But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John.” (Luke 1:13)
Do people gravitate towards certain professions because of their names? It sounds farfetched. Yet time and again we hear stories of people whose monikers match their jobs. A recent New York Daily News article reports several examples. In New York City, a Dr. Ma takes care of children as a pediatrician and a Dr. Hertz is a pain manager. Brad Goldman owns a jewelry shop on the 47th street and Ju-Ying Song is a music teacher. Guess what Zoe Hamburger does for a living? Yup, he handles public relations for McDonald’s.
Perhaps it is a subconscious thing that prompts some people to choose their jobs that are related to their names. After all, your name is something you see and hear on a daily basis. However, in the Bible, there are examples of how God gave his people directions in life through their names. For example, God told Zechariah to name his son John, even though it was an unconventional name for his family.
The story is recorded in Luke’s gospel chapter 1. During the time of Herod the Great who ruled Galilee and the surrounding regions in 37-4 B.C., there was an old couple, Zechariah and Elizabeth, who was a priest family. They lived a difficult life. Their country was under the harsh rule of the Roman Empire. Personally they felt disgraced because God had not given them any children. But they lived a life of faith. They were upright in the sight of God, obeying the word of God blamelessly. One year, Zechariah was chosen by lot as “the priest of the year” to go into the temple and burn incense. It was once in a life time opportunity as they were many priests who never had the honor.
As he was carrying out the duty, the angel of the Lord appeared to him, startling Zechariah. He was gripped with fear, perhaps because he was offering his personal prayer about a son when he was supposed to pray for his nation and people as their representative. But God had good news for him. The angel Gabriel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:13-17)
God had chosen Zechariah and Elizabeth to be the parents of John the Baptist! The words of the angel surprised Zechariah. He had been praying for a son all his married life, but when God told him his prayer would be answered, he couldn’t believe it. His wife was past menopause and he himself was an old man. Would this be possible biologically? The angel rebuked him for his unbelief, by reminding him that God always follows through his promise. He also told him, “And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words.” God trained Zechariah for nine months for his unbelief.
After Elizabeth gave birth to a son, her neighbors and relatives came to share her joy. On the eighty day, they came to circumcise the child and, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, perhaps Zechariah Jr. or some other family name. But Elizabeth spoke up and said, “No! He is to be called John.” They replied, “But there is no one among your relatives who has that name.” So they turned to the father of the child. Zechariah asked for a tablet and to everyone’s surprise wrote, “His name is John.” Immediately his tongue was loosed and he began to speak, praising God.
So they called the child John which means “God is gracious.” He grew up, not as a spoiled brat of an old couple, but as a man with a God-given name that constantly reminded him of his mission and purpose in life. His life was short; he was only in his 30’s when he was beheaded by Herod. But he left a permanent mark in God’s history by boldly speaking the truth to those with power as well as ordinary people. He fulfilled the purpose in his life to be a forerunner of Christ by preparing the way for the Lord. Jesus praised him: “I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist, …” (Matthew 11:11)
What if Zechariah and Elizabeth named their son some other name instead of the God-given name? They could have named him Judas , a popular name at that time (there appear five Judas’s in the New Testament including Judas Iscariot, the betrayer). Or they could have called him Solomon who had more than 1,000 wives. Or they could have named him “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” the longest name in the Bible to give him a unique identity. They had many names to choose from. But none of them would have been the same as John. This name was special because it was given by God and God gave a special meaning to the name. I believe that whenever the name John was called, it reminded all three of them, Zechariah (“God remembers”), Elizabeth (“God is bountiful”) and John that God was gracious to his family and God wanted him to live a life of mission.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
What’s in a Name? (4)
She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” So she named him Judah. (Genesis 29:35)
If you are a parent, you probably remember the exciting moments of picking a name for your newborn child. How did you select the name? You probably thought about the names of your family, relatives or friends, or consulted with numerous baby name books or websites. Perhaps you named your child after a famous politician, Hollywood celebrity, or football or baseball player. My wife and I chose our three children’s names (Daniel, Sarah and Esther) from the Bible, praying for them to be a faithful man and women.
In recent decades in America, there seems to be a trend for parents to give unique and uncommon names to their children. Woodward (2005) showed that “between the 1950s and 1990s there was a consistent increase in diversity of names chosen in America.” This is particularly true for African Americans who may consider such names as a symbol of pride in their cultural heritage (Daniel and Daniel, 1998). Fryer and Levitt (2004) also found from a large data set from California that there was a significant shift in the naming practice of African Americans during the 1970s when parents began to give uniquely African American names to their children. Cultural and religious practices aside, these parents may not be aware that there is growing evidence that unusual first names signal or affect people’s lives and lifetime outcomes, often negatively, as shown in a recent paper David E. Kalist and I coauthored, (“First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?” ).
Some parents may give pretty-sounding names to their children without thinking further about how their names might affect the children as they grow up. In response to our research, readers shared examples of some unusual names. One told the story of a woman who heard her doctor and nurse discussing placenta and thought it sounded pretty. She gave the name “Placenta” to her newborn girl. One teacher had a pupil named “Apathy.” A parent named her daughter “ShyAnne” (a variation of Cheyenne?). Someone noticed the nametag of a cashier—“Crystal Ball.”
Jacob in the Book of Genesis had twelve sons and one daughter from his two wives and two concubines. His wives, Leah and Rachel, competed with each other. If their competition were made one of today’s reality shows on TV, it would be called “Who will have more sons for Jacob?” We can imagine how contentious and full of conflicts Jacob’s home was! But God used the competition to establish the twelve tribes of Israel to fulfill his covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The story goes like this.
God called Abraham to begin his long-term redemptive history to save mankind from their sins. He promised to make him a great nation and a source of blessing to all nations. Abraham was 75 years old then and his wife Sarah was past menopause. Still, Abraham believed in God’s promise and embarked on his life of faith. It was not until he was 100 years old, however, God gave him a son, Isaac, from his wife Sarah. Isaac means “laughter.” Every time the old couple called their son by the name, it reminded them of the joy that God granted them. The name also reminded them of their momentary unbelief (they had laughed when God told them they would have a son) and of God’s faithfulness in keeping his promises.
Isaac and Rebekah had twin boys, Esau and Jacob. God appointed Jacob, the younger son, to be the covenant son who would carry on the promise God had given to Abraham. Actually, Jacob caught Esau in his weak moment and bought his birthright with a bowl of lentil stew. Esau didn’t care about the spiritual heritage; he said, “I’m famished! … What good is the birthright to me?” Then Jacob disguised himself as his brother and tricked his old and blind father into blessings him. When Esau found out, he held a grudge against Jacob and tried to kill him. His parents, Isaac and Rebekah, sent Jacob away from home to protect his life and at the same time to get a wife from among his relatives because they didn’t want him to marry an idol worshiping Canaanite woman. Jacob made a long journey to Paddan Aram where his uncle Laban lived.
