Month: October 2024

I’ve been thinking about the relationship between affordable housing and political polarization. I live in Williamsburg, Virginia, a truly beautiful small city known for the College of William and Mary and historic Colonial Williamsburg. Like many communities, it does not have enough affordable housing. Affordable housing for who? Just about anybody in the lower income tiers, including entry-level professionals.

Visitors are struck by the beauty of the community’s landscaping. It changes from season to season almost overnight. It requires an army of landscapers toiling at odd hours. Its many shops and restaurants depend on retail clerks, servers, cooks, and cleaners. Colonial Williamsburg and William and Mary require another army of workers to maintain facilities. The schools and two large hospitals need to be staffed at every level, as do the many doctors’ offices throughout the region. All of these people need a place to live, and for most of them, it’s not possible in Williamsburg. With a few exceptions, it’s not in the nearby suburbs as most of them now are country club estate residences. So where do the workers live? A great many have been shoveled into communities 15 or 20 miles away that are dominated by lower income people working hard to make ends meet.

There’s really no room for them in Williamsburg. Their labor is needed, but preferably not at the expense as them living too close. It doesn’t surprise me that some of the workers’ communities are plastered with Trump lawn signs. I don’t for a moment believe they favor the policies of Trump or a person like him, but it’s a way of expressing a degree of indignation at being perceived as a servant class who are kept separate from the elites they serve. 

I imagine many Williamsburg residents would be stunned that anyone could think workers would not be welcomed in their neighborhoods. They would point to little pockets of affordable housing and to the local housing Authority and its scattering of low income apartments. They would note that the Chamber of Commerce and city Council frequently talk about the need for more affordable housing. They would point out that most of the buildable land in this small city has already been developed. All of that is true, but it doesn’t mitigate the problem.

Williamsburg has its own unique setting and set of problems. Nevertheless, similar problems in other unique settings are prevalent throughout the country in cities, large and small. The need for more affordable housing is a central subject in every community. State and federal candidates promise to address the issue, but the primary solution lies in the local community.  Any community that wants more affordable housing must be open to a more economically diverse population. The common practice has been to segregate neighborhoods into the right and wrong side of the tracks. On one side are portions of neighborhoods allocated to middle and upper income home owners.  The other is allocated to noxious land usages and more or less unregulated housing.  To encourage more affordable housing would be one way to eliminate whatever regulations tend to realize these kinds of divisions.

Zoning intended to assure orderly development is often the biggest obstacle to encouraging more affordable housing. The general pattern is to establish separate zones for low density, single-family, medium density, single-family, and some rental, and high density rental. Cities more willing to disestablish these zones see that a variety of housing can be built in any place zoned residential and have shown considerable success in creating neighborhoods with more access to affordable housing. Some fear that more open zoning practices will jeopardize property values but it is a fear worth confronting.

Major developers sometimes propose a new development or new apartment building holding out the promised inclusion of a few affordable units if the city will give them a tax break. It’s a form of corporate bribery. Why not simply require any major new development to include a broad mix of affordable and less affordable units? No tax break offered. If they walk away, they walk away, and probably that is better for everybody. On the other hand, nobody is helped when the permitting process becomes adversarial. Building codes are important and can be enforced with the intent of helping builders meet them rather than forcing builders to jump through hoops. The same goes for all subordinate permitting and inspection requirements.

A well managed housing Authority can be a vital source of low income housing. In most states housing authorities have special abilities to access tax credit financing in the private market that enables them to build and maintain high-quality low income housing. It works best when the housing Authority creates projects that are integrated into the community and not segregated into separate ghettos. Managing the offer and possibility of housing for sale with stipulations that the housing cannot be resold for more than a certain amount related to cost-of-living increases can be a boon to a community. The usual practice is for restrictions on resale to expire after15 or so years.

