Coins in the Coffer April 11, 2008
Posted by Joshua in Christianity, Society/Culture.1 comment so far
My wife and I have made a conscious decision to not have cable TV, primarily because with it comes the likelihood of spending unfortunate amounts of time aimlessly moving about dozens, if not hundreds, of channels, getting sucked into show after show that more or less recycle the same ideas over and over again. And that might just lead to what my wife calls the melting or mushing of the brain. Thus, we are generally satisfied to strategically position the ol’ rabbit ears and only watch a few key shows over the public airwaves, such as Lost. But, at least down here in the dirty South, there is a major downside to utilizing the public airwaves, and I’m not referring to picture quality. Rather, I mean the abundance of obnoxious Evangelical Christian broadcasting pouring freely into homes all over.
Of course, there is no reason why I must view those stations, and it only happens when I make the aforementioned mistake of aimless TV viewing. So I can easily avoid watching these channels if I wish and almost always do. But sometimes – perhaps either due to natural curiosity or an uncertain amount of masochism – or maybe from just wanting something to complain about – I let myself get briefly sucked in, only to become considerably disgusted shortly thereafter.
There is one such station that has caught my attention recently called Daystar. This channel seems to pretty much run the gamut of megachurch, televangelistic broadcasting, showcasing most of the major players such as, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, et al. So that should give some idea of the kind of thing to expect from this channel; but the other day I stumbled upon a program that was a little bit different than all the others I had seen. It was kind of like an infomercial that wasn’t selling anything except for big promises. And as I watched and listened to the host speak, the word “swindler” instantly came to mind.
Sure, at the end of the day all of them ask for money in some way, but this show was specifically about personal “financial solutions,” claiming the key to personal prosperity is faithful giving, particularly to this “ministry.” This message has surely been around for a long time in various forms. But the message of this particular program was that “God schedules miracle seasons,” and in order to experience the miracles, i.e. supernatural financial blessings, believers must give a specific amount of “seed money” “to God” in faith that God will take that money and multiply it – or bring the faithful believer an abundant “harvest.” See how it all works with the clever agricultural metaphors?
So on the show, this guy was asking people to send him a “seed” of $100 – no more, no less – as the special amount to unlock 7 days of miracles from God. What is especially audacious is his self-portrayal as a necessary mediator, claiming he can make a covenant between God and giver for this, thus making incredibly huge promises for God. He might as well be claiming the money will also free family members’ souls from purgatory. Further, this particularly upsets me, because he inevitably and intentionally targets people who are financially strapped and / or desperate, or just wishing for instant riches, even having the nerve to suggest in passing that the giver put their seed money on a credit card in order to see supernatural debt reduction. It sounds a good bit like gambling to me, like some spiritualized lottery where everyone can supposedly win.
Now it may be that most churches disagree with this sort of message or, at the very least, avoid it for the most part. But it has been my experience for the most part that those who seem to disagree with it do not speak out against it nearly as strongly as they should. And how can they really? After all, it doesn’t seem too far a leap from this call for “seed” giving to constant pushing to tithe a fixed amount of income commanded by God, because I have so often heard this pushing to tithe from the pulpit containing a very similar appeal to self-interest in claiming faithful, obedient giving results in some kind of blessing in return. Maybe it isn’t usually full blown prosperity and miracles being promised, but it often has quite a similar tone and the difference is really just a matter of degree.
And what is further bothersome for me is, with any such strong push to “give to God,” the attention is generally directed away from the middleman, i.e., the church, ministry or whomever it is that has the money interest, and instead directed conveniently toward individuals. With it being so often made about the individual, questions of where the money is going, what it is needed for, and how much is really needed and why unfortunately tend to take a backseat. And we just happen to see this in its most extreme form with Daystar-like programming. Instead of speaking practically and accountably about what specific purposes the money will be used for it is made primarily about the individual being required to give to God and, therefore, needing some source to take the money as God’s representative. Thus, it tends to not matter how much money there is or where exactly it is going to go, because the individual can’t just rightly stop giving to God now can they? Especially if they want to see supernatural “favor” in their lives. So then, in the worst cases, there are naturally all these competing ministries trying to manipulate and promise the best return for your money, and I imagine it is largely effective, because it can always be conveniently called “giving to God.”
