I don’t know what all the fuss is about over the use of the “R” word. All we have to do is consider what we’d do if there was a serious downturn and that should clear up the question.
If we were in a recession, we would cut the number of shopping trips we make each week. We would shop only if we were going out for at least one other good reason (doctor’s appointment, church meeting, etc.) The more errands in the one trip, the better.
If we were in a recession, we’d turn off the lights and any other electronics that were not in use to save money.
If we were in a recession, we’d make food preserves, like squeezing all the citrus in our backyard and freezing the juice in plastic bottles we’ve saved from milk and fruit drinks.
If we were in a recession, we wouldn’t buy expensive presents for our kids and grandkids but rather make sure they can come for the holidays by getting them plane tickets and telling them to not bring us any gifts.
If we were in a recession, we’d move some of our investments into money market funds which have a stable interest rate.
If we were in a recession, we’d try to spend less than comes in from our pensions and Social Security so we go out less either to eat or for entertainment.
If we were in a recession, we’d pass along any canned goods, clothes, and bedding we can to the food pantry at our church that serves the needy.
If we were in a recession, we’d re-use bottled water containers and fill them from our refrigerator’s spigot.
If we were in a recession, we’d do the laundry every ten to twelve days instead of once a week in order to have fewer but larger loads.
If we were in a recession, we’d go more frequently to the local merchants than to the big box stores in order to help the locals survive the pinch.
I’m not saying we are in a recession. But I can tell you that we’ve been doing all of these since last summer and most of them since 2005.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Election finances
Have we caught on to how important it is to know who is giving money to which candidates?
Iowa put a lot of votes into Huckabee and Edwards, neither of whom is working with huge warchests.
In 2004, normally Republican oil interests contributed to John Kerry's campaign just when it looked like he would drop out of the race. It is not a coincidence that the Republicans were ready to "swiftboat" Kerry and make him into a flip-flopper. They could not do either to Howard Dean or to Dick Gephardt. Kerry would have been a good President but the Republicans knew they could beat him. Like Gore, he did not have the charisma to carry him past the election frauds of Ohio and Florida.
So who would the Republicans like to have run as the Dem candidate? I think they have already let us know by who has the huge campaign warchests.
If you haven't figured it out already (or if you haven't heard this story before), let me describe a conversation between an advocate for single parents and Hillary Clinton. As the wife of the then sitting President, Mrs. Clinton had been very supportive of issues related to single parents such as the high interest rates and penalties on credit cards. When she ran for the Senate, she suddenly stopped being supportive and went silent. The advocate encountered her and asked her why she would not speak out against the financial community that supported the high rates. "They are my constituents too," Mrs. Clinton said.
Senator Obama receives money from the health insurance industry. His health insurance program keeps their position in place and largely expands it. I'm not sure that makes it a better program than what has been proposed by Edwards and other Democrats. If he sees his donors as his constituents, well, the bigger the donor, the bigger constituency!
It will be very interesting to see if New Hampshire voters picked up on that exchange in the debate the other night.
And will South Carolina have noticed what the Iowa and the New Hampshire vetters see from their eye-ball to eye-ball meetings with the candidates? Or will we all end up being snowed by the mass media blitzes of the moneyed candidates when the rest of the primaries roll around?
I hope that Dem candidates maintain rapport so that after the primaries they will unite and form a solid leadership team which then goes on into office next November.
But the exchange between Edwards and Clinton over the old established politics and the new should haunt all the candidates, especially the ones who finally win their respective nominations.
And let's hope the news media realizes that it is news and spreads the word when a major donor contributes to a candidate.
Iowa put a lot of votes into Huckabee and Edwards, neither of whom is working with huge warchests.
In 2004, normally Republican oil interests contributed to John Kerry's campaign just when it looked like he would drop out of the race. It is not a coincidence that the Republicans were ready to "swiftboat" Kerry and make him into a flip-flopper. They could not do either to Howard Dean or to Dick Gephardt. Kerry would have been a good President but the Republicans knew they could beat him. Like Gore, he did not have the charisma to carry him past the election frauds of Ohio and Florida.
So who would the Republicans like to have run as the Dem candidate? I think they have already let us know by who has the huge campaign warchests.
If you haven't figured it out already (or if you haven't heard this story before), let me describe a conversation between an advocate for single parents and Hillary Clinton. As the wife of the then sitting President, Mrs. Clinton had been very supportive of issues related to single parents such as the high interest rates and penalties on credit cards. When she ran for the Senate, she suddenly stopped being supportive and went silent. The advocate encountered her and asked her why she would not speak out against the financial community that supported the high rates. "They are my constituents too," Mrs. Clinton said.
Senator Obama receives money from the health insurance industry. His health insurance program keeps their position in place and largely expands it. I'm not sure that makes it a better program than what has been proposed by Edwards and other Democrats. If he sees his donors as his constituents, well, the bigger the donor, the bigger constituency!
