A Reminder of Consistency

This morning, I my phone told me to read 1 Samuel 12:1-25.  On Saturday, it ruined the Lochte-Phelps 400 IM race, so it knew I was angry with it.  I think it redeemed itself.  I get impression that folks look at Genesis and Leviticus and see discrepancy in the nature of God between the Old and New Testaments.  My personal opinion is that any sort of legal document is going to be a complicated view of a people.  That's really what Leviticus is, after all. 

The Law was written to show us that God is Holy and we are not.  The rest of the Bible is written, basically, to tell us that the Law is not to be our God.  1 Samuel 12:20-22 illustrates this:

 “Do not be afraid,” Samuel replied. “You have done all this evil; yet do not turn away from the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. ²¹ Do not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they rescue you, because they are useless. ²² For the sake of his great name the Lord will not reject his people, because the Lord was pleased to make you his own."

Even at this point in God's story, He is telling a story of forgiveness.  ("All this evil" follows a catalogue of the history of defying God from the Exodus forward, culminating in the request for a king.)  Two other places in the Old Testament, in the Minor Prophets (they are minor because they are short and responding to a specific problem, not like the Mediocre Presidents from the Simpsons' musical) we get a little more on the theme:  

 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly^[a] with your God. 

Micah 6:8

and 

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:6

The Hosea verse was even quoted by Jesus at the conclusion of Matthew 9:9-13, a story criticizing the aloofness and exclusion practiced by the Pharisees.  Most importantly, it's a reminder that a relationship with God is accessible; there is no sin that puts us so far out of God's reach that we are lost.  This is the message that starts in the Garden and continues through the Resurrection.  We get to be a part of that story, no matter what our history.  So, thanks phone, for that reminder.

Headlines are fun sometimes

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney spoke to the NAACP.  (He's running for president, by the way.)  I read a few articles about the event because this time of year is slow for news.  I don't mean to minimize the relevance of the NAACP, but I have read this story before.  Well, that's not entirely true; I have never read one where the sitting President of the United States was a member of the class for which the NAACP was founded to help.

Now, when I read this headline on Townhall.com, I was surprised: Romney Receives Standing Ovation for Straight Talk at NAACP Convention.  Townhall is, admittedly a conservative website trying to spin a conservative angle.  Now, compare to a Slate.com headline: Romney Booed at NAACP Appearance for Promising Obamacare Repeal and Huffpo.com: Mitt Romney Booed At NAACP Convention For Saying He'd Repeal Obamacare.  Neither of those sites are particularly sympathetic to Romney.

The contents of each piece are a bit different, too, with Townhall going into the most detail and making it sound like he's going to peel away a third of black voters, even though polling suggests he has 6 percent of support among that group (according to the Slate article).

This is an interesting case, because Slate and Huffpo are really "Dog Bites Man" stories, so they're not really that newsy in the first place.  Townhall comes off as that weird place where emphasizing facts in a particular way comes off as bias -- kind of like moving what should be an A6 story to the front page.  Townhall was the only one to mention standing ovation at the end (and buried it, so it was probably a zealous editor writing that headline) and Huffpo did mention the politeness of the crowd.  The Slate story only talks about the boos surrounding Obamacare.

Each outlet did publish other stories, but these were the first to come up after the event, the sort of first impressions.  I found it quite interesting that each chased the angle they wanted in the first run by the editorial staffs.

What does this mean?  I think that the headline, the newsy part is that Romney spoke before the NAACP, because that is not always something Republicans do.  The fact that he would be facing a hostile crowd is not hard-hitting journalism and trying to paint as rosy a picture as Townhall does is really nothing short of spinning for your guy.  Both really strike me as sorts of hackery.

I think that if you read all three, you can come away with a reasonable picture of the story -- the NAACP was a polite but partisan crowd hearing a speech from a presidential candidate maybe 2% of the attendees would vote for.  And quite frankly, the more interesting story coming out of the NAACP Convention is that Obama did not speak at the convention this week, the summer before his re-election to president when he needs to have the NAACP's constituency as energized as possible to win.  (Here is a Townhall.com link about it and a Huffpo.com link about it -- oddly enough, I could not find a Slate.com one telling that same story.)

