Black and Blue

I was 17 and I had a hot car. My Mustang Mach 1, with its 6 liter engine and dual pump Holley carburetor upgrade, would fly and it would really squeal the tires off the line. I raced my cousin's '70 Corvette once and was so proud that to come out ahead. I liked to show that off, at times, as you might guess. I was male, and I was 17, after all. Once, with my younger brother in the front seat, I did just that without noticing the policeman behind me at the light. Yes, I was pulled over and asked to get out of the car (yes, that's what the police did, back then). Everything was fine for a while. If I had been speeding, I could have said that my speedometer didn't show that fast, or that I didn't notice how fast I was going, but when you burn rubber in first and second, it's kind of hard to say that I didn't really do anything or that it was not on purpose. And, I had been taught to respect the police. But, this was my hometown's Chief Mc———— and he already had a reputation. He was angry. He kept telling me how delinquent I was but I let it go for a while. Oh, and I was 5' 8" and about 120 pounds if even that much. He was over 6 ft. and had a very hefty frame. But, he kept on and finally, when he started talking about my generation of kids, (hippies, draft dodgers, delinquents, who should all just be put in jail), something snapped. I thought I was pretty smart, but not at that moment. As he was writing my ticket and still talking about this younger generation who were good for nothing, suddenly my fist started moving of its own accord and before I knew it, the chief's nose was bleeding and I was in the back seat of a police car on my way to jail. What was I thinking! The size difference between him and me alone should have stopped me, and the fact that he had handcuffs and a gun hanging from his belt should have even more so. To skip over some of the details, the charges ended up getting dropped and it didn't go on my record because he didn't read my my rights and also because he drove off leaving a 12 year old (my brother) in the car alone (what was he thinking, also!?!) until a backup car came by. But, I haven't forgotten it. And, every time I hear news like that about Ferguson, Baton Rouge, Freddie Gray, etc. I can't help but think about it. If it happened today, and if I were black, I probably would be dead. Maybe my brother also. I was wrong. I know I was wrong. I knew it then. That's not how I had been taught. I was more afraid of what my father was going to do than the jail cell. I wasn't thinking. I just lost it. Whatever I may think of that police chief, he didn't shoot me. He didn't beat me up. I'm alive to tell you my tale. Not everyone is so lucky. Certainly, not every police shooting is unjustified. Certainly, not every video shows the whole story. We can't understand the threat police face unless we've faced it ourselves. But, we have to admit, there is something wrong. The police are getting a bad rap today and we need to fall in behind them and support them. But, we also have to admit that something is wrong. The way to improve the reputation of our brothers in blue is to deal with the few who go too far. I, at least, can't turn a blind eye. I am alive, and some who didn't do any more than what I did, are dead. I have a debt to pay. We can't just look away. The truth hurts, but truth also heals. We can't just come down with absolutes on either side. We have to deal with both problems. Black lives do matter, just as do white lives and any other color lives. So do those wearing blue, who do an incredibly hard job under incredible pressure every day. But, let's be open and follow truth wherever it takes us. Let's search for truth and let it set us free.

Landslide?

Dear Donald, The other day you talked about a landslide. You said that you had won all over the US by a landslide. That's interesting. When I think of winning by a landslide, I think of 70%, 60% at least 55%. As I look around, you've passed 50% of the vote in only 6 states. Your overall average is about 39%. What that means is actually the opposite kind of landslide--60% of the voters voted against you. I know that politicians often exaggerate, and even redefine things to their advantage, but this is not even close. That reminds me, you keep saying that the system is corrupt and delegates are getting stolen from you. You like to say that it should be the people's vote that counts. So, does that mean that you want to give back some of those delegates that were given to you which you didn't really earn. Like maybe South Carolina, where you only won 32.5% of the popular vote, but were given all of the 50 delegates. So, maybe you should keep 16 delegates and free up the other 34 from South Carolina. And, that's just one example. If the system is really corrupt and unfair, here's your chance to show you want to make things a lot fairer and let the people's votes really count. You have won more votes than any one particular candidate, but you're still not even close to winning a majority of the popular vote. This 'corrupt' system is working to your advantage, far more than for any other candidate. But, you still want more. You complain when you feel it works against you, but you brag about winning delegates when it works in your favor. I guess that's why you're a billionaire real estate tycoon. That's why you complain about illegal aliens, but hire them to work on your own properties. You're in it to win, but it's not really about justice and fair play for Americans. It's about the Donald. You have win, and when you don't, you blame the system. You're a businessman, and not public servant. But, Donald, the presidency is not all about you. It's not for you to buy. It's about America.

Pretty Is As Pretty Does

Dear Donald, Well, since you asked.... I saw you on the news criticizing John Kasich because you felt the way he ate pancakes was disgusting. You asked if we really wanted a president like that. Well, I saw the video of John eating his pancakes and didn't notice anything disgusting, but whatever, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. But, then you asked, "Am I handsome?" Well, I know that was a rhetorical question, since you clearly knew the answer you expected, and you also criticized all the other candidates for not looking presidential, just like you did about Carly several months ago (whom I think is actually nice looking). Anyway, whether rhetorical or not, since you asked, I am going take that as an excuse to just answer anyway. You see, I have heard you called many things, but I can't remember ever hearing anyone call you handsome--well, except for you yourself. In fact, I've heard a lot of jokes about your hair, your facial expressions, your mannerisms, and your sprayed-on tan, that seemed to indicate that the person speaking thought the opposite of what you seem to think. In other words, they seemed to think that you were kind of strange looking if not actually ugly. Sorry to disappoint you, although I don't think you believe any opinion that differs from yours is valid anyway, so I guess you won't be disappointed to hear that. But, the thing is I hope that Americans don't decide who they vote for based on looks. Yes, many studies have shown that looks do influence us, but most of us at least try to make our primary judgment based on the candidate's ability to do what we expect of them and their views on the issues that are important to our country. The good news for you is that, even though I don't at all think you are good looking, I don't really care about that it won't affect whether I vote for you or not. Your views, your attitude, and your ability will, though. And yes, we do hear people talking about whether the candidates "look presidential" or not, but I think you have missed the point. The presidential "look" is not whether someone is handsome (or beautiful). The look is more of an attitude. Looking "presidential" means that one seems to know the issues and be well-versed on potential solutions, knows when to speak out and when to shut up, knows that the best way to get things done is not to run roughshod over everyone else but to work with people. It means one who doesn't act like a playground bully more focused on thinking up clever names for everyone else, and who doesn't think that the best way to get ahead is to hit everyone else harder than they hit you. Maybe the fact that you don't understand what "looking presidential" means explains a lot about you. You're working hard to be handsome and sound tough instead of working hard to learn the issues, take the job seriously, and learn that no one really builds themselves up by tearing others down. If you could learn that, you might look a lot better, despite your hair.

Prove it!