Jacob met his future wife Rachel at a well in the field; she was bringing a flock of her father’s sheep, as she was a shepherdess. When Jacob met her, he kissed her and began to weep aloud (I think it was love at the first sight). He was in love with Rachel and made a marriage proposal to her father that he would work for him seven years in return for her. Laban agreed. Seven years passed and Laban gave a wedding feast for Jacob. However, at night, he sent in Leah, his older daughter, to the honeymoon suite instead of Rachel. It was a classic bait and switch tactic. In the morning, Jacob discovered that it was Leah lying beside him! Laban made an excuse, saying, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one.” Then he promised to give Jacob Rachel as well, only in return for another seven years of free labor. Jacob agreed and that’s how he ended up with two wives.
When God saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb but Rachel was barren. When Leah had her first son, she named him Reuben, saying, “It is because the Lord has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.” (Reuben means “he has seen my misery in Hebrew.) She named her second son Simeon (“one who hears”) because she believed that God heard that she was not loved and he gave her the son. Her third son was named Levi (“attached”) because Leah thought her husband would be attached to her now. She named the fourth son Judah (“praise”), saying, “This time I will praise the Lord.” Leah might not have been an attractive woman, but I believe that she was a woman of God.
Rachel was jealous of her sister. She asked Jacob to take her maidservant Bilhah as his concubine to produce children for her in order to build her own family. Bilhah gave birth to two sons. Rachel named the first Dan (“he has vindicated”) saying, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my pleas and given me a son.” She named the second Naphtali (“my struggle”) saying, “I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won.”
Leah turned up the heat on the competition. She brought her own maidservant Zilpah into it. She gave birth to a son and Leah named him Gad (“good fortune”), exclaiming “What good fortune!” When Zilpah had her second son, Leah named him Asher (“happy”) saying, “How happy I am! The women will call me happy.” Leah had two more sons and a daughter of her own. She named Jacob’s ninth son Issachar (“reward”) saying, “God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband.” She named the next son Zebulun (“honor”) with the comment, “This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” She named her daughter Dinah (“justified”).
Finally, God heard Rachel’s prayer and opened her womb. She named her first son Joseph (“may he add”) saying, “May the Lord add to me another son.” Indeed, God added another son to her family, though it cost her own life. Rachel had a great difficulty in childbirth. As she was dying, she heard that it was a boy and she named him Ben-Oni (“son of my trouble”). However, Jacob, who loved Rachel to the end, did not want to call his twelfth son trouble and changed his name to Benjamin which means “son of my right hand.”
Jacob’s family numbered around 70 people when they migrated to Egypt to avoid a great famine, but after 430 years, they came out of the slavery in Egypt as a great nation. The twelve sons of Jacob had become 12 tribes and conquered the Promised Land to establish the name of Israel, just as God promised to Abraham.
Leah and Rachel picked their sons’ names to express their sorrow and agony as well as their joy and hope. Sometimes they were shouts of praise and sometimes they were cries for help. However, both women were mindful of God in naming their sons. The names were a reflection of their prayer to God. I think it is beautiful to see a mother (or a father for that matter) name her child with a prayer. I also think that Benjamin is a much better name than Ben-Oni.
References
Daniel, Jerlean E. and Jack L. Daniel, “Preschool Children’s Selection of Race-related Personal Names,” Journal of Black Studies, 1998, 28(4), 471-490.
Fryer, Roland and Steven Levitt, “The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively Black Names,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2004, 767-805.
Woodward, Richard, “Do Americans Desire Homogeneity? Evidence from Names from 1900-2000,” Economics Bulletin, 2005, 4(9), 1-6.
If you are a parent, you probably remember the exciting moments of picking a name for your newborn child. How did you select the name? You probably thought about the names of your family, relatives or friends, or consulted with numerous baby name books or websites. Perhaps you named your child after a famous politician, Hollywood celebrity, or football or baseball player. My wife and I chose our three children’s names (Daniel, Sarah and Esther) from the Bible, praying for them to be a faithful man and women.
In recent decades in America, there seems to be a trend for parents to give unique and uncommon names to their children. Woodward (2005) showed that “between the 1950s and 1990s there was a consistent increase in diversity of names chosen in America.” This is particularly true for African Americans who may consider such names as a symbol of pride in their cultural heritage (Daniel and Daniel, 1998). Fryer and Levitt (2004) also found from a large data set from California that there was a significant shift in the naming practice of African Americans during the 1970s when parents began to give uniquely African American names to their children. Cultural and religious practices aside, these parents may not be aware that there is growing evidence that unusual first names signal or affect people’s lives and lifetime outcomes, often negatively, as shown in a recent paper David E. Kalist and I coauthored, (“First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?” ).
Some parents may give pretty-sounding names to their children without thinking further about how their names might affect the children as they grow up. In response to our research, readers shared examples of some unusual names. One told the story of a woman who heard her doctor and nurse discussing placenta and thought it sounded pretty. She gave the name “Placenta” to her newborn girl. One teacher had a pupil named “Apathy.” A parent named her daughter “ShyAnne” (a variation of Cheyenne?). Someone noticed the nametag of a cashier—“Crystal Ball.”
Jacob in the Book of Genesis had twelve sons and one daughter from his two wives and two concubines. His wives, Leah and Rachel, competed with each other. If their competition were made one of today’s reality shows on TV, it would be called “Who will have more sons for Jacob?” We can imagine how contentious and full of conflicts Jacob’s home was! But God used the competition to establish the twelve tribes of Israel to fulfill his covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The story goes like this.
God called Abraham to begin his long-term redemptive history to save mankind from their sins. He promised to make him a great nation and a source of blessing to all nations. Abraham was 75 years old then and his wife Sarah was past menopause. Still, Abraham believed in God’s promise and embarked on his life of faith. It was not until he was 100 years old, however, God gave him a son, Isaac, from his wife Sarah. Isaac means “laughter.” Every time the old couple called their son by the name, it reminded them of the joy that God granted them. The name also reminded them of their momentary unbelief (they had laughed when God told them they would have a son) and of God’s faithfulness in keeping his promises.