I guess the moral of the story is to take your news with some skepticism, even for benign, trivial stories, and seek out sources from different perspectives.  The aggregate of these small stories matter in shaping the political and social narrative by reinforcing expectations (Huffpo and Slate) or really making the outlook seem rosier than it might actually be for Romney (Townhall).

Goo goo gachoo Mr Roberts

I, like everyone else, was surprised by the outcome of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act.  I did kind of anticipate that it would be struck down, like most of the smart money seemed to as well.  My personal impressions of the law are not especially positive, because, like the Obama Administration's characterization of the Constitutionality mechanism, is a bit of a bait and switch. 

As I hear about Roberts' explanation about defending ACA as a tax, I am pretty ok with his reasoning.  The powers granted to Congress for taxing are pretty broad and behavior changing taxes (particularly tariffs) have a long history; just because I think Congress can pass a tax, though, does not mean I think it's a good idea.  It is not called a tax in the body of the legislation, which to me is immaterial; if they called a future tax whiskey, it would not actually be whiskey and should not get special considerations simply because it is not actually called a tax.

The ACA does not really seem to be a health care reform, it's more of a health insurance reform.  It is kind of weird that the discussion always seems to center on the fact that the problem with our medical care is insufficient insurance (which, typically, isn't insurance at all; it's usually a payment plan for medical services) rather than addressing alternative means of access.  What I mean is that when I go into the doctor for anything from antibiotics for strep throat or a broken arm, I have no idea what it is going to cost nor what it should cost.  (Bear in mind, my wife is also a doctor.)  Why has there been no mention of a move towards transparency in costs?  By adding more people to insurance, that only gets more muddled, because somebody else is paying for a large share of it.  If we knew how much it cost, really, to examine, x-ray, set and follow up on a broken arm, then we could evaluate whether or not something like a 401k model for health expenses would be better, or what it would take to put that kind of control in our hands rather than some corporate accountant.

It also seems weird how excited Democrats are for that control to be given to insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.  On Meet the Press, Nancy Pelosi, of course, said the opposite, also while denying it was a tax (even though she conceded that it was clearly granted under the taxing power and would be collected by the IRS).  That's kind of a joke.  I don't have any particular aversion to corporations playing a role in our society, but it is really intimidating to think that I  don't have any idea what to expect to pay for anything.  I am going to get my wisdom teeth taken out and I could owe anywhere from $0 to a few thousand, and until they tel me, I won't have any idea how to plan for that.

I was quite glad to see that the majority did say that this is clearly outside the scope of either the commerce or necessary and proper clauses.  I am no attorney, but that seemed ludicrous on its face.  While it really does nothing to say that Congress could not just frame whatever they wanted to do in terms of a behavior influencing tax, that is much harder politically to implement -- hence this very discussion. 

Normally, taxes like this are presented as credits rather than penalties (like home interest deduction or incentives for buying energy efficient windows -- I lose money that would otherwise be on the table for not buying those products), but that distinction is pretty insignificant.  Any vote against a tax cut is an effective tax increase, and I think that should work in reverse, as well. 

I also do not really get how such a body really does fall down partisan lines every time.  Why is there that much latitude, really?  The Constitution is not Ulysses.  It is largely written in pretty plain language and that there can be such violent disagreement entirely rooted in a partisan manifestation is weird.  People have disagreements about interpretations of automotive specifications sometimes, but it is not like there is a pro-four door/anti-four door delineation of reading them.  It does make the court seem petty, and I tend to sympathize with the conservative wing on issues like this because the spirit of the document was to limit the powers of the Federal Government, and reading into it otherwise seems like using the Bible to justify child pornography. 

I beg to differ

I know that language is evolutionary and usage tends to trump history.  That discourages me for the future, given the pervasiveness of stupid shortening of words induced by email and texting and what not (a friend of mine told me he was "totes jel" over the weekend [totally jealous, I think]; while he was being tongue in cheek, the fact that that is a joke to be made makes me feel like a cranky old man yelling for you to stay off my lawn).  The one that seems to get me at a disproportionately high level compared to everyone else I know is begging the question.

It does not, traditionally, mean the same thing as raising the question.  It is a logical fallacy where an unstated question of dubious validity is assumed to be true as part of the initial premise.  For example, to say that Justin Bieber is better than John Lee Hooker because he has sold more records begs the question that selling records is a valid measure of musical goodness.  And yes, I said records.