Dear Hillary (and news media), Bernie keeps talking about your ties to Wall Street and I can imagine that that can be a bit frustrating. Several times your response has been to challenge anyone to show that contributions from banks and wealthy contributors have affected your vote. Recently a reporter has repeated that challenge as a question to Bernie. However, I think you both have missed the point. Think about it. If I get stopped for speeding (just hypothetical, not saying that I actually would break the law, you know), and I hand him a 50 to give to the Fraternal Order of Police for me, both of us would be at risk of getting arrested if found out. We might say that there was no proof that my contribution affected his treatment of my alleged speeding, but as you know very well, that wouldn't work. You see, the whole point of the questions about influence is not just whether someone can prove that you actually did any favors for them. The point is that the current campaign fundraising system that requires you and other candidates raise such obscene amounts of money puts you (and us) all at risk. You see, it's not really even about some overt favor. When someone does something really generous for you, it's hard to not lean toward them in some way and even if you try not to, it just happens. You're not the only one with that problem, but it doesn't help to just paper it over and put out a challenge for proof of an offense. You can say that you have studiously avoided being influenced, but don't treat the issue so flippantly and with disdain. We know the saying, "you are what you eat," and maybe you are also what donations you take. It's certainly more than just a possibility that politicians are influenced by who is paying the bills for getting them elected, sometimes in such subtle ways that they don't even realize. It's a legitimate question and points out a serious problem in our current campaign finance system. You could even use it as a point to bring up the issue as something that we all need to deal with. But, please don't feign indignation. You went for those donations. Did you really think that no one would ask what they thought they were buying?

Compromise Is not a Dirty Word

In February, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. One of the things that came up in all the news stories afterwards was his close friendship with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The irony was that you had a close friendship between possibly the most conservative justice and one of the most liberal, and it was a friendship based on mutual respect, not just mutual interests, compatible personalities, or whatever. They fought on opposite sides for their views, but remained friends. Some people found that hard to fathom and though it was mentioned in news reports, the great controversy over his replacement completely overshadowed what may be a very important topic for today.

I'd say that one of the most dangerous tendencies in the current American political and cultural climate is a loss of mutual respect for those that we may disagree with. Watching the process for the party nominations for presidential candidates over the last few months has been eye-opening to say the least. There are many things that have happened that I would never have imagined for our nation. The fact that we have differences and that sometimes those differences may be over very important issues and may produce emotional responses has always been true. But, our nation was founded on what united us more than what divided us. Today, the tendency is to label opponents, not just as 'wrong' but as 'bad,' 'stupid,' 'failures,' etc.

Government is an institution and institutions, even very conservative and traditional ones, are living entities because, no matter how they are structured and organized they are, they are made up of living beings. People are always growing and changing and our culture is always changing. Every generation has been influenced not only by the generation before, but by the historical events that occur around them. As people change, as culture changes, so do the institutions. But, recently we may be undergoing some fundamental changes at a more rapid rate than ever before.

The United States was from the beginning a revolutionary experiment. There had been democracies before. There had been many revolutions before but most just changed from one bad situation to another one, from one despot to a different one. However, this one was set off in a different direction from the beginning.

Christians like to believe that our nation was founded on Christian principles, and that is true to some extent, but there was also a mixture of humanist and Enlightenment principles. The fact is that most of our founding fathers were not Christian as we Evangelicals would define them. The most popular belief at the time was Deism, the belief that there was a god who created the universe, but that this god was not personal and not involved in the universe. It was more like he created a machine and then stood back to watch it work. Many would have been atheists if they could have imagined a way that this universe could have existed without a god.

Certainly that was not true of all. Washington espoused Christianity, though he was not very active in the church. John Adams was a devout Christian and Alexander Hamilton was also a Christian. But, most of the famous names that we know of were not. We have all heard of Jefferson's 'Bible' in which he cut out what he didn't like and just kept some of the moralistic principles.

Our Constitution was written in the midst of this tension between different worldviews and the conflicts of the different personalities of those involved. But, it's important to note that our forefathers very pointedly didn't want "democracy" in the sense that many people think nowadays. The rebellion was against despotism and not for democracy. They most feared a distant power in control where they had no say nor recourse. But, even more, they feared any person or institution having too much power. The initial Articles of Confederation went too far in giving a national government too little power. The Constitution that replaced it is an ingenious document that made us a true nation, but still built in strong provisions that placed great limits on that power.

What we sometimes ignore is the fact that they didn't set up a pure democracy. They didn't set up a system where everyone could vote. In most states, only male property owners could vote. They feared the rule of the masses almost as much as the rule of a king. Jefferson famously wrote, "I have ever observed that a choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom." As time has passed, we've become more and more "democratic" but that's not the principle that they started from. That's why we have a Senate and a House of Representatives, both with different rules and giving States different representation. That's why the President isn't directly elected, but is chosen by an Electoral College. That's why the judiciary is appointed and not elected, and why they serve for life.

They didn't just fear a government that was too powerful. They also feared letting any one person, or any one group or party have too much power. They purposely didn't set up an efficient government. They were afraid of too much efficiency because it put too much power into the hands of whoever was in charge at the time. I remember my high school Civics teacher talking about checks and balances and that I never fully grasped what she was talking about. They feared a strong man taking over and being able to do too much. They were liberals in their day, who were also conservatives in that they desired to set up a conservative system of government--not conservative in the sense of today's party politics, but conservative in the sense of making it hard to change the system and hard to get some things done. Making it too easy to make major changes brings with it the risk of losing our system of government by all of the people and going back to some form of despotism.

We often miss this point. Our founding fathers didn't believe in true majority rule. The majority never had full power. They wanted to force our leaders to compromise. Now, many politicians are complaining about this (and not just the conservatives), and many people are looking for someone who can "get things done" and who is not a "politician." Compromise has become a dirty word, a sign of weakness and even a lack of moral standards.

The lessons of our Constitution has been overlooked in so many nations that have set up democracies, only to see them degenerate into democratic facades of one-party-states or presidents-for-life. We've seen some examples of that even in the last few years when leaders felt that a majority vote meant that they could ignore the 49%. Democracy is fragile and stands only when there is a mass of trust in both people and the system, a willingness to compromise, and a commitment to the legal process. When any of those start to fall, we risk losing it all.

We've forgotten what really made America great. It's not capitalism. It's not our great research institutions. It's not our great manufacturing ability. It's not our culture of creativity and the lack of class barriers that close off some people because of their background so that anyone can make it. It's not even great leaders, at least not what some people think of as great leaders. In fact, some of these things that we believe are not as true as we might wish (for instance, we aren't as 'class-free' as we like to think). These are important in their own way, but they are results of something else.

I believe that what made America great is that we were given a system of government that forced compromise. No one could get anything done simply because they got elected to a position.  They needed to get others on board, and sometimes that even meant at least some of the 'opposition.'  We weren't a nation of a majority that rules, tolerating the rest who could live among us if they cooperated. It was a nation united, for the benefit of all. We have forgotten the motto--e pluribus unum ("out of many, one")--on our seal, adopted by an act of congress in 1782.    

Compromise is not bad, not weak, and not a lack of commitment or moral standards. It's a respect for the system, and commitment to inclusion, a recognition no one, no group, and no movement is always right. It's a recognition that even those who may be "wrong" in our eyes, are people who deserve respect and deserve space to live their lives according to those beliefs as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. Certainly there are limits to what we can allow people to do, and laws define those limits, but there are also limits to what the law could limit. But freedom, inclusiveness, and mutual respect are the foundation of the Nation and the Constitution that we love and that so many have given their lives for.

The desire to look for a strong man to get things done, to overthrow the establishment, to look for purity, is a danger to our system. The desire for making our government more efficient (I'm not talking money, but in getting things done and making quick changes) is a fundamental change from the views of the founders. But, more than that, the demonization of opposition and the dividing line between parties, beliefs, those who aren't like us raises the possibility of us losing the freedoms that we all have taken as unassailable.