Isaac and Rebekah had twin boys, Esau and Jacob. God appointed Jacob, the younger son, to be the covenant son who would carry on the promise God had given to Abraham. Actually, Jacob caught Esau in his weak moment and bought his birthright with a bowl of lentil stew. Esau didn’t care about the spiritual heritage; he said, “I’m famished! … What good is the birthright to me?” Then Jacob disguised himself as his brother and tricked his old and blind father into blessings him. When Esau found out, he held a grudge against Jacob and tried to kill him. His parents, Isaac and Rebekah, sent Jacob away from home to protect his life and at the same time to get a wife from among his relatives because they didn’t want him to marry an idol worshiping Canaanite woman. Jacob made a long journey to Paddan Aram where his uncle Laban lived.
Jacob met his future wife Rachel at a well in the field; she was bringing a flock of her father’s sheep, as she was a shepherdess. When Jacob met her, he kissed her and began to weep aloud (I think it was love at the first sight). He was in love with Rachel and made a marriage proposal to her father that he would work for him seven years in return for her. Laban agreed. Seven years passed and Laban gave a wedding feast for Jacob. However, at night, he sent in Leah, his older daughter, to the honeymoon suite instead of Rachel. It was a classic bait and switch tactic. In the morning, Jacob discovered that it was Leah lying beside him! Laban made an excuse, saying, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one.” Then he promised to give Jacob Rachel as well, only in return for another seven years of free labor. Jacob agreed and that’s how he ended up with two wives.
When God saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb but Rachel was barren. When Leah had her first son, she named him Reuben, saying, “It is because the Lord has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.” (Reuben means “he has seen my misery in Hebrew.) She named her second son Simeon (“one who hears”) because she believed that God heard that she was not loved and he gave her the son. Her third son was named Levi (“attached”) because Leah thought her husband would be attached to her now. She named the fourth son Judah (“praise”), saying, “This time I will praise the Lord.” Leah might not have been an attractive woman, but I believe that she was a woman of God.
Rachel was jealous of her sister. She asked Jacob to take her maidservant Bilhah as his concubine to produce children for her in order to build her own family. Bilhah gave birth to two sons. Rachel named the first Dan (“he has vindicated”) saying, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my pleas and given me a son.” She named the second Naphtali (“my struggle”) saying, “I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won.”
Leah turned up the heat on the competition. She brought her own maidservant Zilpah into it. She gave birth to a son and Leah named him Gad (“good fortune”), exclaiming “What good fortune!” When Zilpah had her second son, Leah named him Asher (“happy”) saying, “How happy I am! The women will call me happy.” Leah had two more sons and a daughter of her own. She named Jacob’s ninth son Issachar (“reward”) saying, “God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband.” She named the next son Zebulun (“honor”) with the comment, “This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” She named her daughter Dinah (“justified”).
Finally, God heard Rachel’s prayer and opened her womb. She named her first son Joseph (“may he add”) saying, “May the Lord add to me another son.” Indeed, God added another son to her family, though it cost her own life. Rachel had a great difficulty in childbirth. As she was dying, she heard that it was a boy and she named him Ben-Oni (“son of my trouble”). However, Jacob, who loved Rachel to the end, did not want to call his twelfth son trouble and changed his name to Benjamin which means “son of my right hand.”
Jacob’s family numbered around 70 people when they migrated to Egypt to avoid a great famine, but after 430 years, they came out of the slavery in Egypt as a great nation. The twelve sons of Jacob had become 12 tribes and conquered the Promised Land to establish the name of Israel, just as God promised to Abraham.
Leah and Rachel picked their sons’ names to express their sorrow and agony as well as their joy and hope. Sometimes they were shouts of praise and sometimes they were cries for help. However, both women were mindful of God in naming their sons. The names were a reflection of their prayer to God. I think it is beautiful to see a mother (or a father for that matter) name her child with a prayer. I also think that Benjamin is a much better name than Ben-Oni.
References
Daniel, Jerlean E. and Jack L. Daniel, “Preschool Children’s Selection of Race-related Personal Names,” Journal of Black Studies, 1998, 28(4), 471-490.
Fryer, Roland and Steven Levitt, “The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively Black Names,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2004, 767-805.
Woodward, Richard, “Do Americans Desire Homogeneity? Evidence from Names from 1900-2000,” Economics Bulletin, 2005, 4(9), 1-6.
Friday, March 6, 2009
What’s in a Name? (3)
“And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him Bill or George! Anything but Sue! I still hate that name!” (from “A Boy Named Sue” by Shel Silverstein)
Do children with uncommon names tend to be disruptive in school? If you believe that a name is a mere artificial and meaningless convention, you would say no. But research has shown otherwise. In a recent paper David E. Kalist and I coauthored, (“First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?” ), we cite the research by David Figlio (2007) who found that boys who were given girls’ names were prone to be more disruptive in classrooms. In response to our research, many people reminded us that this was nothing new, as Shel Silverstein wrote about it years ago and Jonny Cash sang about it.
When my children were little, they really loved books written by Sheldon Alan "Shel" Silverstein (1930-1999), such as “A Light in the Attic,” “Where the Sidewalk Ends,” and “The Giving Tree.” I also enjoyed reading those books with my daughters. We liked his poems such as
I thought that I had wavy hair
Until I shaved. Instead,
I find that I have straight hair
And a very wavy head.
Only recently I learned that Silverstein wrote adult-themed books and poems. The song, “A Boy Named Sue,” is about a boy whose father left home when he was only three years old. The only things that his father left for his mom and him were his old guitar and an empty bottle of liquor. The boy blamed his dad for giving him a girl’s name (“the meanest thing that he ever did”). He was constantly teased by a lot of people for his name. Women would giggle when they heard his name and his face would get red. Guys would laugh and he would hit them back. His life was not easy. He had to grow up quickly.
Well, I grew up quick and I grew up mean,
My fist got hard and my wits got keen,
I'd roam from town to town to hide my shame.
But I made a vow to the moon and stars
That I'd search the honky-tonks and bars
And kill that man who gave me that awful name.
One summer day, he walked into an old saloon and saw his dad sitting there, whom he recognized from a worn-out photo that his mom had.
Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
From a worn-out picture that my mother'd had,
And I knew that scar on his cheek and his evil eye.
He was big and bent and gray and old,
And I looked at him and my blood ran cold
And I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
So a fight broke out between the two men. It was an intense struggle, involving a knife, busted chair, blood, and even guns. As they stared at each other with guns in their hands, the father explained to him why he had given the name. He knew that the world is a rough place and he would not be around to help his son. He told his son, “I knew you'd have to get tough or die. And it's the name that helped to make you strong." Now he knew that his son grew up a tough man. He said, “And I know you hate me, and you got the right. To kill me now, and I wouldn't blame you if you do. But you ought to thank me, before I die.” This explanation helps the son understand his father a little better. Here is the conclusion:
I got all choked up and I threw down my gun
And I called him my pa, and he called me his son,
And I came away with a different point of view.
