Did you see George Will's column in Thursday's Post? He used the space for a rant about blue jeans.
Among other declarations about the demon denim, he wrote, "Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill").
Cheryl read it and thought that surely it was sartorial satire, but the punch line was missing.
I tested Will's opinion with the three octogenarian women with whom I have lunch most Thursdays. They are mature enough not to need advice from a whippersnapper such as Will. Of course, two of them were wearing jeans to lunch.
We decided that perhaps Will has worn a tie so long that it cut off the blood flow to his brain.
Our brain-dead theory got us to thinking about the well-dressed men (and it was mostly men) who brought Wall Street tumbling down and cut deeply into the retirement savings of many of our nation's elderly. Perhaps we would be better off if the masters of the universe, who seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers than they do about their fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money, were replaced by some good ol' boys and girls in jeans and flannel shirts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Just curious, Pastor, given your rather snide comments about "well dressed men". Do you think God loves them just as they are? Do you think God is angry at them because of what they did? Do you think God is able to change them, or do you think that God, being a loving God, would simply understand how they are and accept them as they are -- without change in their behavior?
Do you think that if any of these "well dressed men" were to demand acceptance (and not repent of their behavior), and want to become ordained clergy within the PC(USA), that they should be allowed to be ordained, even if they want to continue doing things that you obviously think are wrong?
I'm so confused: wearing blue jeans is a factor in ordination now?
cledster --
I can certainly understand your confusion.
After all, Christian Wright did seem to indicate that wearing flannel shirts and jeans makes people better at exercising "fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money".
However, my question has to do with whether people who do things that Christian Wright thinks are wrong should -- or should not -- be ordained.
Christian Wright speaks of "brain dead" people who "brought Wall Street tumbling down and cut deeply into the retirment savings of many of our nation's elderly".
So, my question has to do with people those people and whether it is an act of love to accept them just as they are -- "master os the universe who seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers than they do about their fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money".
Or should we suggest that those people have sinned?
And, if we agree that they have sinned, should we require them to repent of their sin before we allow them to be ordained in the PC(USA) (assuming they wish to be ordained).
Does a loving God accept people "who seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers than they do about their fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money", and does that God of love look at such people and say, "That's OK. You don't need to change your behavior. I love you just as you are."
A loving God would, I think, just accept people "who seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers than they do about their fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money" as they are. Because if God truly loved them, God would never judge their behavior or call them away from that sort of behavior.
Christian Wright, on the other hand, seems to want to sit in judgment, and condemn people "who seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers than they do about their fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money". That judgment, it seems to me, is an act of hatred, totally unworthy of someone who calls himself a Christian.
I turst you see my point.
Not really, anon...I know Pastor CW pretty well, and "sit in judgment" is just not a term that applies. I read his commentary as wondering why, with real problems to address, there's so much focus on the surface.
cledster --
I know Pastor Christian Wright through his blog, and what he posts on his blog.
You may not think that he sits in judgment, and that's fine.
But someone who says things like, "Perhaps we would be better off if the masters of the universe, who seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers than they do about their fiduciary responsibilities with other people's money, were replaced by some good ol' boys and girls in jeans and flannel shirts" seems to me to be pretty judgmental.
Despite your protestations, Christian Wright strikes me as a very judgmental person -- particularly adept at judging people who do and say things he doesn't like.
I don't understand why Christian Wirght doesn't simply lovingly affirm the behavior in others that he disagrees with. Isn't that what Christian Love is really all about? Aren't we called to love everyone? Isn't that what God does?
Why, then, would Christian Wright suggest that "we would be better off" if people who "seem to worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers" should be replaced? Wouldn't it be much move loving to remind us that Go really, really loves all of us -- including people who seem to worry about bonuses and Brooks Brothers -- and lovingly affirm those people?
Who knows, perhaps God created people who worry more about bonuses and Brooks Brothers that way. If God did create them that way, then it seems to me mean-spirited and almost evil to speak of them as though they have done something wrong.
you go, bro!
Anon--I am not sure what bible you read, but I remember some verses in there about it being harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle. And a little incident in a temple, where Jesus dumped over all the tables of the money changers and--as I recall it--pretty much called them an abomination. Jesus seemed in general to side with poor people, sick people, and people who were shunned by the rest of their society. He invited those rich folks who expressed interest in following him to give up all they possessed. . .so no, I gotta say, I don't think Jesus, at least, would accept the Wall Street barons who've brought ruin on so many "just as they are." I believe he'd expect some repentance. And possibly some reparation.
Of course, if you check out the old testamant, Yaweh was somewhat harder on those who broke his commandments and strayed away from righteousness. Think--Adam and Eve, the great deluge, the tower of Babel, the plagues of Egypt, and so on. No, I don't think the old testament God the Father just lovingly accepted folks who turned their backs on their communities and lived only for their own gain, either. (personally, I could dig seeing some of those plagues of Egypt visited on the pharoahs of finance, but I make no claims of any sort or righteousness other than the righteous anger of an ordinary working American who sees her hope of retirement receding into the distance while the jerks who destroyed my retirement fund give themselves bonuses with my tax money! I'm judgemental. I admit it and I'll ask for forgiveness next Sunday))
peace out--yo sistah
Hey, yo sistah --
Thanks for the clarification.
I think I understand it now.
God and Jesus hate people that are rich. People that have lots of money will spend eternity in hell, because God hates them.
God loves people who have given up everything.
But now I'm confused.
Aren't the people on Wall Street the people who are now being "shunned" by the rest of society?? There sure are lots of people saying lots of terrible things about all those people on Wall Street. Some people even write about them with a sneer.
So, does Jesus hate them because they are rich or does Jesus side with them because they are being shunned by the rest of society??
Can you enlighten me?
Please.
peace out.
Oh, and some grace at you, too.
Shunning, in the Biblical sense, involved being put out of the community and made completely powerless. The "masters of the universe" may be receiving a lot of criticism these days but powerless? Not as long as money talks in Washington.
And the rich young rulers? I recall Jesus looking at one with love and some sadness when the riches got between the man and the following. I reckon he'd feel the same way now.
@ Anonymous, 5:21 p.m.:
So, am I correct when I say that Jesus loves people like you (the powerless and the excluded), but hates people who are not like you?
Didn't Jesus have something to says about not judging other people?
gosh anonymous, you sure do seem to be tossing the judgments around...isn't there a verse about motes and logs and eyes?
Post a Comment