It will be very interesting to see if New Hampshire voters picked up on that exchange in the debate the other night.
And will South Carolina have noticed what the Iowa and the New Hampshire vetters see from their eye-ball to eye-ball meetings with the candidates? Or will we all end up being snowed by the mass media blitzes of the moneyed candidates when the rest of the primaries roll around?
I hope that Dem candidates maintain rapport so that after the primaries they will unite and form a solid leadership team which then goes on into office next November.
But the exchange between Edwards and Clinton over the old established politics and the new should haunt all the candidates, especially the ones who finally win their respective nominations.
And let's hope the news media realizes that it is news and spreads the word when a major donor contributes to a candidate.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Review of TRAGIC REDEMPTION by Hiram Johnson
Review by Dr. Donald D. Budd*
The author, Reverend Hiram Johnson, brings some fine credentials for the writing of this book. He is both theologically trained and a professional counselor. He is a United Methodist clergy and is under appointment as a counselor in private practice. Asbury is the seminary where he received his Masters degree in counseling. He has an MSW from the University of Kentucky. He has credentials as a board certified diplomate in clinical social work.
The author intertwines two themes throughout the book. They are:
1) therapeutic insights and
2) his spiritual journey from faithlessness to faith.
The story line is interesting. He tells of being the driver in an auto accident that killed a 17 year-old female passenger on Christmas Day. Then he traces his journey through various therapy situations to deal with his guilt and shame. In a way the book can be compared to a “before and after” experience, that is, before faith and after his conversion.
The narrative also mixes his theology and his therapeutic insights. For example, right after the accident, many friends tried to share Scripture with him and he found that more disruptive than helpful. He writes, “All Scripture is pure and true, but the timing and context in which it is read or heard makes the difference as to whether it is significant, embraced, or from our perspective, feels downright cruel.”
Throughout the book, he quite successfully uses Scripture texts where he thinks they do work. He also pulls in quotes from all kinds of sources. This reviewer did enjoy the quotes. In fact, they were one of the book’s strengths, taken from a wide range of writings, including many with which the reviewer is familiar. When looking at the issue of personal flaws, something he had previously seen as objects of guilt and shame, he found this from Harold Kushner, “Although God may be disappointed in some of the things we do, He is never disappointed in who we are, fallible people struggling with the implication of knowing good and evil.”
Rev. Johnson’s greatest contributions are his counseling skills, wide reading, and experience.
This is not to say that there are some concerns which the author doesn’t address.
For all the talk of faith and grace redeeming persons through appropriate Scripture and belief, this reviewer found it very interesting that the author came to faith via community. It was through the church that God revealed God’s self to the author. The author found Christ through people. It was not just God’s use of the accident and its aftermath that brought him to faith but the faithfulness of believers.
Another concern the book does not address is post traumatic stress syndrome. It was not helpful to this reviewer who has to deal with PTSS. I am a Vietnam Veteran. Anger and hate were my issues; guilt and shame were not. With so many Iraq occupation casualties and veterans having PTSS, the author misses the chance to acknowledge them. The difference between the stress of his experience and that of a vet is like the difference between apples and oranges.
The book clearly is not an academic treatise. He makes many assertions without verification. But it is an enjoyable read for nonprofessionals as are most books for the popular market.
While Rev. Johnson really does not add anything new or unique to counseling theory, any Christian counselor or pastoral counselor would accept the book with gratitude. His emphasis is on grace, on Christ’s forgiveness of our sins which in turn enables us to forgive ourselves and others.
Psychologically the book is very helpful, i.e. the definitions of key counseling words and the problems of guilt and shame.
Virtually all persons who counsel deal with these issues.
To whom is Rev. Johnson writing?
How about Conservative pastors/theologians? They will be accepting of the book and find it profitable reading. This will be especially true for those who are not trained in counseling or have little exposure to counseling theory. The conservative pastor/theologian will appreciate the combining of counseling insights and belief system, even if he/she disagrees at some points with the author’s theology.
The book is not intended to be a methodology book or a how-to book. This being the case I do not see how it will help an untrained counselor to bring healing to a client. However, the book introduces many key clinical insights that can open up to the novice the breadth of issues a counselee may be facing and hopefully be encouragement to pursue in further study.
I would be very careful about passing it on to lay people. If their
guilt/shame is severe they would need a therapist to help them. Hopefully, the book will be a catalyst helping readers to recognize that help is available.
Would a liberal theologian/pastor find this book helpful? Theologically the help offered has usually been considered and found by them to be inadequate. The value of the book is how it presents a conservative approach to counseling as well as a bibliography which includes the key texts used in conservative circles. All have things to learn from each other especially since many of our parishioners tend to be conservative.
I am glad to have read the book and have the distinct privilege of reviewing it.
Rev. Donald D. Budd, D. Min.