And I think about him, now and then,
Every time I try and every time I win,
And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him
Bill or George! Anything but Sue! I still hate that name!
Now, before you nod your head on the good intention of this father, consider this follow-up lyric by Silverstein for a song called “Father of a Boy Named Sue.” In its introduction, Silverstein said: “Okay now years ago I wrote a song called A Boy Named Sue and that was okay. And everything except then I started to think about it and I thought It is unfair I am looking at the whole thing from the poor kid's point of view. And as I get more older and more fatherly I begin to look at things from an old man's point of view. So I decided to give the old man equal time. okay here we go.”
Yeah I lef' home when the kid was three and it
sure felt good to be fancy free Tho I knew it
wasn't quite the fatherly thing to do But that
kid kept screamin' and throwin' up and
pissin' in his pants til I had enough So just
for revenge I went and named him Sue Yeah it was
Gatlinberg in mid July I was gettin' drunk but
gettin' by Gettin' old and goin' from bad to worse
When thru the door with an awful scream comes the
ugliest queen I've ever seen He says my name is
Sue how do you do then he hits me with his purse
I don’t think this is a song that the boy named Sue would love to hear. But it makes us stop to think about how and why we parents name our children the way we do. In response to our research, some readers expressed their skepticism about our research results, pointing out that some people with unusual names do very well (e.g., Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey) while some men with common names become criminals (e.g., Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer). Of course, our study found a statistical correlation between first names and crime based on tens of thousands names; the results may or may not apply to a particular name. In addition, we concluded, “Unpopular names are likely not the cause of crime but correlated with factors that increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency, such as a disadvantaged home environment and residence in a county with low socioeconomic status.” Good parenting matters much more than giving a good name.
Bill Cosby, speaking about black culture at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, said, “With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail.” This sounds controversial. But I don’t think he meant that names caused some people to turn to crime. He added: “When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What’s the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up?” I couldn’t agree more.
Do children with uncommon names tend to be disruptive in school? If you believe that a name is a mere artificial and meaningless convention, you would say no. But research has shown otherwise. In a recent paper David E. Kalist and I coauthored, (“First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?” ), we cite the research by David Figlio (2007) who found that boys who were given girls’ names were prone to be more disruptive in classrooms. In response to our research, many people reminded us that this was nothing new, as Shel Silverstein wrote about it years ago and Jonny Cash sang about it.
When my children were little, they really loved books written by Sheldon Alan "Shel" Silverstein (1930-1999), such as “A Light in the Attic,” “Where the Sidewalk Ends,” and “The Giving Tree.” I also enjoyed reading those books with my daughters. We liked his poems such as
I thought that I had wavy hair
Until I shaved. Instead,
I find that I have straight hair
And a very wavy head.
Only recently I learned that Silverstein wrote adult-themed books and poems. The song, “A Boy Named Sue,” is about a boy whose father left home when he was only three years old. The only things that his father left for his mom and him were his old guitar and an empty bottle of liquor. The boy blamed his dad for giving him a girl’s name (“the meanest thing that he ever did”). He was constantly teased by a lot of people for his name. Women would giggle when they heard his name and his face would get red. Guys would laugh and he would hit them back. His life was not easy. He had to grow up quickly.
Well, I grew up quick and I grew up mean,
My fist got hard and my wits got keen,
I'd roam from town to town to hide my shame.
But I made a vow to the moon and stars
That I'd search the honky-tonks and bars
And kill that man who gave me that awful name.
One summer day, he walked into an old saloon and saw his dad sitting there, whom he recognized from a worn-out photo that his mom had.
Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
From a worn-out picture that my mother'd had,
And I knew that scar on his cheek and his evil eye.
He was big and bent and gray and old,
And I looked at him and my blood ran cold
And I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
So a fight broke out between the two men. It was an intense struggle, involving a knife, busted chair, blood, and even guns. As they stared at each other with guns in their hands, the father explained to him why he had given the name. He knew that the world is a rough place and he would not be around to help his son. He told his son, “I knew you'd have to get tough or die. And it's the name that helped to make you strong." Now he knew that his son grew up a tough man. He said, “And I know you hate me, and you got the right. To kill me now, and I wouldn't blame you if you do. But you ought to thank me, before I die.” This explanation helps the son understand his father a little better. Here is the conclusion:
I got all choked up and I threw down my gun
And I called him my pa, and he called me his son,
And I came away with a different point of view.
And I think about him, now and then,
Every time I try and every time I win,
And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him
Bill or George! Anything but Sue! I still hate that name!
Now, before you nod your head on the good intention of this father, consider this follow-up lyric by Silverstein for a song called “Father of a Boy Named Sue.” In its introduction, Silverstein said: “Okay now years ago I wrote a song called A Boy Named Sue and that was okay. And everything except then I started to think about it and I thought It is unfair I am looking at the whole thing from the poor kid's point of view. And as I get more older and more fatherly I begin to look at things from an old man's point of view. So I decided to give the old man equal time. okay here we go.”
Yeah I lef' home when the kid was three and it
sure felt good to be fancy free Tho I knew it
wasn't quite the fatherly thing to do But that
kid kept screamin' and throwin' up and
pissin' in his pants til I had enough So just
for revenge I went and named him Sue Yeah it was
Gatlinberg in mid July I was gettin' drunk but
gettin' by Gettin' old and goin' from bad to worse
When thru the door with an awful scream comes the
ugliest queen I've ever seen He says my name is
Sue how do you do then he hits me with his purse
I don’t think this is a song that the boy named Sue would love to hear. But it makes us stop to think about how and why we parents name our children the way we do. In response to our research, some readers expressed their skepticism about our research results, pointing out that some people with unusual names do very well (e.g., Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey) while some men with common names become criminals (e.g., Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer). Of course, our study found a statistical correlation between first names and crime based on tens of thousands names; the results may or may not apply to a particular name. In addition, we concluded, “Unpopular names are likely not the cause of crime but correlated with factors that increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency, such as a disadvantaged home environment and residence in a county with low socioeconomic status.” Good parenting matters much more than giving a good name.
Bill Cosby, speaking about black culture at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, said, “With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail.” This sounds controversial. But I don’t think he meant that names caused some people to turn to crime. He added: “When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What’s the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up?” I couldn’t agree more.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
What's in a Name? (2)
“May my lord pay no attention to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name--his name is Fool, and folly goes with him” (1 Samuel 25:25a).