Not only is that incredibly misleading and manipulative; it is also quite an irresponsible way to operate, leaving far too much room for potential waste and profiteering (which is probably often by design). And it is also irresponsible in other, more personal ways. When it is all boiled down to promising blessings and rewards, what happens when the promises arrogantly made for God do not come to pass for those who are encouraged to count on them so much, even while pockets are being lined on the receiving end? It certainly doesn’t seem like it would make God look very good, with how much responsibility is put on His end, or, sadly, maybe the giver might think there is something wrong with their faith, or that they should give more and have more faith. But I wonder how many actually wake up and think, “hey, wait a minute; maybe I just got lied to and swindled.”
Putting the horse before the car April 27, 2008
Posted by Joshua in Car Culture, Reading Commentary, Society/Culture, Suburbanization, Transportation.2 comments
I’m very happy to report this crazy spring semester is nearly over. I just have two exams left and one last paper to turn in. That paper has been an interesting project. I have already turned in two drafts, so it is pretty much complete. In it, I deal with suburban sprawl in the United States as it has related to transportation, tracing its beginnings to the advent of commuter railways and exploring how highways and the automobile came to rule the day and explode the process of sprawl.
I mention the paper here because I want to pick on a certain essay from a book titled Cars in America I stumbled upon in my research. The essay, written by Sam Kazman, is titled “Car Culture Gives Americans Freedom.” Kazman basically argues that the automobile has “liberated mankind” more than perhaps any other technology because of the unprecedented level of individual mobility and privacy it has offered. Naturally, I don’t believe anyone is arguing the automobile has not brought such benefits. The real arguments, however, come down to opinions surrounding the various costs of “car culture”.
And that is exactly where this essay goes wrong right from the start. Very early on, in order to argue against criticisms that the automobile is a pollutant and dangerous, Kazman bids us to remember that the car was the far better replacement of horses as a form of transportation. He writes,
Does he really think this is a serious argument, as if anyone is actually suggesting that we should go back to riding around in carriages and horsecars now that we have built our lives around motored-transportation? Talk about a straw man! I also find the assertion that horse transportation was more dangerous than the automobile highly questionable.
What’s more, though, his point isn’t entirely accurate, or is, at least, conveniently oversimplified. I guess Kazman was hoping no one would bother to point out or consider that the car was not the first nor the only thing to replace the horse. During a sizable part of the nineteenth century, horse-drawn streetcars (horsecars) were a vital form of transportation in most U.S. cities, but by the 1880s and 1890s, they had largely been replaced by electric streetcars, which I would suggest were cleaner than both horses or automobiles and at least no more dangerous than either could be. The simple fact that there is no mention of this in the essay reveals a major flaw in Kazman’s argument: he doesn’t give a fair shake to decent alternate transportation options we can have even in coexistence with the automobile. Hell, he writes as though such alternatives do not even exist. And he does so because he is writing in defense of low-density, decentralized, suburban living that, in many areas, is only possible in its present state because of the automobile.
But therein lies a big part of the problem. Kazman’s exclusive favoritism for the car and negative attitude toward city cores and high-density living mirrors decades of similar attitudes and policies which have led to shortsighted, poor planning and decentralization causing widespread city decline. And all of that has, in turn, necessitated automobile dependence while simultaneously leaving many Americans without a diverse set of transportation options, except in the largest cities.
For me the argument is all wrong. It need not be posed in a car / anti-car dichotomy. We should be talking about having options and sustainability; in other words, living and building in ways that make sense in other ways than merely because a car can get there. Unfortunately, the domination of car culture in America has often resulted in little of either. Apparently, Kazman thinks that is a good thing, and that individual choice in the matter is much more important than good community planning, as he writes,
Out of context, it is hard to tell, but he was definitely suggesting that is a great thing. But it is exactly the thing that troubles me. Of course I am not suggesting that there shouldn’t be free choice, car-driving or suburban living at all. If that is how one prefers to live, that is fine, but not everyone wishes to see the American landscape continue to go quite the way it has. So I am suggesting we can make better choices which will give us more options of mobility and make living more sensible, more efficient and better connect us with others. Kazman’s argument in favor of exclusive car culture – because of the greater mobility and privacy it can bring – calls for a myopic individualism with little to no concern for communities of people that, nonetheless, affects and even dictates the way the majority of people live.
In my book, that is not a good thing for anyone in the long run. Sure, living has been seemingly good for a relatively large amount of people in the way of mobility and peace and quiet, but at the burdening cost of almost total automobile dependency and an often unattractive, uninspired, and unnecessarily spread out landscape. It might be difficult to see it completely now (though ever-rising gas prices make it easier), but I have a feeling time will tell us in full just how poor our lifestyle choices under allegiance to the automobile have been.