We need to remember what really made America great, and it's not what is being espoused by so many today. We have been made strong by being inclusive, by adapting to change, by accepting others and their beliefs even when we disagree. That's what has given us the greatness that we hold dear, the leadership that we've had in so many areas around the world. It's made us leaders in the world's economy, in science, in medicine, in business, in research, and in world influence. Certainly there are other great countries with greatness in all of those areas, but America has dominated that last century. Let's keep America great.

1776

Americans are celebrating Independence Day, the 4th of July, this weekend. Even for people who consider themselves to be anti-American, it was one of those turning points in history that had not just a local effect but a worldwide one. July 4, 1776 is the day Americans celebrate that turning point.

However, even turning points are not just one point in time and are not just one event but the confluence of many events, decisions, and 'accidents' over the course of years. Americans also would be wrong to think of independence as an event. That's the day when the declaration was officially considered to be made, but it was the confluence of a long period of debate and struggle and even for the declaration, the last signature was not placed on the parchment until August. Even more, it was only a declaration. It was only words on paper. Obviously the British government didn't agree, but actually, even a third of the American colonists didn't agree, or at least didn't support it. It took many years to make it a reality and though the independence is complete, the creation of the nation continued and, some might say, is still in process today.

But, back to the independence, it was only after years of war that this was achieved, but even then, the meaning of that was not at all clear. It's important to remember that before that, there had been just a collection of colonies in the Americas. These colonies were under the sovereign crown of Britain and governed ultimately by Britain, but they answered to Britain independently, each under separate governance. They had differing institutions and laws and had hugely different personalities. The colonies were started for vastly different reasons and had already existed for more than a century. There was no strong loyalty to each other. They had vastly different economies. Some were even relatively multicultural. Don't forget that New York was originally New Amsterdam. The main thing that brought them together was intense dissatisfaction with King George III and the British Parliament.

So when the independence was won 7 years later, that didn't mean that there was a "United States." It wasn't one nation. It was a collection of 13 nations (that's what the word 'state' normally means). The the first tendency was to go back to something familiar and similar to the old order. The 13 colonies were now independent from Britain and had become states, but there was a strong pull towards independence from each other as well. They feared a strong central government would just be moving Parliament from London to a place closer to home.

They did recognize the need for some cooperation to keep their independence, but they wanted that cooperation to be minimal. That's why they chose to be a confederation (and in some ways, the civil war was an attempt to return to that, though the drive behind that was the desire to preserve the system of slavery). And, there was also the issue of the other lands to the west and extending to the Mississippi River that they had won from Britain that were not a part of any colony. Beyond a few roving trappers and some tiny settlements, the residents of these lands were the Native Americans, but the peace agreement with Britain turned this area over to these new United States. Ironically, part of what kept the 13 states together was that they had inherited an empire.

But, there was an inherent distrust in strong government and even some who espoused anarchist principles, seeing government as a temporary measure that would potentially get weaker and weaker as mankind improved. That's much of the basis for the great prominence of individualism in the US. There has always been a tension between the government and the individual which has been a part of the American psyche from the beginning. By the end of the decade, there was finally a recognition of the need for more than a confederation and the current Constitution was drawn up.

With that constitution there was finally a United States that was now one nation, but it originally wasn't all 13 states. Two States didn't join util a year later. There had been a lot of fighting over what that constitution should be, but in the end, they recognized the need for a strong central government but held in check by strong individual rights, which was the focus of the first ten amendments (which we call the Bill of Rights) that were accepted in 1791.

What resulted was a republic, not a pure democracy. There was no concept of one person one vote, or  even one man one vote. And, even that was "rigged" to avoid a winner take all situation. There were two houses of Congress, one with proportional representation (the House of Representatives), but which was, in some ways, the lesser house. The other was meant to make sure that the interest of the smaller states would not be overrun, giving each state two votes, no matter the size of the state and that was the house that in essence had more power (the Senate) with a name that takes one back to the Roman Senate and the sense of a ruling elite.

The founding fathers were very afraid of anything that put too much power in one person or even in one institution. There was a complicated system of checks and balances that were designed to make sure that no person or institution would have too much power. That's what makes our government so inefficient and slow.  It also makes it much more conservative (not politically, but in the sense that makes change harder to accomplish).

But, they were also tremendously afraid of giving too much power to the masses. They saw the masses, especially the uneducated, as to easy to manipulate and unable to make good decisions. That's something that we've gradually, but fundamentally, moved away from.

There are two things that I believe have made this system work so well for so long and both are deeply rooted in Christianity, but I will be dealing with those later. For now, it's time to celebrate the nation that has had such a huge impact on the world in so many ways.

Happy 4th.

We Have No Room For Hate

As I was finishing my last post, I began to hear the news about the Charleston Church shooting. As more news came out, there was a great sense of sadness. It was the modern equivalent to murder at the altar. How could someone kill people in a church?

But, that has happened before. I can think of several reports of people walking into a church and starting shooting. And, though murder is the same whether in a church or a movie theater, there's something symbolic about killing people in church.

To find later that Dylann Roof had sat through an hour of the Bible study before standing up and opening fire. That makes the crime even more personal. He had, to some extent, gotten to know his victims. They were not just nameless faces. And, they got to know him. They welcomed him with trust and hospitality.

But, what was really moving was to hear from the victims' family members and even the ones who survived from the Bible study. One after another, there were expressions of grace and forgiveness. They spoke openly of their hurt and disappointment, "We welcomed you with open arms." But, one after another they repeated words of forgiveness and even spoke of praying for God's mercy. There was no screaming for vengeance or expressions of hatred. There was no finger-pointing for blame from the victims' families. It was so surreal, it was almost shocking.

And, people noticed. Even broadcasters who normally are cynical were speaking about the huge difference in the response of 'people of faith.' We talk about our faith as if it was just a religious choice or our heritage. For these people, that's not what it is at all. It is what they live by. One woman's words keep ringing: "We have no room for hate, so we have to forgive. I pray for God's mercy on you."

We have to forgive. Forgiveness is a choice, but for the believer is also required. Those who realize the depth of God's grace and what he has forgiven of us simply cannot but forgive, even when the offense is so grievous as that of the calculated murder of those whom you love, those who had welcomed their soon to be killer into their group and offered him the hospitality from their heart. .

What happened was a horrible picture of racism, and yet it was also a beautiful demonstration of how racism can be overcome. It won't come through fighting and condemnation, even though evil must be condemned. Ultimately it will come through expressions of love and forgiveness, hospitality and acceptance, such as we've seen here. What happened has brought both horror and hope as I look at what my country has become and what it can still be.

We have some new heroes of faith. May we learn from them and live our lives to glorify our God.

For They Know Not What They Do

I was listening to a news report the other day and they were interviewing a priest who had spent a couple of years as a captive of Islamic rebels. He had been subject to torture and constant demand for him to deny his faith. He clearly talked about his faith in God throughout this and the example of Christ that kept him going. He spoke about the suffering of Christ, and that how he kept thinking of that to help him  deal with his own situation on a daily basis. Then the interviewer asked that inevitable question, "So, have you been able to forgive your captors?"

There was only a slight pause and then an answer that I can't quote, because I didn't realize at the time that it would really affect my thinking and that I would come back to it. I don't' even remember the media outlet, but I kept thinking about it over the next day or two and I believe I can give the gist of what I remember. He basically said that he saw many kinds of people there. A few seemed to be going through the routine without a lot of heart and there were a few acts of kindness. There were some who seemed to enjoy the power that they had over him and took pleasure in that. There were some, however that had no emotional involvement at all, but were driven by their belief that they were just carrying out the will of God.