One that came up while listening to the Slate Political Gabfest (motto: 50 minutes of pretension every week!) was about "fixing" the constitution in response to a Texas Law Professor's blog at the New York Times.  The basic assertion is that our government isn't very effective and the Constitution of a big part of why, so let's fix the Constitution so that the government can solve our problems; insisting that making ours more like a Parliamentary system would be preferable.

Now, this begs the question that effective government is a positive outcome.  The solutions that we have gotten (especially recently) are not really evidence in favor of this.  The complaint that the Constitution is difficult to amend is regarded as a weakness, and I think it is a strength, particularly given the animosity we see right now.  This is essentially saying, "Because you disagree with the actions I want to take and the rules let you, we need to fix the rules because I'm smarter than you."  It is ironic, too, that we call the people who believe this "liberals" these days.

Political moments like these are precisely the reason that the Constitution should be hard to amend.  What would the fixes look like?  If it's hard to pass as legislation, why should we want that to be institutionalized more permanently?  Remember prohibition?  It was stupid. 

A lot of the discussion centers on the Senate, which is unrepresentative, by design.  This is the only body I think that does need to be reformed.  My fix: repeal the 17th Amendment.  The direct election of senators has supplanted its whole purpose, which, of course, was to make legislation harder to pass.  Everything that government does takes rights or powers away from somebody else.  The Senate was supposed to serve as a backstop for the State Governments against the Federal Government, and now it doesn't.  Now it's just a weird distortion of the House of Representatives, but with a bigger district.  Also, the House districts are too big.  The initial district size was 1 representative for every 30,000 people.  At current population, there would be 10,000 representatives.  Granted, that seems impractical, but at 435, that's way too small.

The biggest thing that irks me, though, is that those who want to strengthen government are driving the discussion so much better than those who are skeptical.  The fact that publications can ask, "How do we 'fix' the Constitution" when it is function as intended without being utterly laughable is confounding.  That we are discussing the fact that government might not be a never-ending source of benefits is, too. 

The position asserted by Slate and Levinson requires a fundamental and dramatic reorganization of what "America" means and I'm just not sure that there's compelling evidence that's necessary, or even preferable if it were.  In that same podcast, Emily Bazelon in particular has claimed that both parties are getting more extreme, but especially the Republicans.  I don't think I can keep your attention any longer and argue with that, but I'll just say that that assertion, like the larger one about the Constitution earlier, requires using a target for the "center" as moving much faster than the public at large has and try to come back to that in a future post.

So, when we are becoming more divided, legislation is getting harder to pass, and politics is as rancorous as we can remember seems like an odd argument to make it easier to make sweeping changes, rather than harder.  I mean, after all, these people bought more Justin Bieber records than John Lee Hooker records. 
And progressives are suggesting we trust them to rewrite our Constitution?  I beg to differ.

Stop Children, what's that sound?

After watching How I Met Your Mother reruns tonight on WGN, the Chicago news came up, covering the ongoing protests of the NATO summit there.  The reporter asked the protestors what message they were trying to send and she had to go three deep before anybody had anything meaningful to say: complaining about the Afghanistan War, which was part of the summit's mission anyway.  (The first said she was there to hang out because the leaders were having dinner and "we weren't invited" the second guy literally said nothing.)

I don't really sympathize with protestors now, so when I look back at the protestors 50 years ago, like the Freedom Riders and civil rights leaders, I kind of wonder if I'd have been on the right side then.  I hope I would have.  Looking now, though, I find it hard to believe that history isn't going to look at these people as jokes, if it remembers them at all.

It feels like a disappointment that these people are getting this kind of news, thinking they're changing the world, yet they don't know what they're changing from or to.  My generation is awesome.

From the lion's mouth

I like going to weddings now.  It's a party with food and music and drinks and sometimes friends you know and other times friend you know.  It's especially good having a built in date, because stressing over whether or not you're serious enough to invite a girl to a wedding, especially if it's far a way, is some jive I just don't need.  It just stinks when Dr. Sighted can't make it, because while you can dance to My Humps in a group, Can't Help Falling In Love doesn't really work the same way.