Federal government programs can stimulate affordable housing solutions through loans, loan guarantees, tax breaks, and grants, but the initiative begins at the local level.  It requires overcoming fears of economic integration of housing types, setting limits on VRBO units, and guarding against corporate monopolization of the rental market.

What do most people want in a president? I suspect they want a person who will courageously face difficult situations and make difficult decisions for the greater good of the people.  It’s the sort of courage that respects the dignity of everyone without partiality, honors those who have served the nation faithfully and well, and understands that the president is a temporary steward of an office that is accountable to the people. 

The nations of the world are a curious mix of honorable and dishonorable competitors, potential and real enemies, and ruthless factions battling each other for money and power. How the U.S. navigates its way through complex, risky conditions requires prudent leadership that knows how to assess possibilities and probabilities. 

Some national leaders act with intemperate brashness that seldom succeeds in anything other than causing damage and  inflaming hostilities.  Others are fearfully timid, afraid of taking risks.  They undermine the interests of their people and the strengths of their nations. We need a President who knows how to find the right balance based on verified information, reason and gut level common sense. 

We need a president committed to a society that is more just, more equitable for more people, a society in which systemic injustices are not tolerated. 

No candidate is the perfect embodiment of the ideal president, but in the current race one is lacking in every virtue and the other has proven herself to have lived into them as best she could. 

Folks remaining committed to Trump say they like his policies if not his personality, and they trust him on the economy. What policies?  He makes grandiose promises about grocery prices, health care, and ethnic cleansing of unwanted immigrants, but no policies.  His four years in office gave us a weekly barrage of slapstick decisions and scandals that kept everyone wondering what was next.

Some believe the economy was much better for the average person under Trump, and major news outlets say the economy was good during his term.  Actually what the economy did was coast on eight years of momentum established in the Obama years. It was momentum great enough to weather the chaos of unpredictable, irrational policy decisions by Trump that generated trade wars, torpedoed agriculture, shifted more wealth to the already wealthy, and piled up national debt to no purpose. It was not a record to be proud of, so why is it remembered as good times?

Trump is less coherent than he was eight or even four years ago, but there are policies in place and ready to go should he be elected. The 2025 Project lays out a detailed map for transforming the United States into an undemocratic, authoritarian state.  It’s serious and scary.  Trump has tried to disavow it, but he was an early endorser of what his own former staffers produced.   It’s a plan that requires a strong autocrat to whom all others are subordinate, and it is obvious that a meandering old man living in his own delusions is not that person.  Who is?  Vance might think he is, but he is out of his league  in the boiling cauldron of billionaire egos who financed the Project.  It would be cross, double cross and triple cross for power. The American public deserves what they get if they think any of them have the slightest interest in the well being of the average person. 

I remain baffled by the apparent unpopularity of the Biden administration.  The most common complaint is the high cost of consumer products. Ignored is the world wide COVID driven economic meltdown from which the Biden administration engineered not only the world’s fastest recovery, but also the most robust economy in recent American history. Inflation was a cost that had to be paid, but between the monetary policy of the Fed and the fiscal policy of the administration it was returned to normal levels quickly and without the expected spike in unemployment. 

I am hopeful that more people are becoming more aware of that reality, even if reluctant to do so. When Biden’s policy initiatives and accomplishments are paraded by the public one at a time they receive hearty approval. The same goes for goals Harris has articulated in some detail.  If she is elected there is every reason to expect the American economy to continue leading the world while benefitting the middle class more than billionaires.  Our democracy will have been preserved.  Our dignity among nations will continue to be recognized. We may even craft an immigration system that works while securing the border without inhumane brutality. There will likely be no miracles, but as a healthy democracy we will muddle through for the benefit of those who need it, not for those who don’t. 

Note: What follows is short and basic, a handout for a class and not intended to be read as a fully complete examination of the question.

