not illegal, means. We now have far more opportunity to create wealth than in most of history, but there is still much evil. The PBS program on the 1929 crash spent considerable time on how the market was manipulated by a few rich speculators who would collude to drive up a stock price, then sell after it went up by a multiple of 2 to 10x, and watch as other investors suffered huge losses when the price plummeted back down. This was not illegal at the time but it clearly was dishonest, literally stealing from those who were unaware of the collusion going on. This was so rampant for as much as 50 years before 1929 that it contributed to the severity of the crash. This was clearly an ‘evil rich ‘ scenario. Historically, the rich have indeed often stolen from the poor.

The current recession and the crash that started it has also been attributed to the evil rich, as bond rating agencies ignored the risk in the ratings they gave to bundled sub-prime loans and the banks excessively leveraged their balance sheets with subprime loans, resulting in collapse as the default rate rose. There is plenty of blame for the rich in this, but there is also plenty of blame for the poor. Those who took on home loans they clearly could not afford hoping to flip the house quickly, the enormous credit card debt buildup over the last decade, the negative savings rate: all of those were in the lower income groups. To me one of the differences in this current economic mess is that it is much more egalitarian in its causes than the Great Depression. I personally think the government’s pressure to make more subprime loans was the most serious root of the problem, but there was so much get-rich-quick mentality everywhere that rich and poor both have plenty of blame to go around. Of course, those we call ‘low income’ in the U.S. are not all that poor compared to those living on less than $5 per day in some parts of the world. But in the U.S. at least, the lesson in this current mess is not that the evil rich brought this onto the righteous poor; it is that ‘all have sinned and fallen short’.