-----
Editor’s note on Dr. Budd:
He received his BS degree from Southern Nazarene University. Double majors: philosophy and Christian education
His graduate degrees are a Masters in Religion Education from Nazarene Theological Seminary, Masters degrees in Church Management and Pastoral Counseling from Olivet Nazarene University and his M. Div. equivalent and D. Min. from United Theological Seminary
His counseling ministry was a part of his parish ministry from which he is now retired.
The author, Reverend Hiram Johnson, brings some fine credentials for the writing of this book. He is both theologically trained and a professional counselor. He is a United Methodist clergy and is under appointment as a counselor in private practice. Asbury is the seminary where he received his Masters degree in counseling. He has an MSW from the University of Kentucky. He has credentials as a board certified diplomate in clinical social work.
The author intertwines two themes throughout the book. They are:
1) therapeutic insights and
2) his spiritual journey from faithlessness to faith.
The story line is interesting. He tells of being the driver in an auto accident that killed a 17 year-old female passenger on Christmas Day. Then he traces his journey through various therapy situations to deal with his guilt and shame. In a way the book can be compared to a “before and after” experience, that is, before faith and after his conversion.
The narrative also mixes his theology and his therapeutic insights. For example, right after the accident, many friends tried to share Scripture with him and he found that more disruptive than helpful. He writes, “All Scripture is pure and true, but the timing and context in which it is read or heard makes the difference as to whether it is significant, embraced, or from our perspective, feels downright cruel.”
Throughout the book, he quite successfully uses Scripture texts where he thinks they do work. He also pulls in quotes from all kinds of sources. This reviewer did enjoy the quotes. In fact, they were one of the book’s strengths, taken from a wide range of writings, including many with which the reviewer is familiar. When looking at the issue of personal flaws, something he had previously seen as objects of guilt and shame, he found this from Harold Kushner, “Although God may be disappointed in some of the things we do, He is never disappointed in who we are, fallible people struggling with the implication of knowing good and evil.”
Rev. Johnson’s greatest contributions are his counseling skills, wide reading, and experience.
This is not to say that there are some concerns which the author doesn’t address.
For all the talk of faith and grace redeeming persons through appropriate Scripture and belief, this reviewer found it very interesting that the author came to faith via community. It was through the church that God revealed God’s self to the author. The author found Christ through people. It was not just God’s use of the accident and its aftermath that brought him to faith but the faithfulness of believers.
Another concern the book does not address is post traumatic stress syndrome. It was not helpful to this reviewer who has to deal with PTSS. I am a Vietnam Veteran. Anger and hate were my issues; guilt and shame were not. With so many Iraq occupation casualties and veterans having PTSS, the author misses the chance to acknowledge them. The difference between the stress of his experience and that of a vet is like the difference between apples and oranges.
The book clearly is not an academic treatise. He makes many assertions without verification. But it is an enjoyable read for nonprofessionals as are most books for the popular market.
While Rev. Johnson really does not add anything new or unique to counseling theory, any Christian counselor or pastoral counselor would accept the book with gratitude. His emphasis is on grace, on Christ’s forgiveness of our sins which in turn enables us to forgive ourselves and others.
Psychologically the book is very helpful, i.e. the definitions of key counseling words and the problems of guilt and shame.
Virtually all persons who counsel deal with these issues.
To whom is Rev. Johnson writing?
How about Conservative pastors/theologians? They will be accepting of the book and find it profitable reading. This will be especially true for those who are not trained in counseling or have little exposure to counseling theory. The conservative pastor/theologian will appreciate the combining of counseling insights and belief system, even if he/she disagrees at some points with the author’s theology.
The book is not intended to be a methodology book or a how-to book. This being the case I do not see how it will help an untrained counselor to bring healing to a client. However, the book introduces many key clinical insights that can open up to the novice the breadth of issues a counselee may be facing and hopefully be encouragement to pursue in further study.
I would be very careful about passing it on to lay people. If their
guilt/shame is severe they would need a therapist to help them. Hopefully, the book will be a catalyst helping readers to recognize that help is available.
Would a liberal theologian/pastor find this book helpful? Theologically the help offered has usually been considered and found by them to be inadequate. The value of the book is how it presents a conservative approach to counseling as well as a bibliography which includes the key texts used in conservative circles. All have things to learn from each other especially since many of our parishioners tend to be conservative.
I am glad to have read the book and have the distinct privilege of reviewing it.
Rev. Donald D. Budd, D. Min.
-----
Editor’s note on Dr. Budd:
He received his BS degree from Southern Nazarene University. Double majors: philosophy and Christian education
His graduate degrees are a Masters in Religion Education from Nazarene Theological Seminary, Masters degrees in Church Management and Pastoral Counseling from Olivet Nazarene University and his M. Div. equivalent and D. Min. from United Theological Seminary
His counseling ministry was a part of his parish ministry from which he is now retired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)