Situational ethics and moral relativism are detested submissions to the ways of the world for people who demand and believe in moral certainty, particularly when they are sure of what certainty is according to their interpretation of “the plain meaning” of Holy Scripture.  It would be simple if everything was a question of right or wrong, good or bad, but that’s not how life works. To be sure, there are many situations that are clearly right or wrong, good or bad. We know them well. Don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, etc. and we have a pretty clear idea of what is meant. Mostly we are on solid ground, but if you have read the book or seen the play Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, you know the question is sometimes not so simple.

Sometimes the question is not between good and bad, but between two bad choices, one of which must be made. Something bad is going to happen. Which bad thing is the least immoral or least unethical? Other situations present us with two goods. We must choose one. That means something good will happen, but something equally good will not.  We are not often required to make the choice between two things in real life.  The more usual problem is many goods and many bad competing with each other, in various shades of goodness or badness.  What might be an obvious good for some people might be taken as an equally less good, or not good at all, for others.  

Life gets even more complicated in the context of world ethnic and tribal conflicts fueled by lust for power, fear of loss, and nationalistic pride.  What is moral or ethical becomes difficult to unravel. A glaring example is warfare in the Middle East. Clearly there is a great deal of evil happening, but what is the correct moral thing to do, and who should do it?  What are the hoped for goods each side desires?  How can each side accept the possible good even if it is not all that is desired?  Can they trust that failing to get everything does not mean accepting something bad or evil?

Here at home it seems the American mind has been indoctrinated to believe that social goods are in limited supply. That idea creates a zero sum mindset in which there can only be winners and losers. There can never be winners and winners. It promotes aggressive office to get more for oneself and equally aggressive defense to keep anyone from getting what one has. The result is normalized, unethical, and immoral behavior, justified by appeals for God’s approval.

It would be easier if we had a set of rules to live by so we could say if we follow the rules we are moral people. What God has given us are not rules but principles. Often with inadequate information we have to work out how those principles are to guide the decisions we must make. Philippians 2:12 – “Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”  

God, it seems, expects us to take some responsibility for the decisions we make, trusting we will not go far astray if we do the best we can living by holy principles. Not satisfied with that, we have too often set up our own rules, subordinated them to holy principles, and claimed moral certainty for ourselves.  God warned us it wouldn’t work well when ‘he’ spoke through the mouth of Isaiah: “I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said ‘Here I am, here I am to a nation that did not call on my name. I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good following their own devices.” (Isa. 65)

Let’s face it.  We live in a world of moral uncertainty.  We may not always get it right, but in doing the best we can to live under the guidance of the principles God has ordained for us, we can be confident that we are not being misled.

Brett Stephens wrote in the NYT on 10/9/24 that it is in everyone’s best interest that Israel win its wars with the Iranian proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis.  Without victory, he believes, there can be no hope of an enduring peace in the Mideast, with amity between Israel and the Arab states and security for Palestinians.  

He made it sound persuasive and given his education and experience as a journalist, including time as an editor in Jerusalem, his opinions have to carry some weight. At the same time, I wonder if he can name any war in history that has ended with the kind of peace and mutual friendship that he envisions for the Mideast. World War II does not count, but if someone insists that it has to be included, remember that the eventual resolution was dependent entirely on the Marshall plan in Europe and the rebuilding of Japan’s economy in Asia. Moreover, we have endured 80 years of wars and other armed conflicts that are echoes of World War II. 

There cannot be victory in the sense that Stephens envisions unless there is a workable plan for rebuilding and reconstituting the peoples of Lebanon, the Gaza strip, and an independent Palestinian state. The rebuilding will have to overcome the horrors of so many thousands of people killed, wounded, displaced, and the destruction of everything they had known as home. That will not be easy to do.

No one has forgotten the unforgivable events of October 7. Neither can anyone overlook the Israeli response that has created pain and suffering for so many people. It is hard to imagine that it hasn’t created a sense of unrequited hatred of Israelis for Palestinians and Palestinians for Israelis. Healing will be more than difficult but what may not be possible for humans is possible for God, and we should not forget that. It is, after all, the holy land. Throughout its history God has acted when all seemed lost and always through leadership ordained and empowered to act as agents of healing and restoration, not revenge.

