Search This Blog

Showing posts with label financial crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial crisis. Show all posts

Monday, January 31, 2011

Church Mortgages and Foreclosure -- Sightings

The recent period of financial distress, which has led to increased unemployment and home-foreclosures.  People lost jobs and couldn't pay mortgages on homes, they probably couldn't afford in the first place, which led to an ongoing cycle of woe.  Well, it appears that churches have been caught up in the cycle -- many of these churches, both large and small, bit off more than they could chew and now can't pay the bills.  Is the end near?  We live by faith, but Jesus also reminds us that a builder will count the cost first.  We passed our budget yesterday, knowing that we'll have to tap our nest egg.  We're fortunate -- no mortgage and a nice cushion -- but for many this is not true.  Martin Marty speaks to this crisis in his own inimitable way!!

***************************


Sightings 1/31/2011


Church Mortgages and Foreclosures
-- Martin E. Marty

“Churches Find End Is Nigh” is the kind of headline which should produce ennui. One expects to read under it of the 1900th annual prediction of the end of the world. But, read on: the subhead portends an article on “Ends” which are current and real: “The Number of Religious Facilities Unable to Pay Their Mortgage is Surging.” A visit to Google will turn up scores of church foreclosure stories which deserve attention.

Attention is what churches get when their stories deal not with Incarnation, Trinity, Resurrection, or Atonement, but with Finances or Sex. Sightings notices what we call “public religion” or “religion-in-public,” often beyond the sanctuary. But in matters of money, the sanctuary and the public world meet. A Chicago Tribune article spoke of faith and the “mountain of bills,” as John Keilman circled and then zeroed in on the Lighthouse Community Church in Elgin, Illinois, which the Reverend Steve Robledo invented and now sees falling. The church “can’t afford to pay the $3,100 rent or fix maintenance problems” in the former Grace United Methodist Church which Rev. Robledo bought with two businessmen after he had a vision that God wanted him to start a church in it.

Keilman writes, “Reuters found that church foreclosures have tripled since the recession began in 2007.” In the Elgin story we learn that Robledo’s “nondenominational congregation is a fraction of its 200-member peak, diminished by the recession” and, no surprise, stressed as it is by “an internal schism.” A 200-peak? The megachurches could house such a gathering in a broom closet, were their finance people not busy scouring their own closets for overlooked funds as “a mountain of bills” piles up for them and, for some, “the end is nigh.”

All this is public because the public can understand mortgage foreclosures better than they can “get” Transubstantiation. Sneerers enjoy Schadenfreude, rejoicing in others’ misfortunes. Empathic humans, in churches or not, look deeper and find reason to mourn. Financial counselors at the big places run for cover after their counsel led congregations to overreach and under-support. Reformers use the moment to urge caution, reappraisal, more careful planning, and, in some cases, less hubris. Let’s admit it, folks, some of the mega-building is ego-driven and not only Spirit-inspired.

One reads of little Lighthouse buildings or Crystal Cathedrals, which share the experience of bankruptcy. Shelly Banjo reports in the Wall Street Journal that since 2008 about 200 religious facilities had been foreclosed, “up from eight during the previous two years and virtually none in the decade before that.” As for the future, expert Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, says “Churches are the next wave in this economic crisis.” PUSH signals work with African-American churches, many of which are over-committed, under-funded, and seeing that “the End is Nigh.”

Some of the problems are the result of Fate—the financial crisis—and others of Folly. But let’s grant the point that many are inspired by Faith, which is now being tested. In the Gospel of Luke (read 14:28-30, which is as current as the WSJ), Jesus warns of builders who do not “count the cost,” who fail, and get ridiculed. For some of the sign-carrying “End is Nigh” people, there is another admonition: “Repent: There Still is Time.” Maybe.

References


Shelly Banjo, “Churches Find End Is Nigh: The Number of Religious Facilities Unable to Pay Their Mortgage is Surging,” Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2011.