Do people live up to their names? If true, a Denzel would become a “wild one” and a George would become a “farmer.” This sounds implausible. However, researchers have found a statistical correlation between names and behavior. For example, one research showed that boys with names commonly given to girls (e.g., “a boy named Sue”) were more likely suspended from school for disruptive behavior. One explanation is that children with unusual names tend to grow up with a negative impression of themselves along with the constant teasing from other children. In a paper David E. Kalist and I coauthored ( “First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?”), we state, “… juveniles with unpopular names may be more prone to crime because they are treated differently by their peers, making it more difficult for them to form relationships. Juveniles with unpopular names may also act out because they have a conscious or unconscious dislike for their name.”
A case in point is found in the Bible. Consider the story of David, Nabal and Abigail in 1 Samuel 25. David had many wives including his first wife named Michal (a daughter of King Saul), but Abigail was his most intelligent and beautiful wife. Abigail was first married to a man named Nabal, a Calebite, who lived in the Desert of Mahon. Nabal was a wealthy man with thousands of sheep and goats. But he was a surly and mean man. He was shearing his sheep in Carmel when David sent to him a messenger asking for food and drink in return for the protection of his shepherds and sheep against pillage. At this time, David was fleeing from Saul who tried to kill him out of his jealousy towards David (his jealousy had started after some women praised David more than him). David needed Nabal’s help for his 600 hungry and thirsty men. But Nabal spurned his offer, saying, “Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?” (1Sa 25:10-11). Nabal insulted David and did not appreciate the protective service that David’s men were providing for his flocks. David was about to punish Nabal for paying him back evil for good.
Enter Abigail. When one of the servants reported the situation to Nabal’s wife, Abigail, she lost no time. She immediately sent enough food and drinks to feed the 600 men to David. Then she made a trip to see David. Bowing down before the political fugitive with her face to the ground, Abigail personally apologized for her husband’s selfish, ungrateful and foolish behavior. She said to David, "My lord, let the blame be on me alone. Please let your servant speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. May my lord pay no attention to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name--his name is Fool, and folly goes with him. But as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my master sent” (1Sa 25:24-25). She also acknowledged God’s purpose for David. She pleaded with David not to “have on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself” (1Sa 25:31). David accepted her wise counsel and sent her home in peace.
Meanwhile, Nabal was holding a banquet like that of a king at his house. Abigail decided not to say anything to him that night because he was too drunk. In the morning when he was sober, she told him what had happened. Upon hearing about it, Nabal had a heart attack and died ten days later. Afterwards, David asked Abigail to be his wife, and she became the mother of Daniel, one of David's many sons.
Moral of the story? We should respect God’s servants and provide help to those who are in need. Also, do not give your child a bad name such as Nabal lest he lives up to his name. I don’t know what the New Jersey couple was thinking when they named their son “Adolph Hitler.” Not a wise decision, if you ask me. By the way, Abigail means “source of joy.”
Do people live up to their names? If true, a Denzel would become a “wild one” and a George would become a “farmer.” This sounds implausible. However, researchers have found a statistical correlation between names and behavior. For example, one research showed that boys with names commonly given to girls (e.g., “a boy named Sue”) were more likely suspended from school for disruptive behavior. One explanation is that children with unusual names tend to grow up with a negative impression of themselves along with the constant teasing from other children. In a paper David E. Kalist and I coauthored ( “First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?”), we state, “… juveniles with unpopular names may be more prone to crime because they are treated differently by their peers, making it more difficult for them to form relationships. Juveniles with unpopular names may also act out because they have a conscious or unconscious dislike for their name.”
A case in point is found in the Bible. Consider the story of David, Nabal and Abigail in 1 Samuel 25. David had many wives including his first wife named Michal (a daughter of King Saul), but Abigail was his most intelligent and beautiful wife. Abigail was first married to a man named Nabal, a Calebite, who lived in the Desert of Mahon. Nabal was a wealthy man with thousands of sheep and goats. But he was a surly and mean man. He was shearing his sheep in Carmel when David sent to him a messenger asking for food and drink in return for the protection of his shepherds and sheep against pillage. At this time, David was fleeing from Saul who tried to kill him out of his jealousy towards David (his jealousy had started after some women praised David more than him). David needed Nabal’s help for his 600 hungry and thirsty men. But Nabal spurned his offer, saying, “Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?” (1Sa 25:10-11). Nabal insulted David and did not appreciate the protective service that David’s men were providing for his flocks. David was about to punish Nabal for paying him back evil for good.
Enter Abigail. When one of the servants reported the situation to Nabal’s wife, Abigail, she lost no time. She immediately sent enough food and drinks to feed the 600 men to David. Then she made a trip to see David. Bowing down before the political fugitive with her face to the ground, Abigail personally apologized for her husband’s selfish, ungrateful and foolish behavior. She said to David, "My lord, let the blame be on me alone. Please let your servant speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. May my lord pay no attention to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name--his name is Fool, and folly goes with him. But as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my master sent” (1Sa 25:24-25). She also acknowledged God’s purpose for David. She pleaded with David not to “have on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself” (1Sa 25:31). David accepted her wise counsel and sent her home in peace.
Meanwhile, Nabal was holding a banquet like that of a king at his house. Abigail decided not to say anything to him that night because he was too drunk. In the morning when he was sober, she told him what had happened. Upon hearing about it, Nabal had a heart attack and died ten days later. Afterwards, David asked Abigail to be his wife, and she became the mother of Daniel, one of David's many sons.
Moral of the story? We should respect God’s servants and provide help to those who are in need. Also, do not give your child a bad name such as Nabal lest he lives up to his name. I don’t know what the New Jersey couple was thinking when they named their son “Adolph Hitler.” Not a wise decision, if you ask me. By the way, Abigail means “source of joy.”
What's in a Name? (1)
“No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.” (Genesis 17:5)
Recently, David E. Kalist, a colleague of mine, and I coauthored a research paper entitled, “First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?” which was published in the March 2009 issue of Social Science Quarterly . We were surprised to receive much attention from various media outlets including Time , Fox News , USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Daily Telegraph (London), and others, not to mention numerous blogs. We also received many phone calls and e-mail messages concerning the research from readers, giving us feedback on the topic. One school teacher wrote to us to say that our findings confirmed his belief about the connection between names and children’s behavior based on his experience in school over the years. Not all comments were positive. One person questioned why we spent the time for a research topic like this when the country is going through a serious economic crisis.
Many people consider economics as a field that focuses on macroeconomic topics such as GDP, inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and so on. Some even think it is about money. Economists take on a much broader view. We usually define economics as a science that studies the choices made by people, firms and governments. Whenever and wherever choices are made, we want to apply economic principles to see how good choices can be made. So topics such as getting married or divorced, having children, committing crime, and the like, have been researched by economists as they involve choices. Choosing names is one of the first things parents do for their children when they are born. Selecting a popular name or uncommon name might have an impact for the child’s life.