The military capabilities of Israel’s local enemies might be degraded to the point where they can no longer mount any significant military threat to Israel. The force behind the enemy resources is, however, an ideology backed by religious and nationalistic fervor. It is resistant to military defeat. Defeating ideological convictions requires something entirely different than military might, and I do not believe that Netanyahu has any idea what that might be or how to do it. Take our own Civil War, for example. It took nearly 100 years to defeat the conviction that defending the “lost cause” would enable the South to rise again. Germany has experienced an uncomfortable moment when old-time Nazis seem to have recovered some political power. We have our own brand of the same thing on the ballot this November. Ideologies have staying power and can be defeated only with more persuasive values and virtues offering a more secure and promising life.

It is very hard to defeat an evil ideology,  In the Middle East it is  even harder when each side is guilty of committing evil on the other without any sign of repentance by anyone. What should be done? I am in no position to offer useful ideas nor do I have wisdom to share. I only know that the victory leading to peace Brett Stevens hopes for cannot be achieved through military action, and in the Middle East it cannot be achieved without God.

Why should anyone believe in God?  Why implies a moral question. What is the good of believing in God? How does not believing deprive one of an essential good?  Why should I believe in God is often only half the question.  The second half is “what’s in it for me?”  The truthful answer is nothing, if what’s meant is the satisfaction of one’s desires from God as a genie in a bottle fulfilling the wishes of its master. The idea that believing in God requires submission to God is not what some want to hear. They want a god who can be manipulated to serve their desires.

For others an answer might begin with another question.  Consider a famous, powerful person whom you have never met or seen in person but heard about and admire greatly.  What if that person’s agent came to you and said ‘she’ knew who you were and wanted to meet you in person?  Curiosity, if nothing else, would be reason enough to say yes to the invitation.  Why?  To find out who this famous,  powerful person really is, and why, for heaven’s sake, she wants to meet you face-to-face. 

God is, in a sense, like that.  The source of all being knows this speck of dust hurtling through space, each person on it, and desires to be in a personal relationship with each of us.  The question why would one want to believe in God may be, but why would they not?  Nathanael discovered that Jesus knew him well even though they had never met. Out of little more than suspicious curiosity Nathanael followed Jesus to find out more about why this wonder working rabbi would have any interest in him. (John 1)  He took the risk  and discovered what it meant to be in an intimate relationship with God incarnate.  It took time, but he learned it meant to be to be embraced with God’s steadfast and abounding love and that he was called to be an agent of that love for others. The whole of scripture is the revelation of God’s love of ‘his’ creation and intention that we live into the fullness of all we were created to be – something we cannot do without being in relationship with God.

I suppose there are people who do not want to be  intimately embraced by God’s abounding and steadfast love that intends only good for us.  It’s too frightening, especially when not even the deepest secret is hidden from God.  Not one of us is worthy. Could it be a trap set by a vengeful God intending to send us to hell?  Even if his love is real, surrendering to it might deprive us of some important part of our self identity, something we hold tight.  Can God really be trusted?  The question brings us back to why anyone should believe in God in the first place.  Part of the prior question suggests doubt about whether there is a God to believe in at all. But it also suggests an awareness of the God one is hesitant to believe exists, which is another way of asking can God be trusted?  Belief is not simply acceptance that God is real but that God can be trusted. It is not an unreasonable question.  We know none of us can be trusted wholly and completely at all times, in every place, with everyone, under every condition.  How can anyone be sure of God’s trustworthiness? Hellfire and brimstone preachers make it sound safer to stay as far away from God as possible.  But Jesus proclaimed that he came not to condemn but that we might have life in abundance.  The only people who do not receive the gift of redeeming grace are those who refuse to accept it.  It is always offered, with the offer never withdrawn.  It only has to be accepted.  