John Keilman, “In God he trusts, but pastor needs cash for church,” Chicago Tribune, January 23, 2011.



Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.com/.
----------


Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama's State of Anti-Americanism


President Barack Obama strutted in front of Congress and the nation last night to give his State of the Union address. This time his undeniable oratorical skills simply could not save him from the facts that have become clear in his first full year in office, facts that now have his speeches sounding more and more like skips on a broken record.

Let's start by taking a look at what his programs have actually done over the past year, and see what he said last night. Directly because of the programs and initiatives launched by the Obama administration, our unemployment rate has soared past the 10% mark for the first time in decades and our national debt has been set on course to triple over the next decade.

But what is Obama suggesting that we do as we move into his vision of the future? Spend more, go further into debt, reward cronyism and failed industries. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress wish to throw massive amounts of good money after excessive and irresponsible amounts of bad.

The President proposed in his speech last night to "take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat." So we taxpayers, who did not want to do it in the first place, loaned money to banks. It was repaid, but now we lend that same money back out to banks? So what exactly is going to have been "repaid"?

Why again did I lend money to banks in the first place? Do you know why? To save the financial system from collapse? Really? And why do we taxpayers need to prop up any business that cannot succeed on the strength of it's own hard work, value, worth, and entrepreneurial skills? Businesses large and small have gone under for centuries. Why do we have to save some now with taxpayer dollars?

Next the President said "We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow...There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products." Really? Why not? What does having the fastest trains in the world have to do with anything at all? If China has a train that goes 200 miles per hour, why do we need one that goes 250?

Has the President even bothered to look at every single study of mass transit in this country? All the studies show that the vast majority of these mass transit systems: buses, trains, trolleys, etc go without ridership for the majority of the day. It is only during certain peak hours that ridership is full. But the trains and buses run all day and night long, running up massive fuel, maintenance, and labor costs. And the vast majority of the public doesn't use these systems on any regular basis at all. Those are the facts.

Why do we need to build new manufacturing plants for business? If a business wants a new plant, and will benefit economically from it's construction, then why doesn't it just build one itself?

Obama then finally spoke a truth, but he spoke it in typically veiled fashion: "The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years." Well, first of all, that is not exactly truth. There will never be "full employment", whatever that means. But we get the idea and the goal of creating as many decent jobs for as many people who actually want to and are able to work.

The only proven way to create long-term sustainable jobs that will make a real difference in the lives of the greatest amount of people is to get government out of the way and allow private industry to flourish with minimal restraints. Keep taxes as low as possible across the board, and keep regulation to reasonable levels that are not a result of partisan political studies or a knee-jerk overreaction to occasional errors.

But what Obama and the Democrats want to do is what is known as 'picking the winners', making the decisions as to which businesses and industries are worthwhile and valuable and worth investing in and then forcing Americans to live with their decisions. Rather than leaving the business community alone to develop products and services and allow the American dollar-paying public to decide based on their own desires.

Obama played the scare tactic by mentioning that Germany and China and India were not waiting to pour money into 'clean energy' because "they want those jobs." Which jobs is he talking about? You mean the jobs that they are creating by the pouring in of all that money? Why would Obama possibly compare what the U.S. should do to what these nations are doing? Because they are socialist (Germany), communist (China), or corrupt quasi-socialist economic (India) nations, that's why.

Obama also continues to be shameless in his attempts to embarrass Republicans into 'going over to the Dark Side' and joining with the Democrats in making these changes. He once again mentioned that "saying no" and disagreeing continuously is not a policy idea. The fact is that individual Republican lawmakers and the Republican Party leadership have put forth numerous ideas, only to be ignored or slapped down every time by the Democratic Party-controlled congress.