What’s in a name? This is the question that Shakespeare asked in his famous play, Romeo and Juliet (c. 1591). Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet meet at a masked ball and fall in love. They want to get married but the two families are feuding with each other and won’t allow them to. In the balcony scene (Act 2, Scene 2), the frustrated Juliet says to Romeo,
“O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.”
When Romeo says, “Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?” Juliet continues,
“'Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face. O, be some other name
Belonging to a man.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for thy name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.”
Using the mouth of Juliet, Shakespeare implied that a person’s name is nothing but an artificial and meaningless designation. But is this true? Would a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?
I have always been interested in names of people. As a student of the Bible, I learned that the name of a person represents his or her character, personality and identity. There are several name changes recorded in the Bible. God changed Abram, meaning “exalted father,” to Abraham, meaning “father of many nations.” God said to Abram, “No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5). After Noah’s Flood, God began his long-term redemptive plan to save the mankind from their sin. The plan would culminate when his own Son Jesus comes to die on the cross as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). For this purpose, he called a 75-year old man, Abram, to begin a new life of faith. Jesus would be born from the line of Abram. God told Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Genesis 12:1-3). Abram accepted God’s purpose for his life and embarked on a new journey. He left his home town (Ur of the Chaldeans located in today’s Persian Gulf) and traveled northward, even though he still did not know where he was going. Finally, he arrived in Beersheba (located in today’s Israel) and learned that it was to be the land that God would give to him and his descendants.
Abram’s life of faith, however, was not without ups and downs. When he faced a financial crisis, he went to Egypt and tried to survive with a deceptive scheme. He was also drawn to regional conflicts because of his nephew. One thing that constantly bothered him was that he had no children of his own and his wife was past the child-bearing age. How could he become “a great nation” when he didn’t even have a son? He complained to God that one of his servants would inherit his estate because God had not given him a son. God took him out of his tent and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them. So shall your offspring be” (Genesis 15:5). Still nothing happened. So Abram decided to have a son by getting a new wife. The result was that he did have a son (Ishmael) with an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar. For thirteen years, the Bible is silent about Abram’s life. We can only guess that he enjoyed his son Ishmael, forgetting about God’s great promise to make him a source of blessing to all peoples on earth. Finally, God appeared to him to remind him of the great promise. When Abram fell facedown, God said to him, “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:4-5). So the name change was not a reflection of who Abraham was at that point of his life, but who he could become if he followed God faithfully. It was a reflection of God’s hope and promise for Abraham. Abram wanted to be an exalted father, a family man, who cared only about his own well-being and happiness. But God wanted him to be Abraham, father of many nations, whom God could use to save all mankind.
God also changed the name of Abraham’s wife from Sarai (“princess”) to Sarah that has a similar meaning but with the promise: “I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her” (Genesis 17:16). Later, God changed Abraham’s grandson’s name from Jacob (meaning “cheater”) to Israel (“he struggles with God”) in the hope that he would become a spiritual man (Genesis 32:28). Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter which means “rock” after Peter confessed Jesus to be his Christ, that is, his personal Savior. Peter was still an impulsive man, but Jesus had a hope and vision for him to become a solid man of faith. Jesus said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matthew 16:18).
From these name changes in the Bible, we learn that a person’s name is not a meaningless designation. Our name is a constant reminder of who we are. We hear our name called by others everyday during our life time. In their popular book, Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner tell the story of a New York City man who named two of his sons Winner and Loser. Winner Lane grew up to be a criminal while his younger brother, Loser Lane, went to a good college and became a sergeant in the NYPD. This story seems to confirm that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, until you read the part that Loser Lane was rarely called Loser. He was called “from Jimmy to James… To his police colleagues, he is known as Lou.” If a name doesn’t matter, why use all these alternative names?
Personally, I believe that names do make a difference. My first name, Daniel, is not what my parents gave me; I took on the name when I became a Christian. (I was given a chance to change my name when I became a naturalized citizen of this country.) The prophet Daniel was a man of vision and prayer when his people were exiled to a foreign land. He kept his spiritual identity and prayed regularly despite the enormous pressure on his life of faith as a prisoner of war. I have a long way to go to become a man of faith like the prophet. But I want to continue to struggle to learn to be a man of vision and prayer. So, call me Daniel, not Dan, a name that is associated with idol worship if you know Israel’s history.
Recently, David E. Kalist, a colleague of mine, and I coauthored a research paper entitled, “First Names and Crime: Does Unpopularity Spell Trouble?” which was published in the March 2009 issue of Social Science Quarterly . We were surprised to receive much attention from various media outlets including Time , Fox News , USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Daily Telegraph (London), and others, not to mention numerous blogs. We also received many phone calls and e-mail messages concerning the research from readers, giving us feedback on the topic. One school teacher wrote to us to say that our findings confirmed his belief about the connection between names and children’s behavior based on his experience in school over the years. Not all comments were positive. One person questioned why we spent the time for a research topic like this when the country is going through a serious economic crisis.
Many people consider economics as a field that focuses on macroeconomic topics such as GDP, inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and so on. Some even think it is about money. Economists take on a much broader view. We usually define economics as a science that studies the choices made by people, firms and governments. Whenever and wherever choices are made, we want to apply economic principles to see how good choices can be made. So topics such as getting married or divorced, having children, committing crime, and the like, have been researched by economists as they involve choices. Choosing names is one of the first things parents do for their children when they are born. Selecting a popular name or uncommon name might have an impact for the child’s life.
What’s in a name? This is the question that Shakespeare asked in his famous play, Romeo and Juliet (c. 1591). Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet meet at a masked ball and fall in love. They want to get married but the two families are feuding with each other and won’t allow them to. In the balcony scene (Act 2, Scene 2), the frustrated Juliet says to Romeo,
“O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.”
When Romeo says, “Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?” Juliet continues,
“'Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face. O, be some other name
Belonging to a man.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for thy name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.”
Using the mouth of Juliet, Shakespeare implied that a person’s name is nothing but an artificial and meaningless designation. But is this true? Would a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?
I have always been interested in names of people. As a student of the Bible, I learned that the name of a person represents his or her character, personality and identity. There are several name changes recorded in the Bible. God changed Abram, meaning “exalted father,” to Abraham, meaning “father of many nations.” God said to Abram, “No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5). After Noah’s Flood, God began his long-term redemptive plan to save the mankind from their sin. The plan would culminate when his own Son Jesus comes to die on the cross as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). For this purpose, he called a 75-year old man, Abram, to begin a new life of faith. Jesus would be born from the line of Abram. God told Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Genesis 12:1-3). Abram accepted God’s purpose for his life and embarked on a new journey. He left his home town (Ur of the Chaldeans located in today’s Persian Gulf) and traveled northward, even though he still did not know where he was going. Finally, he arrived in Beersheba (located in today’s Israel) and learned that it was to be the land that God would give to him and his descendants.