The reception isn't all that's nice about it, though.  The weddings themselves are part of what makes them good, too.  The ceremony serves as a reminder of the seriousness and sanctity of my own marriage, and how nice it is that Dr. Sighted will be Dr. Sighted forever.  (Answer: pretty darn nice.)

We traveled to, of all places, North Carolina for a wedding this weekend (man and woman, of course) and with all the talk that's been going on about the amendment and the Dan Savage video flying around facebook and what not, thinking about my own marriage is not the only heady topic that came up this time.


On the drive up here, Dr. Sighted asked me, "Why do people who aren't [religious] even want to get married anyway?"  Hers is a more cynical view that if you are not asking for God's blessing on a permanent union, then what difference does it make anyway, aside from tax and medical conveniences.  It really amounts to, I think, that when religious people say the word "marriage" they mean something different than when the non-religious do.

I'm not sure whether marriage was first a religious or civil institution, but the modern Western conception of marriage is clearly so colored by its religious character that it's hard to say it's not a religious one now.  Religious marriage is a joining of a man and woman before God that is severable only by death or, in bad cases, "sexual immorality," as per Matthew 19:1-11 (which also is a part where Jesus expounds on what marriage means).  For Kim Kardashian, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, marriage means something else.  And shame on us for letting people like that abuse the institution without calling them out on it.

There is, though, in addition to this religious ceremony a package of civil benefits that goes along with that because it was in the state's interest to encourage this sort of association.  That package of benefits got called marriage too because most everyone who got them also did the religious thing, too, so there wasn't really any trouble.  I think that we as religious people may have done a disservice to the institution of marriage by allowing the package of associational benefits to be conflated (in name, certainly) with the promise to spouse and God.

The discussion this week has been not just about preventing gay "marriage" but also the package of associational benefits as well in the state I am in right now.  I don't think there is really any Biblical basis for a Christian religious marriage between two people of the same sex.  I don't really see why there shouldn't be a contractual means for creating a package of benefits for, really, any pair of people for inheritance, medical and some other benefits.

The rest of it -- the dancing, the music, the drinks -- is a celebration mostly for show.  Just ask Kim Kardashian.  And there has been nothing stopping anybody from throwing a party for any reason they want.

Publilius Syrus was right

On Tuesday, the President of the United States said something that implies one of two things: he doesn't know what a speculator is or he thinks we don't know what a speculator is.  Frankly, I don't care which it is, because neither is a good quality in a president.  Remember when Bush couldn't say nuclear?  How much comfort did that instill?

"We can't afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage and driving prices higher, only to flip the oil for a quick profit."  -President Barack Obama

 Speculators are people who think that something is priced too low.  If you find a $10 lamp at a yard sale that you turn around and sell for $25 at an antique store, you're a speculator.  If you bought into a hot stock tip, you're a speculator.  If you bought a lottery ticket, you're actually a gambler, and a poor one at that. 

All of those things, though, are voluntary, and require two parties.  The guy who sold you that $10 leg lamp would have preferred to sell it for $25, I'm sure, but either getting rid of it quickly was worth something to him or he didn't know its actual value.  But, after this transaction, both the seller of the lamp and the buyer of the lamp are happier than they were before, otherwise the lamp would not have been sold.  So, in every case of speculation (even on oil), in order for a speculation "bet" to be made, somebody else must take that bet.  Somebody on the other end of the speculation thinks that the price they are being offered is, at the very least, fair, if not good.  Unless you make all your own stuff, everything you've ever bought you  because you thought it was worth the money on the price tag (or somebody else did).

Speculators have been demonized as predatory or parasitic, because they don't make things.  However, price correcting does have value and is not without risk.  Other people selling lamps are happy to know what they are worth (have you ever looked at what similar items are selling for when you post on Craigs List?).  Sometimes the price is not predictable and goes down instead of up or vice-versa, making those various bets go bad.  Like Beanie Babies. 