Republican Party politicans in Congress and the Senate have, in fact, no obligation to blindly follow the President and fall in lock-step with the Democrats to pass laws and bills and enact policies that they know will only hurt America in the long run. They are absolutely supposed to attempt to "say no" to the President and disagree with him when he is wrong, which is on almost every issue.

Republican politicians need to not only continue to stand up to the Obama policies strongly and vocally when warranted, but in fact need to more fully and substantively embrace traditional American ideals and programs which support these ideas themselves, or many will find themselves tossed out of their own offices in the coming primary elections.

Barack Obama's vision for America is nothing short of full-blown socialism. The complete destruction of the capitalist system that elevated the United States to the greatest economic levels in the history of the world and kept us there for more than a century. The reason is simple: the power and control that comes with running a state-controlled economy and a central government.

He will play all of the usual race-baiting and class-warfare games to make this happen, implying or directly saying that those who don't go along are racist or want babies to starve or the elderly to go without medical care. He will use a mass media that has become slowly and surely and almost completely infected by individuals with the same political and social beliefs as his over the last few decades.

He further called for an "investment in the skills and education of our people." What exactly does that mean? There was a time when the American educational system was the envy of the world. What changed all that? What changed it was these very liberal ideals invading the classroom and shifting our students attention away from important learning skills to forced cultural sensitivity.

For generations, American students have been historically and socially indoctrinated in the classroom far more than they have been educated. Because some couldn't or wouldn't keep up, everyone was forced to drag back to their level. And the teaching and enforcing of morality and discipline? Forget about it. If Obama wants to improve the American educational system, he needs to get the government out of the classrooms.

Finally, Obama continued to pour it on for his outrageously enormous takeover of what is already the greatest health-care system that the world has ever known, despite the fact that the large majority of the American public doesn't want any part of a government-run system. Health-care needs responsible reform, not a comprehensive government takeover and the accompanying massive cost to the tax-paying public, as Obama and the Dems are trying to force down our throats.

Right now what Obama and the Democrats have been doing for a year and continue to plan towards the future is the insinuation of the government into effective or direct control of every major facet of our lives. The only way to stop this suicidal power-grab is to reverse the political fortunes of the country as soon as possible, before things get too bad to ever reverse.

As the brilliant economist Thomas Sowell has so perfectly put it "human beings have their own individual preferences, values, plans, and wills all of which can conflict with and even thwart the goals of social experiments." What Obama and the Democrats are advocating is what Sowell calls an "open-ended demand", one that calls for "ever-expanding government bureaucracies with ever-expanding budgets and powers."

We Americans have certainly been getting exactly what Barack Obama promised in his campaign: Change. While I personally did not vote for him, I have a hard time believing that most of those who did so were thinking about fundamentally changing the United States of America from a nation built upon the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into a socialist nation that stifles liberty and replaces the pursuit of happiness with your acceptance of whatever the government deems oughta be what you think happiness should entail.

One of today's great scholars, Dinesh D'Souza, a legal immigrant who became a White House policy advocate, stated "America represents a new way of being human and thus presents a radical challenge to the world." In describing "American exceptionalism", D'Souza called it the idea that "Americans have throughout their history held that they are special: that their country has been blessed by God, that the American system is unique, that Americans are not like people everywhere else."

If all of the polls taken in recent months are telling the truth, then the American public is starting to wake up to the fact that Obama and the Democrats are steering us away, far away, from our founding and established ideals and that very "American exceptionalism" that we have always cherished. With the continuing of God's blessings on our special experiment in democracy we can begin to remove them from office as has been happening already all across the country, reverse the damaging course upon which they have set us, and begin to reclaim our national greatness and prosperity.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