Abram’s life of faith, however, was not without ups and downs. When he faced a financial crisis, he went to Egypt and tried to survive with a deceptive scheme. He was also drawn to regional conflicts because of his nephew. One thing that constantly bothered him was that he had no children of his own and his wife was past the child-bearing age. How could he become “a great nation” when he didn’t even have a son? He complained to God that one of his servants would inherit his estate because God had not given him a son. God took him out of his tent and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them. So shall your offspring be” (Genesis 15:5). Still nothing happened. So Abram decided to have a son by getting a new wife. The result was that he did have a son (Ishmael) with an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar. For thirteen years, the Bible is silent about Abram’s life. We can only guess that he enjoyed his son Ishmael, forgetting about God’s great promise to make him a source of blessing to all peoples on earth. Finally, God appeared to him to remind him of the great promise. When Abram fell facedown, God said to him, “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:4-5). So the name change was not a reflection of who Abraham was at that point of his life, but who he could become if he followed God faithfully. It was a reflection of God’s hope and promise for Abraham. Abram wanted to be an exalted father, a family man, who cared only about his own well-being and happiness. But God wanted him to be Abraham, father of many nations, whom God could use to save all mankind.
God also changed the name of Abraham’s wife from Sarai (“princess”) to Sarah that has a similar meaning but with the promise: “I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her” (Genesis 17:16). Later, God changed Abraham’s grandson’s name from Jacob (meaning “cheater”) to Israel (“he struggles with God”) in the hope that he would become a spiritual man (Genesis 32:28). Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter which means “rock” after Peter confessed Jesus to be his Christ, that is, his personal Savior. Peter was still an impulsive man, but Jesus had a hope and vision for him to become a solid man of faith. Jesus said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matthew 16:18).
From these name changes in the Bible, we learn that a person’s name is not a meaningless designation. Our name is a constant reminder of who we are. We hear our name called by others everyday during our life time. In their popular book, Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner tell the story of a New York City man who named two of his sons Winner and Loser. Winner Lane grew up to be a criminal while his younger brother, Loser Lane, went to a good college and became a sergeant in the NYPD. This story seems to confirm that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, until you read the part that Loser Lane was rarely called Loser. He was called “from Jimmy to James… To his police colleagues, he is known as Lou.” If a name doesn’t matter, why use all these alternative names?
Personally, I believe that names do make a difference. My first name, Daniel, is not what my parents gave me; I took on the name when I became a Christian. (I was given a chance to change my name when I became a naturalized citizen of this country.) The prophet Daniel was a man of vision and prayer when his people were exiled to a foreign land. He kept his spiritual identity and prayed regularly despite the enormous pressure on his life of faith as a prisoner of war. I have a long way to go to become a man of faith like the prophet. But I want to continue to struggle to learn to be a man of vision and prayer. So, call me Daniel, not Dan, a name that is associated with idol worship if you know Israel’s history.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Give to Caesar What is Caesar's
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21b)
Most of us don’t like to pay taxes. We learned that, Timothy Geithner, the new Treasury Secretary of the Obama administration had failed to pay his $34,000 taxes. I think this is problematic, given that he is the boss of the Internal Revenue Service. Two other nominees, Tom Daschle (for secretary of health and human services) and Nancy Killefer (for a top budget post), had to withdraw their nominations over their unpaid tax matters.
Historically, taxation is a very touchy issue. For example, the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a result of the British government’s attempt to collect taxes on tea which was very popular (and expensive) at that time. The Bostonians led by Samuel Adams boarded the three British ships and dumped about $2 million worth of tea into the harbor. It was their direct rebellion against King George of Britain. Historians believe that this event was a precursor of the American Revolution.
The Jews in Jesus’ time hated paying taxes to Rome and understandably so. The Empire collected the money from the Jews to maintain its military force which was then used to oppress them. The money was also used to finance the opulent lifestyle of the Roman citizens who enjoyed fun and games. No wonder they hated the taxes and considered the local tax collectors as traitors.
One day, some religious leaders came to Jesus to ask a question in order to trap him in his words. They asked him, “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Why was this question a trap? If Jesus said that they should pay taxes to Caesar, they would call him a traitor. On the other hand, if Jesus said no, they would hand him over to the Roman Governor with the charge of rebellion against the Empire. They thought they had Jesus in a perfect trap this time. They were so sure that they began the conversation by flattering Jesus with a smug on their face.
What did Jesus say to them? But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Mt 22:18-21)
Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Jesus did not say that it was okay for them not to pay taxes to the Roman government. On the contrary, he taught them that they had to fulfill their basic duties to state and to God.
We Christians have duel citizenships. We are citizens of the kingdom of God. We are also citizens of a nation in this world. We have basic duties toward our nation such as paying taxes and obeying the laws. St. Paul teaches us in Romans 13:6-7: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” We should not ignore these obligations to the state as long as they do not infringe on our obligations to God. Then we can be a good influence to others.
More importantly, Jesus says we must give to God what is God’s. Private property rights are at the heart of capitalism. So we tend to take for granted that whatever we have in this world is ours. But we learn from the Bible that God is the true owner of everything (Dt 10:14), because he is the Creator God. All the mountains and hills are God’s. All the oceans and rivers are God’s. Our life is a gift from God. Our life is not ours. Our children are not ours. We’ve been appointed as the stewards of God’s creation. We should not be like the evil tenants in the parable of the tenants (Mk 12:1-12). We should give to God what we have when he says to us, “the Lord needs it” (Lk 19:31).
What does it mean to give to God what is God’s? We must bring our offerings to God as an expression of our thanksgiving to him who provides us with everything we need (Dt 12:11). The Bible says that we rob God when we fail to bring our tithes and offerings to him (Mal 3:8-9). But no matter how much material things we bring to God, they would not mean anything to God unless we offer our hearts with them. We can give our love to him. Deuteronomy 6:5 says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” We can give our hearts to God.