Whether my memory of that interview is completely accurate or not is not really important, because it only got me started thinking about whether I could handle such a long captivity and the emotional and mental torture. I tried to think about where I was a year ago and then 2 years ago, and then imagine (or try to imagine) what if from that time I had been confined to a cell with no contact with the outside world, no internet, no news, no one who could occasionally give me a word of encouragement or even put a hand on my shoulder? What if the only touch I got was to inflict pain or to make me move? What if I had no good food, but just the minimum of the most basic staple to keep  me alive? Could I even keep my sanity, much less think of forgiveness? Could I keep my faith?

I remember being struck by the fact that, before he answered the question, he talked about people. I think that when I tend to think of something like that, I tend to think in terms of a movement or organization, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, ISIS and if I do think of a 'face' I think of just a nondescript bearded face of maybe someone who I have seen speaking on TV who is one of the leaders. But, leaders are at a distance. They give the orders. It's not personal.

But, the man who plops a scoop of food into a bowl on the floor, who looks at me in contempt because I'm an unbelieving blasphemer, who kicks me if I don't get up fast enough, who beats me and shows no mercy or concern for me as a person--that would be different. I thought of the movie Unbroken and all the characters in that movie who treated their captives more like animals than humans--no, actually they didn't treat animals like that even.

Somehow (and this is a bit of a stretch, but that's where my mind went), I went back to a situation when I was in university. I was transferring out of that university and when I got my grades from the last semester one was an Incomplete. It was a hands on lab class that was meant to give engineers some practical exposure to the tools and methods used to actually make the products that they might design. We learned how (well, maybe the word learned how is a bit of a stretch here) to use metal  lathes to shape metal, drill presses, sheet metal stamping machines, acetylene welders and electric arc welders. It was a lot of fun and was one class that I didn't want to skip. How could I have an Incomplete? I went to the teacher who didn't even remember me and he said I didn't turn in the final project (a bench vise that we made ourselves out of rough steel billets). We had done that over the course of a few weeks, and had left the final projects in the classroom until they were graded (with a sticker pasted to the project) after which we could take them home.

I told him that I had done it. It wasn't a one time thing to turn in. It was a multi-week process and he had been watching us all through it. If I didn't do it, he'd have seen that long before the final grade. I told him I had the vise at home an I'd be glad to bring it to him to see. I remember his eyes as he looked at me and said, "How would I know that was yours. You could just bring me one that your classmate had done. I don't have a grade in my book and that means that you didn't do it." His eyes were unrelenting and cold. I tried to convince him and I argued logically that I had to have been working on it all along. I reminded him that no grade in his book didn't necessarily mean that I didn't do it. It only meant that he hadn't written down a grade and that could just as easily be his mistake.

I didn't really need the credit and it wasn't going to transfer anyway. But, I was devastated that someone could treat me so unfairly and without any consideration that the mistake could be his own. I remembered that man for a long time. And, that's what I thought about as I thought about the interview with the priest. It's bad enough to be treated unfairly by an institution, but when it comes from someone that you actually see and talk to, it's much harder to forget. Forgiveness doesn't come easily.

And, that's what is amazing about Jesus' words on the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." It wasn't just a plea for forgiveness. He made a point of the fact that they were ignorant of what they were really doing. The professor, I'm sure, had heard a lot of stories and many excuses. He didn't even want to listen to another one. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't just looking for someone to be mean to that day. He believed that he was looking at a student who had not done the work and was looking for a free pass. And, the captors of the priest believed that they were doing the will of God.

The sufferings of Christ. Jesus suffered at the hands of not just Pilate and the Jewish leaders. There were people who grabbed his arm as they shoved him along the streets with his cross. Those who pressed the crown of thorns into his head and those who beat him mercilessly. He looked into their eyes and into the eyes of the crowd around the cross who mocked him. But, they obviously didn't really know that they were crucifying the Messiah, the Son of God, their creator and savior.

There are some people who delight in cruelty, but I don't thin that's true of most people. The people whom I have to forgive are very likely to think that their actions were justified and proper. But. That doesn't make it any easier to forgive them. Paul considered it a blessing to be able to have the privilege of participating, even in a small way, in the sufferings of Christ. Is that what he was talking about? The persecution he faced, he didn't see that as personal. They thought they were doing the right thing. Forgiving them was the natural result of his dedication to Christ. It wasn't directed at him. Whatever suffering he faced was part of the universal battle for the salvation or destruction of people.

So, why is it so hard to forgive? Why can't we look beyond the personal hurts we feel and see things in terms of the eternal battle for the souls of men? If we could, wouldn't or shouldn't it be easier to not only forgive, but ask for God to have mercy on them as well?

Memories--the things that shape us, teach us, and call back to us over time

Memories are one of the great things about being human. It's not the same as just remembering. Memories are not just about facts, about something that we saw or experienced. In fact, memories may very well depart from the actual facts.

Memories are things that we remember that have meaning and the focus is on the meaning that we ascribe, not the event. Some memories are joyful, and some are quite painful, but they are all very important. We can remember without it being a memory, just as we can sometimes have memories that are only loosely based on what really happened.

Memories are distinct from remembering. We don't just remember a place when we see it again or a person when we see them again. We remember what happened there or with that person. We don't just remember what happened, we remember what we felt. We don't just remember what we felt, we assign meaning and significance and that makes it a memory. We relive, we enjoy, we feel again, but more than that, it becomes a part of us. It shapes who we are, and it continues to reshape us as we come back to it.

Today is the 5th anniversary of my father's death and it's appropriate to think back on him and his life. There are many memories that come up in my mind and I will share one here.

I remember one morning when we woke up to a deep snowfall of more than a foot (I think I remember hearing 18 inches). Yes, those things occasionally happen in Alabama. I don't remember how old I was, but I believe it was my early teens or maybe preteens, and I know it was before I got my drivers license. I had heard that it was going to snow and I woke up the next morning to a beautiful landscape that I had never seen before. I wanted to get out in it. But, I remember that my dad was gone. Having grown up in Michigan, a foot of snow was no problem for him and he had driven away very early that morning.

Mom said that he had gone to the church. It was Saturday, and even as a child, I remember thinking that that was strange because it wasn't Sunday. But, I also remember that her face didn't look quite normal. I asked why he had gone to the church, but she wouldn't say. She just said, "He'll be back soon." Even kids know that there are times when you don't want to ask more questions. It was obvious that this was one of those times. My granny Maggie was also doing things around the house with her head down and not speaking. Something made me feel uneasy, but the snow was calling and there was excitement in the air.

My dad soon returned with a big smile and both parents joined us outside in the snow. We had great fun and I didn't think anymore about the morning.  Whatever was bothering them earlier was completely gone and I soon forgot about it. Only later that day did I find out what it was.

But, to understand it, there are a few other things that need explanation. My father was one of a group of families who started a new church when I was quite young. At that time, to have a church, you had to have a building and they bought a piece of land and built a building. They didn't have any denominational funding, but had some help from the mother church. Nonetheless, funds were limited. My dad cut up some paper grocery bags (for those under 30, grocery stores didn't ask paper of plastic, because paper was all they offered) and, using a carpenters straight edge, drew up plans for the building. I don't remember seeing them, but I'm sure they weren't the detailed drawings that most builders work from. But, they couldn't afford an architect and couldn't hire a builder. They did most of the work themselves. After work, the men went directly to the 'church' under construction and started work. The wives brought supper and the kids later. We did our homework sitting on stacks of materials and then helped sweep up the sawdust before leaving to go home for baths and bed. I was around 2nd or 3rd grade then, but I still remember those evenings playing with other kids and helping the grownups when we were all 'working on the church together.'