President Barack Oblah, blah, blah-ma's First News Conference

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow citizens of the United States of America, what you saw last night on the occasion of President Barack Obama's first-ever televised news conference was simply one of the most incredible displays of stammering ineptitude in the Chief Executive's office since it was occupied by Jimmy Carter. The President tried to take his case directly to the people in an attempt to make them come around to his position that in order to help resolve an economic crisis that took place thanks to over-spending on the part of politicians we need even more spending by these same politicians. I believe that on the classic television comedy show 'Seinfeld' it went something like this: sex to save the friendship. Of course that direction didn't work for Jerry and Elaine, just as the Obama 'stimulus' sham has no hope of working for America. During his speech that precluded the press conference, the President stated that his plan was "not perfect" and that it may not in fact "work exactly as we hoped." He went on to say that the counter was that "a failure to act will only deepen this crisis." Uh, perhaps Mr. President. But since you have no idea how your imperfect plan is going to affect us, perhaps it will in actuality turn out even worse than doing nothing, or doing something different. The President then began to take questions, and during a lengthy answer to AP reporter Jennifer Loven he stated that his plan to "save or create 4 million jobs" would instead result in "some net job loss. But at least we can start slowing the trend, and moving it in the right direction." So which is it, Mr. President, are we creating 4 million new jobs, or saving currently existing jobs, or some combination, or suffering a net job loss? Mr. President? Okay, that economics stuff is tough for you, let's move on to diplomacy. The President responds to a question as to how he will handle Iran by initially summing it up pretty well by speaking of "their financing of terrorist organizations...the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon." But he then begins more of that 'blah, blah, blah' as he speaks of "reviewing our existing Iran policy" looking towards having "constructive dialogue" and towards moving "our policy in a new direction." The only policy that is going to stand a prayer of working in Iran is deposing their President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, possibly the single most dangerous man on the planet at this particular moment. And even then we would have to ensure that the mullahs and other religious leaders don't set up in power someone who is just as bad or even worse. Without showing military and economic strength until the Iranians change their ways, no 'dialogue' or 'policy' of appeasement is going to be effective. The President is then asked about the bipartisanship that he promised would highlight his term in office, and if it was unlikely now that his 'stimulus' received no Republican votes in the House and only three potential Senate supporters from the Right. He responded that "there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in Washington, and it's going to take time to break down some of those bad habits." Excuse me, Mr. President, but what are "bad habits" exactly? You mean that when you present some plan, program, or nominee that is fundamentally against what the vast majority of Republicans believe in, we should just blindly support you against our own ideals? Having and fighting for our ideals is a bad habit? In a response to a reporter who finally directly asked about the wisdom of spending almost a trillion more tax-payer dollars to overcome problems caused by massive over-spending and little fiscal discipline, the President summed up the problem thusly: "the biggest problem we're going to have with our federal budget is if we continue a situation in which there are no tax revenues because economic growth is plummeting at the same time as we've got new demands for unemployment insurance..health care..food stamps." So basically what that President is saying is that he has a two-pronged problem: economic growth declining and spending rising. How about we go at it this way, Mr. President? Reduce taxes on businesses and individuals even further, hand out incentives for private business to get involved in what you are trying to setup as federal projects, and reduce rather than expand federal social services. Now I don't know whether or not this will work, just as you don't know whether your spend and spend plan will work. But one thing is certain, my plan will not increase our debt, and my plan has a far greater track record of sustaining a recovery. The "stimulus" plan that President Barack Obama is trying to shove down the throats of the American public will fail, and we know it. While the results of a Gallup poll released last week showed 75% of Americans believing some sort of financial package is needed, a full 62% were against the current massive Obama plan, with 37% wanting major changes to the plan, and 53% believe the Obama plan will have no effect on their families or make things worse. It is not a question of wanting the President to fail, to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, but simply an acknowlegement of common sense. You can't spend your way out of problems that were largely caused by too much spending and too little discipline. And an increase in the size of government always stifles a nation's economic development. Always. But President Obama will continue defending it with the very rhetoric and partisan rancor that he derides in his opposition. The press always loves a chance to get on camera and make themselves seem more important than they are, but to much of the American public last nights opening performance by the new President was just more blah, blah, blah.