The price of oil might be undervalued, too.  People are complaining about the price at the pump, but the concept of price is really just a means to distribute resources.  Money is valuable because it serves as a store of value and is easy to carry.  Food is valuable to me, as are books and candy.  How valuable?  We measure that in its monetary value.  If you remember your supply and demand curves from economics, as the price of transportation goes up, people will still pay (inelastic good), but some will find other alternatives  (Biking, carpooling, public transportation, moving closer to work, getting a smaller car, etc.) or suppliers will increase production to take advantage of the higher prices.  If that's the case, then it stinks, but your lifestyle will have to change.  During the Carter Administration, gas was rationed and price was not the means that the resources were distributed, and instead it was (among other things) wait time.  Would waiting in line be less aggravating?

It may not seem fair to the poorer if this happens, but it's not any less fair that the poor don't have Gulfstreams, that the busy may not have time to wait in line for gas, or that interesting people get attractive spouses, either.  That's how resources work, really.  In fact, there are a lot of people who think extra taxes on gasoline would be a good thing in the long run, implying that there is definitely room in the market for speculation.

There is also the awkwardness of the word "artificially."  What does he mean by that?  Is he saying that some participants in the market are illegitimate?  How is that determined?  If I buy a used car for $1500 with the intent on keeping it, but later see on Craigslist someone willing to pay $2000 for it, would that be an artificial transaction?  How long would I have to keep it before it's not speculation anymore?  Or what if I hire a travel agent?  Or buy stock from a stock broker instead of an IPO?  Or buy tickets to a Clemson game on Stub Hub?  Or just a guy selling tickets outside the stadium?  Are they equally artificial?  What is a natural price increase?  What about the extra costs incurred by taxes?  The president could push to lower gas prices by introducing a bill to Congress to suspend gasoline taxes, since they are price effects that are not even made by market participants; at least the speculators have skin in the game.

Now, does that mean Obama doesn't understand high school economics?  Possible, but personally, I think it's more that he doesn't like the answer.  Like people who complain about their lottery tickets not winning.

Quid est in nomine?

"Does he know the Lord?" my pastor asked about a prayer request.  He didn't ask "Is he a Christian?"  That's significant, because labels are important.  Words are significant, especially names of things.  That labeling is kind of loaded, especially for people who do not "know the Lord," (just look at thegreatkatsby's comment here).  I didn't really think about it until this weekend and this Sunday School lesson.

I can call myself anything I want.  Think about political labels.  The original meaning of conservative was that the only check on state power (i.e., the monarchy) should be the church, while liberals felt that power should be distributed among people and decentralized.  That is not the way they are used today, of course -- similarities remain, like holding of traditional values in the conservative camp and democratization of access to social institutions in the liberal, but conservatives are talking more about the individual and liberals are talking more about centralization than ever before.  So what do either of them mean?  If I call myself a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, a moderate, I can fit anywhere I want on the spectrum depending on which standards I use.  I like to call myself a moderate, because it makes me sound the least crazy.

Likewise, Christian has a lot rolled into it, depending on what you know about the faith.  The initial terminology used to differentiate disciples of Christ from ordinary Jews was to call them followers of "The Way."  Nobody knew what to call them to capture the entirety of the change of philosophy.  And make no mistake, this was a pretty radical change in philosophy -- our access to God is nodat contingent on our ability to be good.

The discussion of that departure this Sunday morning pivoted on Galatians 2:16-20.  This emphasizes that what separated those original followers of "The Way" from followers of The Law is knowing Christ ("I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." Gal 2:20).  A particular point of emphasis was that there isn't a checklist of dos and don'ts, it's the realization of the gravity of Gal 2:20
What we see in pop-culture, though, is kind of that sort of checklist mentality, and that it is to our detriment.  It's hard not to think of the Ten Commandments in a discussion like this -- a clear symbol of the Judeo-Christian ethic and an actual checklist of dos and don'ts/  But when asked which commandment is the greatest, the answer is not one of those ten: " 'The most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: ,,Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.''  The second is this: ,,Love your neighbor as yourself.'' There is no commandment greater than these.' " Mark 12:29-31.  (That was a lot of nested quotes...)

You cannot be a Christian if those two commands are not true for you.  Whatever other baggage is associated with the word "Christian," that is inescapable.  The words "Conservative" or "Evangelical" frequently get attached to "Christian" and that politicizes it to mean something different -- something added beyond its initial intent -- when evangelical just means to telling story to those who haven't heard.  (Conservative has already been discussed.)