Yes, that's not what we normally mean by 'working on the church' or 'building the church' today, and I'd agree that the focus shouldn't be on a building and maybe even, in some cases, a building isn't even necessary. But, on the other hand, they weren't just building a building. They were building a community, a fellowship of believers. I don't know if they realized that at the time, but I do know that my dad talked to me about it later when I was doing a report in Bible College. He said that if he had to do it again, he would likely do a lot of things different, but that even if they had the money to do so, he wouldn't hire a builder, that the experience of working together on something that required a significant commitment of time together was a crucial part of the strength of the church in those early years. It gave them a bond of trust and community that they couldn't have bought.

But, that has nothing to do with a snowstorm, so let me get back to that. You see, there were, I think, only 5 or 6 families involved, but they were looking ahead with great dreams. They wanted room for at least 250 -300 people to worship together. That requires a wide span without pillars to hold up the roof. My dad, with my mom's brother Uncle Floyd, had already built our house and then Uncle Floyd's house, but none of that comes close to any kind of span that the church building would need. That was their only real building experience. My dad drew up the plans for the trusses also on those grocery bags and he did so without Google, an engineering degree, or a Trusses for Dummies book.

And, that's what I didn't really understand that day. Snow is heavy and it builds up on a roof. And, the south is not really used to that kind of problem. That night, after our day of playing in the snow, a warm supper, and an hour or so of TV, Mom asked her usual question, "Well, how about a piece of cake or pie before we go to bed." She and Dad and Granny Maggie sat on the couch with their cake and coffee and I sat at the table in the other room with mine (no coffee, though, and kids were not allowed to eat in the den). And that's when I found out. I heard them talking in the other room.

When the church was complete, my dad was talking to an engineer and when he found that my Dad had built a church and had designed the trusses himself without any experience in designing trusses, he was astonished. He scoffed and told my dad that there was no way that he'd have been able to know how to do that right. He predicted that they'd soon see the roof sagging, that it wouldn't stand up to any load, and would collapse in a few years. Over the years, my Dad had been watching for any sagging, standing on a ladder and sighting down the ceiling, and climbing into the attic occasionally to look. I didn't know about that at the time.

But, that evening I heard him telling my Mom that he could finally rest easily. We had had the heaviest snowfall that we could probably ever expect and it was the heavy 'wet' snow. He had driven to the church that morning half expecting to see the roof collapsed, but it was still there. He had sighted along the ceiling and there was no sagging. He had climbed into the attic to check and everything was as firm as ever. He mentioned the engineer and he felt some pride  (well-deserved, I think). I didn't quite understand much then, but I did remember feeling proud that my dad was smarter than that old engineer.

Later I found out the details that I've share with you above. Later, when I was studying basic engineering courses in university, I understood just how big of a feat that actually was. My dad hadn't finished 10th grade. His dad had died when he was 6 and his mom had struggled to raise a family during the Great Depression. My dad dropped out of school to work and then to join the Navy in World War 2.

I'm a great proponent of education, especially in today's increasingly complex world. I'd push anyone to go as far as they can go. But, no one should assume that one has to have a degree to have knowledge. I've seen people who have several degrees and with high grade averages whom I would not trust in their field of study.

And, I'm still proud of my Dad, if you haven't already noticed that by now. That's one of my memories and one that I've often come back to. It shaped my thinking. I don't assume that a formal education is any guarantee of success. I've learned the wisdom of listening to experts, but still evaluating their advice for myself. I've learned that I should not let others look down on me for any lack of formal training in some area and feel inferior. I've learned that I should also not do that to others either, and not assume that, if they don't have a degree or a lot of experience in some area, that their contribution to the discussion should be discounted.

And, I've learned that, even though I have 'learned' these things, I still forget them at times. I can still feel inferior in the company of experts, can still be afraid to contribute to things that are outside my area of expertise, and I can still dismiss others' ideas because, "What do they know?" The memory is to give me a reminder, to shake up my thinking again and again.

And, that's what memories are for. They are reminders that take us back to lessons over and over. I'm thankful for memories. I hope I can keep learning.

Oh, and that building is still there. The last time I was there, I remember looking carefully at the roof ridge line and when I entered, I looked carefully at the ceiling. It's been more than 50 years now, and it's still strong as ever.

Grace, Being, and Grandma Grace

I remember a time when I was young (not to say that I'm not still young ;-) but I mean when I was really, really young, still on the verge of becoming a teenager), when I was looking at some old pictures with my Grandma Grace, my father's mother. I came upon one picture of a beautiful young lady looking so elegant even though wearing clothes which were very much out of style and a bit strange looking for my era. I remember a hat perched more on the side of her head than on the top and which, to my young eyes, reminded me of a high heeled shoe placed upside down. But, she was beautiful. I asked, "Grandma, who is that?" Her answer was, "That's me. I was still a teenager then."

I was quite surprised. It was hard to connect that young girl to my grandmother whom I had only seen as gray-haired, plump, and old. And, that's where I made my mistake, but not the one that you might expect. I answered, "That was you? Wow. You were beautiful." Now, I had always seen my grandmother as beautiful, but not like that teenage girl. I knew people got old and I was both surprised but also not really. I was more impressed than surprised. That girl was my grandmother?! This was really cool!

But, her answer completely caught me off guard. "No, that was not me," and then with a slight pause and a slight change in tone, "that is me. You've never seen me looking like that, but that's how I see myself when I'm not looking in a mirror and sometimes even when I am. I'm older and I don't look like that anymore on the outside, but that's still me. I'm still that same girl." The words rang in my ear and, became one of those few events you remember not just as a vague memory, but with a distinct sharpness. I can close my eyes and still hear her voice and see the subtle expression in her eyes.

I don't remember what I did after that. I don't remember answering her, maybe just looking at her and at the picture and saying again, "You were really pretty." I'm not sure I understood what she meant then, but I do remember that I couldn't get away from it. I kept thinking about it and I still think about it. She had no problem with me using the past tense to say that she 'was' pretty. But, she objected to me using the past tense to speak of identity. "No, that was not me. That is me."

I'm now about the same age as she was when I talked to her on that day. I too know the feeling of looking in the mirror and suddenly realizing that you don't look like you tend to imagine yourself. There are wrinkles that tend to be smoothed over in my own thinking (better than Photoshop). There is some sagging skin and I don't really understand where it came from and when it appeared. Sometimes I even think it is just that I don't look so good today. Maybe I'm too tired, so that's why the skin above my eyelids is drooping and there are some little bags below my eyes that aren't normally there. But, to be honest, I know it is the new normal and that's just how I look now and it will get worse if I live longer.

But, she's also right. That's not really me. Or maybe I should say, that's me but not any more so than those teenage pictures of me that are in boxes somewhere. They all 'are' me. Or maybe not.

I should not define myself by the way I look. Oh, it really feels good when someone says, "You're 60? You don't look like you're 60." It doesn't matter that they're probably just being polite, and Taiwanese are famous for those exaggerated compliment that everyone knows are exaggerated or sometimes just not true. But, when I hear it, I don't even think about the fact that it's probably just a polite compliment other than a fleeting thought. It still feels good.