How can we overcome our selfish nature and greed so that we can give to God and give to others? First, we must know what God has given us. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” We can say that Christianity begins with the word “give.” God gave his one and only Son to be our Savior. Jesus’ life in this world was literally a life of giving. Mark 10:45 says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Finally, Jesus gave his life on the cross to forgive our sins. The apostle Paul grasped the meaning of giving and quoted the words of Jesus in Acts 20:35: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Most of us don’t like to pay taxes. We learned that, Timothy Geithner, the new Treasury Secretary of the Obama administration had failed to pay his $34,000 taxes. I think this is problematic, given that he is the boss of the Internal Revenue Service. Two other nominees, Tom Daschle (for secretary of health and human services) and Nancy Killefer (for a top budget post), had to withdraw their nominations over their unpaid tax matters.
Historically, taxation is a very touchy issue. For example, the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a result of the British government’s attempt to collect taxes on tea which was very popular (and expensive) at that time. The Bostonians led by Samuel Adams boarded the three British ships and dumped about $2 million worth of tea into the harbor. It was their direct rebellion against King George of Britain. Historians believe that this event was a precursor of the American Revolution.
The Jews in Jesus’ time hated paying taxes to Rome and understandably so. The Empire collected the money from the Jews to maintain its military force which was then used to oppress them. The money was also used to finance the opulent lifestyle of the Roman citizens who enjoyed fun and games. No wonder they hated the taxes and considered the local tax collectors as traitors.
One day, some religious leaders came to Jesus to ask a question in order to trap him in his words. They asked him, “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Why was this question a trap? If Jesus said that they should pay taxes to Caesar, they would call him a traitor. On the other hand, if Jesus said no, they would hand him over to the Roman Governor with the charge of rebellion against the Empire. They thought they had Jesus in a perfect trap this time. They were so sure that they began the conversation by flattering Jesus with a smug on their face.
What did Jesus say to them? But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Mt 22:18-21)
Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Jesus did not say that it was okay for them not to pay taxes to the Roman government. On the contrary, he taught them that they had to fulfill their basic duties to state and to God.
We Christians have duel citizenships. We are citizens of the kingdom of God. We are also citizens of a nation in this world. We have basic duties toward our nation such as paying taxes and obeying the laws. St. Paul teaches us in Romans 13:6-7: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” We should not ignore these obligations to the state as long as they do not infringe on our obligations to God. Then we can be a good influence to others.
More importantly, Jesus says we must give to God what is God’s. Private property rights are at the heart of capitalism. So we tend to take for granted that whatever we have in this world is ours. But we learn from the Bible that God is the true owner of everything (Dt 10:14), because he is the Creator God. All the mountains and hills are God’s. All the oceans and rivers are God’s. Our life is a gift from God. Our life is not ours. Our children are not ours. We’ve been appointed as the stewards of God’s creation. We should not be like the evil tenants in the parable of the tenants (Mk 12:1-12). We should give to God what we have when he says to us, “the Lord needs it” (Lk 19:31).
What does it mean to give to God what is God’s? We must bring our offerings to God as an expression of our thanksgiving to him who provides us with everything we need (Dt 12:11). The Bible says that we rob God when we fail to bring our tithes and offerings to him (Mal 3:8-9). But no matter how much material things we bring to God, they would not mean anything to God unless we offer our hearts with them. We can give our love to him. Deuteronomy 6:5 says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” We can give our hearts to God.
How can we overcome our selfish nature and greed so that we can give to God and give to others? First, we must know what God has given us. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” We can say that Christianity begins with the word “give.” God gave his one and only Son to be our Savior. Jesus’ life in this world was literally a life of giving. Mark 10:45 says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Finally, Jesus gave his life on the cross to forgive our sins. The apostle Paul grasped the meaning of giving and quoted the words of Jesus in Acts 20:35: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Economic Principles versus Spiritual Principles
Economic principles help to explain and predict people’s decision making process. The law of diminishing marginal utility, for example, states that the extra utility (or satisfaction) obtained from an extra unit of a good (or service) declines as we consumer more of it. When you are hungry, the first hamburger you eat gives you a lot of satisfaction; the second hamburger may still taste good but not as good as the first; the third hamburger gives you even smaller extra satisfaction, and so on. This principle explains the classic “water-diamond” paradox. Why is water (which is essential for survival) cheaper than diamond (a luxury item)? The answer: water is so plentiful that an extra glass of water gives us only small extra satisfaction, while an extra carat of diamond adds a great deal more satisfaction. Since we are willing to pay more for an item that gives us higher marginal satisfaction, diamond is more expensive than water. Price reflects marginal utility.
Most of items we consume follow the law of diminishing marginal utility. It is not easy to find many exceptions to this principle. Occasionally, my students would say, “But there is no diminishing utility for money. The more money we have, the more satisfaction we get.” This sounds right, but actually the statement is incorrect as it is a result of misunderstanding the law. The law says that the “marginal” utility of an item declines as we consume more of it. Total satisfaction may still be increasing (albeit at a decreasing rate) while marginal satisfaction declines.
Would this law be applicable in the spiritual world as well? I believe that it may not be the case. For one thing, I find that the more I study the word of God, the more understanding I have about God and his infinite love, and the more satisfaction I have in my heart. There seems to be no diminishing marginal utility for consuming the spiritual food! Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” “Consider carefully what you hear,” he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him" (Mark 4:23-25).
Things in heaven will not be the same as things in this world. Who wants to live eternally in heaven if it is just an extension of this cursed world? Both the original paradise described in Genesis 2 and the Prophet Isaiah’s description of the coming kingdom of God (Isaiah 11:6-9), not to mention the book of Revelation, tell us that it will be a different place. Many of the economic principles we learn in this world will be useless there. We will have to learn God’s economics. The economics of God may include principles such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).
Most of items we consume follow the law of diminishing marginal utility. It is not easy to find many exceptions to this principle. Occasionally, my students would say, “But there is no diminishing utility for money. The more money we have, the more satisfaction we get.” This sounds right, but actually the statement is incorrect as it is a result of misunderstanding the law. The law says that the “marginal” utility of an item declines as we consume more of it. Total satisfaction may still be increasing (albeit at a decreasing rate) while marginal satisfaction declines.
Would this law be applicable in the spiritual world as well? I believe that it may not be the case. For one thing, I find that the more I study the word of God, the more understanding I have about God and his infinite love, and the more satisfaction I have in my heart. There seems to be no diminishing marginal utility for consuming the spiritual food! Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” “Consider carefully what you hear,” he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him" (Mark 4:23-25).
Things in heaven will not be the same as things in this world. Who wants to live eternally in heaven if it is just an extension of this cursed world? Both the original paradise described in Genesis 2 and the Prophet Isaiah’s description of the coming kingdom of God (Isaiah 11:6-9), not to mention the book of Revelation, tell us that it will be a different place. Many of the economic principles we learn in this world will be useless there. We will have to learn God’s economics. The economics of God may include principles such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