So we how do we overcome the negative connotations that have been applied to our names?  The only way I know how is to tell our story.  Why do I want to overcome those negative connotations?  Because by "knowing the Lord," I am far better than I would be otherwise.  That differential in who I am and who I would be is great enough that I want to share the cause.  No, that is understating it; I am compelled to share the cause.  Whatever you call it, it stems from the fact that I know Christ.

It is finished

There are seven Biblical phrases that Jesus said while on the cross and, of course, "It is finished" is one of them.  It was a declaration that His earthly mission was complete, He had accepted our sin and served as sacrifice on Good Friday.  This would be a marvelous story of self-sacrifice and an example how to treat each other if the story ended there.  But it's not where the story ended.

Three days later, on a Sunday like today, Christ rose.  He predicted this (Mark 8:31-37, Luke 18:31-35).  He told His disciples what was necessary and what would happen -- like the Scripture has told us what is necessary and what will happen -- and they did not understand.  I can't say I blame them; we still have trouble understanding now.

The importance of the Resurrection is a demonstration of both His power over death (symbolically important for us, since we no longer have to fear death) and His faithfulness (more immediately important to us because He fulfills promises).  He promises us the Spirit, the counselor, in John 14:15-21.  In Matthew 28:20, He states, "And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."  (The preacher at my church in Clemson used to end his sermons with that, and it gave me goosebumps every time.)

The Bible is a series of promises that God lays out and fulfills.  His track record is pretty hard to beat.  This, though, is the realization of the most important one.  Today is the anniversary of the Resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, the fulfillment of the promise that in addition to all the things laid on for Good Friday, that He is with us.  That He is trustworthy.  That He is more powerful than death.  I can get behind that.  Happy Easter!

What's good?

I'm pretty sure that every kid at one point asks their parents "Why is it called 'Good' Friday if that's the day Jesus died?" (getting off of school, notwithstanding).  The answer I remember hearing is something like, "He died for our sins on that day," which, of course, is true, but sin is awfully abstract for a kid.  Sin's bad (and a condemnation to death), we know that, but when you're, say, ten, what could be so bad to need somebody to die for them?


Even if you can wrap your head around that, it still seems a little irrational, if not rather nice.  This fellow was selfless enough to let himself endure an excruciating (the root of this word ex- Latin for "out of" and crux Latin for "cross" literally means "out of [or from] the cross", a descriptor that describes the pain associated with crucifixion) experience just because other people are bad. 

Sin serves as a barrier to communication between people and God (Isaiah 59:2), like when I leave my shoes out in the bedroom with my wife.  (She doesn't like that.)  Communication is critical to a functioning relationship and any kind of separation like that causes dysfunction.  Unfortunately, no one can escape this separation (Romans 3:23), either with God or any other relationship, really. Granted, shoes are small potatoes (I hope), but if I leave them despite her protestations, it's disregard for her wishes, and that's not respectful and being disrespectful of my wife is violating our marriage covenant.

God and the tribes of Israel had their own special covenant -- one of prosperity in exchange for obedience -- and His people didn't always hold up their end of the deal.  He warned them with prophets and geopolitics (Habakkuk 3), but people didn't always buy in.  They did, however, get legalistic and focus on the details rather than the message, and the prophets tried to steer them back (Hosea 6:6, Micah 8:6).  They, or rather, we, didn't always listen.

What have you done to remove the barriers in your relationships with friends, spouses, or children?  Moved schedules, bought dinners, given up free time to help, right?  Well, God feels the same way.  The book of Hosea is really a love letter to His people and tries to do those things to win us back that you would do to your husband or wife: "Therefore, I am going to allure her [His people]; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. (Hosea 2:14)" and "I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion.  I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord. (Hosea 2:19-20)" 

So He did.  He hated that barriers to communication between us so much that He sent us Christ, to eliminate them forever ("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. (John 3:16)").  Because He so loved the world.  He sent us Christ, His son, to suffer on the cross and accept our sin, to be our sacrifice, to give us a path to escape death.  Simply to make Himself more accessible to us. 

Christ even tells us how big a deal this is in John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."  That's exactly what He did.  For you.  For me.  For everyone.  Today, we celebrate that we can escape sin because He laid down His life for us.  That's why we call this Good Friday.  Really, kids should be asking, "Why isn't it called Best Friday, instead of just Good?"