But, I should not define myself by how I look. In one sense, maybe a better way to think of it is that neither of those pictures is me. They're just a passing view of the same thing that continues on. I am what I am, not just what I look like, like Popeye was found of saying ("I am what I am and that's all that I am."). It is the person who is something, not the external appearance.

We put a lot of stock on appearances. People shown pictures of various mean tend to label those who are taller as smarter, more successful, more capable. Women are judged just as well. Obviously in the real world, being good-looking is no guarantee of success and anyone who wants to be successful still has to work hard to get there, but it's still true that we make judgments based on appearances. I'd like to think that I don't, but I'm pretty sure that I do.  I should focus more on the person I am being rather than how I look. But, I should also be looking for the "person" in the one in front of me instead of what that person looks like.

Something else that strikes me from this is that even what we are is not based on what we can see in a brief acquaintance over a period of time, but on what the person is, what they are becoming, and what they can become. I've benefited from others who saw in me something that even I didn't see at the time and they were willing to spend time with me to help me become more than I was.

And, maybe that's the most important thing that comes from this random train of thoughts. There aren't many people who practice that. We tend to look at a person and judge their abilities and even their character based on what we see now. That's maybe practical, since how can we know what a person could become? And yet, some people seem to do it. They can see things in someone that others don't see. Maybe they're more optimistic. Maybe they're just more willing to take a risk and when someone fails to develop as they hope, they are just unwilling to assume that others will also fail. Maybe they refuse to see failure as final.

But, I also tend to see this as something fundamental to our faith (even if it is little practiced in our lives). We read that while we were yet his enemies, Christ died for us. That's certainly not just looking at the present person. Maybe we could say, "Yes, but he was God. He knew that he could make us into something else," but that still ignores the fact that he didn't die for those who would believe and would  follow him wholeheartedly, dedicating their lives to him. He also died for those who would believe but would struggle in their faith. He also died for those who would reject him outright and even actively fight against him having any role in their lives.

That's a point of theology that we know is true, but don't really take at face value. We tend to think that he died for all, but that it's only 'for all' in a different sense. He died for them theoretically, while still writing them off in his heart. But, that's not the picture we see of Christ who wept over  those who rejected him and would still welcome them and actively pursue them, even leaving the 99 behind to rescue the one who didn't follow him back to the fold.

And, that's the greatest challenge of all to me. We shouldn't write anyone off. Ever. Not until they are dead and even then, recognizing that we don't really know their heart, what happened in their heart, and how God will deal with them, or what mustard seed of faith might have been there that we couldn't see. We read also that even many who seem to be followers of God might not be, and that God will say to some (and maybe we would be shocked to find out who those are) "Depart from me for I never knew you." Might there also be some that we will be surprised to see there? We just don't know.

It reminds me of phrase in a sermon of C.S. Lewis. I quote a portion below:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which,if you say it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - These are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

We should be looking (in faith) at what those around us (and we ourselves) can be, instead of just what they (we) are. That is our faith. That is grace. And, that is what God has done to us. That is what it means to be Christian.

Ebola and the Church

At least something concerning the Ebola epidemic is pretty close to the top of every news program today. There is reporting on the facts on the ground in Africa, reports on the panic and even hysteria
that seems to be spreading among the general population in the US, There is a lot on how politicians are using that to further their own ambitions.

Ebola has been around for a long time--first noted in 1976--and there have been many outbreaks since then. But, the current epidemic has been going on since March. That's actually been a pretty long time, and it was reported in the news, but didn't get a huge amount of attention. It was over in a faraway place, a sad story, but these things happen. .

As it spread, there was some discussion about how to contain it from spreading and especially with international air travel being so easy. But, it was a theoretical discussion and it didn't occupy our attention other than a little, "What would we do if it did come over here?"

Then we had some Americans who were serving and caring for Ebola victims in Africa and who were eventually airlifted out. That started getting more attention and some even wondered why we would take the risk of bringing the disease here. Then, a man from Liberia was diagnosed with Ebola at a hospital in Dallas, and later two nurses who cared for him. The idea of closing out borders started getting a lot of traction, and some even extended it to Americans. Donald Trump (admittedly not known for tact, compassion, or a moral compass) tweeted in a series of tweets that the do-gooders should be left to do their good deeds, but if they get infected, then they would just need to "suffer the consequences." Ann Coulter, a prominent conservative pundit, wrote an article entitled, "Ebola Doc's Condition Downgraded to 'Idiotic'" criticising the doctor, the church, and missionaries for trying to save the world when America still had plenty of needs.

Criticism started building and certainly some of that was justified. We really weren't prepared. But, the criticism aimed at the nurses sounded a bit hypocritical and unfair. Now, politicians are trying to make points and show that they are strong and decisive leaders by imposing a blanket quarantine (later weakened somewhat, but only in the face of intense criticism). I don't want to argue that there is no need for any kind of quarantine, but the blanket nature and the rhetoric that makes pariah's of those who try to serve others is very discomforting. Governor Christi's visible contempt for the nurse who was the first to experience this is worrying.

"But," you might say, "what do you expect of a politician, a political pundit, or egotistical businessman?" Point taken. And, maybe the same could be said of the public.

But, what about the church? Where is the voice of the church?  Who is talking about this issue? Well, I'm not in the US right now, so maybe there is something coming from pulpits that I don't know about, but what I do listen to in podcasts or on Facebook (basically just family and church friends) is pretty silent, or (maybe worse) just echoing the same voice that we hear in the media.

Epidemics have changed the course of history, empires have fallen, and battles have been lost due to epidemics. Some of the ruined cities that archaeologists explore are thought to have been abandoned because of an epidemic. Historians blame the fall of the Aztecs and Incas on imported diseases. Some say that epidemics were a factor in the fall of the Roman Empire and some of those were brought back by soldiers returning from faraway lands to the east. In the Antonine Plague starting around AD 165, the death toll reached as high as 2,000 deaths per day just in the city of Rome. A later outbreak starting in AD 251 killed 5,000 per day at its height, and again, that's just talking about Rome itself.

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage (an important Roman city in what is now Egypt) during the second plague. People were deserting the cities and fleeing to the countryside in huge caravans. The breakdown of social order and the chaos is pretty hard to fathom. It is something totally out of our experience and unimaginable (unless your a Hollywood script writer).

Of this plague we actually have some good records and the interesting thing is that there was a lot of comparison between the average citizen and the Christian. Christianity was still not accepted by Roman law and there was still serious persecution of those who proclaimed Christ. But, when the plagues came, the Christians really made their mark and they were noticed. It was noted that the Roman priests fled the city along with everyone else who could, but the Christians stayed behind and didn't just try to survive, they actively took care of the sick, those who were left behind by their families who had escaped. Many of the Christians died with them, and they weren't stupid. They knew the dangers and the high likelihood that they would die, but they served anyway.