And and that is why one should believe in God. 

Is it a persuasive argument?  Maybe, maybe not. It is persuasive for those who understand that we do not define God, that God is made known to us by ‘his’ own self revelation, and most fully in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It is not persuasive for those who want to define God on their own terms.  They are not thereby condemned.  They have simply gone as far as they can for the time being.  None are behind the mystery that is God’s redeeming love for all whom ‘she’ has called into being as sacred and beloved.  

Is there a point where someone can say a final and irrevocable No!? Perhaps, but it is not ours to know. Jesus’ death and resurrection was once for all, not once for some.  How it gets worked out is not for us to judge.  We are only called to proclaim the good news of God in Christ Jesus and be agents of his love as best we can.

It is popular to blame the decline of church attendance on the secularization of society, but declining attendance does not point directly to enmity with religious belief. It is more a result of the condition under which we live and must work. In order for attendance to be meaningful, it means religious faith must be demonstrated as true and necessary in order for humans to become all they are made to be, regardless of the conditions under which they live.

As long as Protestant Christianity was the de facto religion of the    U.S., it was socially normative for almost everyone to attach themselves to a denomination. It was the socially correct thing to do. It was expected and for some people it produced a superficial veneer of faith, easily discarded when society no longer required it.     

A large proportion of the population knows there is a bible but not what it is about or what is in it.  They have heard of Jesus but know nothing of his story.  They are aware of churches but have never been in one, or if they have, did not understand what was going on. Major news media are no better informed.  Personal spirituality has taken the place of “organized religion.” It has created a new pantheon of personal gods existing only in the imaginations of their creators.

The church must be born anew.  We must be like Paul in Athens with its many gods.   Today’s population has many gods indicating an awareness of the divine and a desire to be in relationship with it. In that sense, they are not unlike the ancient Athenians, and the new church must start where Paul did.  He encountered ridicule and disbelief when he tried to proclaim the good news of God in Christ Jesus to the Athenians.  He didn’t gain an audience willing to listen until he spoke to them of their own gods and poets, with a degree of respect and understanding.  It was only then that he could connect their deepest longings with the news that a relationship with the living God would fulfill what their gods could never do.  How much success he had is a matter of debate, but it was enough.  More important, it established for us the pattern of evangelism that we need to reclaim in our own day.

It means listening carefully to what people are saying that indicates the gods they have created.  Some will be spiritual, some political, and others will represent romance, power, material success, professional acclaim, and all the things represented by the many Greek gods of Athens. All of them will point, each in their own way, to the god yet unknown.  It is the unknown God whom we proclaim, the living God in whom we ”live and breathe and have our being.”   Asking questions will help uncover what is desired from their gods, how they indicate an awareness of the divine, and how their “worship” Is expressed in ritual. The answers may open doors through which the good news of God in Christ can enter.  As Paul quickly discovered, they may not but it’s the place to start. Speaking only from my own experience, it seems many want to know more.  They are curious.  They don’t want to be saved, they want answers to questions that make sense to them.  Will it lead to conversion? This is the wrong question.  They are not “unbelievers.” They don’t know what to believe and are cautious about what is worthy of belief. If Christianity is presented as a set of rituals and an adherence to prescribed social/political religious beliefs, the conversation will probably go nowhere.  If it is about living into a relationship with the living God through God’s Word made flesh in Jesus, it may go forward. They want to be assured that reason, science and Christianity can coexist in the same space.  They need to discover that the history of the church and the history the faith are related but not the same. 

Paul did not leave a new congregation in his wake as he traveled on, but a new church came into being anyway because he had done enough.  We have a better foundation than he had on which to renew and rebuild the church, but we have to begin the task as he did in Athens. It is not our job to fill the pews.  It is our job too proclaim the good news in ways that speak to the curious and spiritually hungry.