Cyprian wrote of this in 251, and  seemed almost welcoming of the pestilence. He noted how horrific the disease was but claimed that only non-Christians had to fear it. He stated that this plague

"...examines the minds of the human race; whether the well care for the sick, whether the relatives dutifully love their kinsmen as they should, whether the masters show compassion for their ailing slaves, whether the physicians do not desert the afflicted…Although this mortality has contributed nothing else, it has especially accomplished this for Christians and servants of God, that we have begun gladly to seek martyrdom while we are learning not to fear death.  These are trying exercises for us, not deaths; they give to the mind the glory of fortitude; by contempt of death they prepare for the crown…[O]ur brethren who have been freed from the world by the summons of the Lord should not be mourned, since we know that they are not lost but sent before; that in departing they lead the way; that as travelers, as voyagers are wont to be, they should be longed for, not lamented…” (Mortality 15-20, 1958 ed.) [The Rise of Christianity, p. 81, par. 1-2]

But, it was just bishops who noticed. It became a topic of conversation as people branded Christians as "gamblers" while wondering how they could do this. And, this made a huge difference even long term. A century later the emperor Julian pushed to start other charities in an effort to match the Christians.  He wrote to the high priest of Galatia in 362 to push them to work to meet the moral standards shown by Christians, and he attributed the growth of the church to their “moral character, even if pretended,” and their benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead.” Indeed, at the beginning of the second plague, the church was still made up of people who were mostly of Jewish origin (estimated at 70%) and afterward the ratio soon was about half and half. 


Today, the church has lost its voice. It has become a part of the culture. It talks a lot about the degradation of the moral structure of our society and points to a list of sins that prove it and seem surprised when non-Christians don't hold to those same values (as if holding to a set of values were enough). We have retreated from society, circled the wagons around our faith, and fire at all those outside the circle.

We are not of this world, but we are supposed to be in it. We are not allowed to retreat into our own cocoon. And why is that? We have lost our first love, and that love is a love of Christ. No evangelical would want to admit that. We do love Christ! That's why go to church every Sunday. That's why we are willing to speak out on moral issues. That's why we give to the church, do good works, etc. But, the Bible challenges us to show it in actions, and the primary one is that we should be like Christ. I think that doesn't mean just that we use that to judge what we don't do. Jesus wouldn't steal, so I won't steal. But, what was the main characteristic of Jesus life--the thing that is repeated over and over. None of the gospels emphasizes how well Jesus followed the Law or any other ideas of morality. Certainly I am not to say that he was not moral (he was perfect), but that's not their emphasis. The emphasis is on his love--love for the disciples, love for people around him, and more than that, love for the world (a term John clearly uses to talk about the whole world system and sinful mankind). He loved and the result of that is grace towards the worst sinners and sacrifice for that world that was so against him and the kingdom of God.

We scream out against the world, when we should not be surprised that the world doesn't have our values. But, we don't show love.

Listen carefully the next time you hear about Ebola. You'll hear a lot about what we should do to protect our country, and  that certainly is important. The duty of the government is to protect its citizens. You'll hear discussions about medical issues by people who barely know the difference between aspirin and Tylenol.

But, how often do you hear people expressing, not just some horror that results in pity, but a real love and concern for the families destroyed, the devastation of communities, the orphans left  behind? Surely you will hear some, but then it moves on to the next topic. Where is the love for others? Love results in actions, produces a gracious heart, and leads to sacrifice. Who is willing to sacrifice, even a little time in prayer, a little money toward relief, a voice of reason to push for more done in Africa, much less one's time or one's life?

The early church was a persecuted minority, but they loved their neighbors. They applied Christian doctrine to their lives. They really believed that life was not about expanding their wealth and living more comfortably and it wasn't even just trying to survive. In fact, the survival they thought of was only in the eternal sense. They didn't fear death. They feared embarrassing their Lord.

I read an article a few weeks ago, in Slate by Brian Palmer. The author was at an Ebola consultation and heard it said, “MSF is the only group on the ground,” said one doctor, using the French acronym for Doctors Without Borders. “They are the only ones making any difference.” The congregation nodded in agreement. But, he notes that this is ignoring another group who were also at work, the missionaries. No one was even thinking of them, in spite of the headlines about the missionaries who had contracted Ebola while helping in Africa. He writes, "Missionary doctors and nurses are stationed throughout Africa, in rural outposts and urban slums. Rather than parachuting in during crises, like some international medicine specialists, a large number of them have undertaken long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans." He goes on to talk about his discomfort with the missionary doctors, because of their connecting medical work with their faith, but also admits that this discomfort is due to his own bias. He admits that possibly his atheism has made him biased. "I'm not altogether proud of this bias--I'm just trying to be honest." 

The problem is, though he may have noticed, most of the world hasn't. Some of that is certainly due to the same bias that he admits, but could it also be that we really haven't responded with the massive support that we should have. Or, maybe it is because, even though there are missionary doctors and nurses willing to sacrifice, the church as a whole is not really speaking up. I'm actually not sure, but I do think that if we really had the mind of Christ, the world would not be able to ignore it. Emperor Julian couldn't help but notice, but we can easily be under the radar. 

Where is our influence? Where is our voice? Why isn't there a massive response to show love to our brothers?

Palmer goes on to state that the world should recognize and welcome the missionary doctors because there isn't anyone else who is really willing to stay for the long haul. He even suggests that we shower them with funds to help them out. Finally, he writes, with some irony, "As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we're finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine in Africa, I suggest we stand aside and leg God do His work."

It almost makes me want to say, "Amen." But, what I want to see is not that we stand aside and let God work. We need to step up and take up and engage in God's work actively and without fear. I'd like to make Mr. Palmer even more uncomfortable.

Tricky Dick, Grace, and Forgiveness

It has been a very long time since I published anything to this blog. There was a period of time where my life was in such a turmoil I didn't feel like writing anything. Some or the turmoil still remains and maybe I'll share more of that later, but right now I just felt there were still some things I would like to share.

One of those things, and one that actually pushed me to start writing again, happened a this summer and I noted it down and continue to think about it. You may remember a lot of news reports 'celebrating' the 40th anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about Nixon, but I also realize that there are a lot of people young enough to only know about this from history class (and how much do most of remember from our history classes). So, some background:

President Nixon was one of the most hated men alive for my generation. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, Johnson expanded that war--correction, 'police action'--but Nixon really expanded it and was the focus of many student anti-war protests. I remember the turmoil the nation was in--maybe in some ways similar to today, but in some ways worse. Certainly, not everyone hated Nixon--he did get elected twice--but he was a very polarizing president and those who were against him were very strongly against him.

Then came Watergate, and that's were everything really fell apart. Nixon tried to deny any involvement but gradually the whole thing fell in upon him. As more evidence came in, we all began to see just how extensive the lies had been, and even then Nixon continued to vehemently deny all that he had done. He destroyed the trust of a generation and maybe some of that effect is still being seen today in the lack of trust in any politicians or in government as a whole. But, that's another topic for another day. For Nixon, it continued to unravel his presidency. Impeachment proceedings were begun and only when his most fervent backers met with him to tell him that there was no possibility that the impeachment would fail to pass, did Nixon resign.

Just before he announced that to the press and the world, he spoke to the White House staff (the servants) and then to his administrative staff and the speech was not prepared or written out. It was impromptu, and even a little rambling. But, what struck me was the line that was quoted by all the various news reports on the 40th anniversary, because it was one of those things that was worth sharing.

Nixon knew that he would be vilified in history. He also knew that, as much as he would like to blame (and had blamed) others, it was his fault. He was finally ready to admit it, though not publicly yet. He praised his staff and didn't even hint that they were to blame for anything that happened. Then he said,

Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.

I am not interested in rehabilitating Nixon, but there is a lot of wisdom in that statement, but also a lot of grace. Those who hate you only win if you hate them back. Nixon showed himself to be a paranoid leader, but he learned something pretty valuable through it. We tend to hate people who hate us, but hatred only produces more bitterness and unhappiness in our own selves. If we hate those who hate us, we destroy ourselves.

Reminds me of Joseph, who was incredulous when his brothers late in life still feared that he would get even with them when their father died. They simply could not imagine any other outcome, because that is what they had done to Joseph decades earlier when they plotted to kill him and only reneged on that when the opportunity arose to sell him into slavery and make some money off it (Wonder what they did with that money). They sold him to traders on their way to Egypt where in all likelihood he'd be put to work in some grand building project and die in hard labor. Now, Joseph had the opportunity to get even and their father's death made that easier.

But, Joseph's answer was (paraphrased), "How could I do that? Am I in the position of God? I have no authority to punish you (though legally, he did with his high position in Egypt)." He didn't exonerate them (telling them bluntly that what they did had been evil), but he did forgive them. And, his forgiveness was not just tolerance (which is what much of what we call forgiveness actually is) but real forgiveness. It was over for him. That's grace. And, he not only didn't punish them, he had rewarded them and taken care of them and their families for years.

Nixon's statement showed great wisdom, but it was also practical. It doesn't help to hate. It only satisfies the hatred of your enemies and makes them feel even more right to have hated you. And, the bitterness destroys you.

But, Joseph doesn't go the practical route in his reply. How did he forgive them to such a deep and fundamental level. I think it is because he also recognized the hand of God in what the brothers had done. God didn't force them to do it, they plotted the evil solely of their own volition, and Joseph stated that very clearly as well. However, God, in a sense, twisted their plan into something good that resulted in the Joseph's rise to such a lofty position, but also saved the lives of many people from a 7 year famine. That's what Joseph said.

Ironically, the primary beneficiaries of that salvation were the very evil brothers who sold Joseph as a slave. And, that didn't bother Joseph one bit. For some people, even that would have created bitterness, but Joseph had a completely different world view than most people. God is sovereign, but that doesn't make God responsible for evil. Men make their own decisions and do what they want.

But, Joseph saw God as one whose sovereignty is so complete that it works in a way that is incomprehensible to us. We get things done by controlling others to the extent that we can and manipulating them as much as we can beyond that. We control by systems and rules. But, God can have sovereign control without controlling men's decisions and actions. And, if that is true, it should relieve us of a great burden. We may fear disasters and epidemics, but in everyday life what we really fear is that other people will harm us--whether it's a thug with a gun, a coworker who is manipulating the boss behind our backs, or a friend who could (and sometimes does) betray us.

But, if God can turn evil plans into good, then we don't have to worry that someone might do something to harm us, and when they do, we don't have to worry that this will be the end and have lasting results.

Nixon doesn't mention forgiveness, but for us that's the further result. We can forgive, and not just because to not forgive would only satisfy the one who harmed us. We can forgive because what they did, if it was wrong, was ultimately against God and not against us. And, God can turn evil into good for those who are willing to trust him, and that is the key component. What happened to Joseph in the end only happened because he was able to trust God. I don't think the story would have turned out that way if he had turned on his brothers when he had the chance.

No one can truly harm the believer, at least not in the ultimate long-term (eternal) sense. Others may harm you, but they only win if you turn on them and take the matter into your own hand. And then, you destroy yourself. Those who are willing to forgive and let God judge them are the ones who win. They are the ones who are blessed.

Who's The Man?

Jeff Hawkins replied to my previous post:

"Personality Cult leadership is a HUGE factor in the church today. Churches are built around a "man" and not THE Man, Christ Jesus. New Testament pattern of "plurality" in leadership is crucial...."

Jeff went on from there, but I wanted to focus on this topic first.

I certainly have to agree. A few weeks ago I turned on CNN as I was eating a snack and listened to Piers Morgan interviewing Joel Osteen and his wife. Besides all the problems with his theology and view of God, what struck me was how he was clearly the center of a church and a financial empire. While he talked about God, everything was really about him.

That is an extreme example, but, though maybe more subtle, not really all that uncommon. We don’t have to look far to see many examples of this and in fact, there are times in almost every church when you can at least see shades of this. In many churches, no one questions the pastor, and if they do, it becomes a huge and divisive issue. There is a Chinese saying that you might hear in a Taiwan church which roughly translates as “To be submissive is to be blessed (祝福就是夢福)”. In other words, we'll all be better off if we just do what the pastor says. Leaders lead, the rest follow.

But, is this really the way it is supposed to be? I remember a quote by Peter Jensen to the effect that God is sovereign and he does not delegate and I think that is true. It’s not that God doesn’t give us the privilege of serving and even the privilege of some kind of authority. The issue is what that means.

Do we really believe that we are sinners; that we really are depraved? Do we really believe that this sin nature has affected every facet of our selves? Or, do we think that this is somehow changed when a person becomes a pastor? I can't see anything in the Bible that would imply this and all we have to do is look at so many examples of “fallen” pastors to know that this isn’t the case. Pastors fall just like everyone else at times and it’s a bit disingenuous to think that this is because they are somehow not real or something like that. If we truly believe in a sin nature that is common to all, then no matter how good our intentions are, no matter how strong our faith is, we must keep that in mind. We are still sinners and if so, we cannot completely trust any decision or action that we (or others) make.

I don’t in any way mean that we should become suspicious people, no more than we should be suspicious or our own selves. But, maybe that’s a key to understanding the concept of servant leadership. We know that we ourselves are not always perfect (unless we are a bit psychotic). We know that our motivations are not always the best. We know that we make mistakes and some are big (and embarrassing). We know that we are not always completely honest. That doesn’t mean that we don’t trust ourselves (otherwise we wouldn’t argue our points so forcefully and defend our views or ourselves), but it does mean that our trust is tempered with reality. It means that we study “experts.” It means that we ask others’ opinions about things. We even define “smartness” sometimes by saying things like “smart people are people who know what they don’t know.” We know that we need other people to get by and make progress.

So, why would we build a church around a single man? In a sense, to the extent that a church does that, it is to that extent setting itself up for failure. But, even if we leave out the possibility of catastrophic failure, anyone time we give one person too much power or influence in an organization, we then limit that organization so that it can never grow beyond that person’s limitations. It will develop along the lines of his strengths and those are the things that may be most obvious in the beginning, but it will also build in his weaknesses. The longer this goes on, the more “warped” the organization or church will become.

I think that’s why we need to go toward a type of team leadership. That doesn’t mean that we lead by consensus or that there can’t be one person in charge. Those mistakes are recipes for failure or at least mediocrity. But, leadership is not absolute and untempered. It's not enough to say that the leader must depend on the Lord to guide him. Certainly that is true, but the reality is that no one ever fully depends on the Lord, and we need the help of others. A man who cannot follow has forfeited the potential to lead.

There are Bible passages dealing with this that I think we sometimes overlook or explain away. Paul includes in his exhortations on submission to authority the statement that we are to be submissive to one another. Even leaders have to submit. Jesus mentions the Gentile rulers who rule by authority and power and then tells his disciples that they can't do that. He destroys the argument "but I'm doing this for their own good" by a little aside that these Gentile rulers consider themselves to be acting out of benevolence. It's not enough to have good motivations. You can't be like that. He uses the example of a servant (who might have some authority over another servant, but still are quite limited) and then to make sure that we don't explain that away, he mentions the example of a small child.

We need to think seriously about leadership and what it means in the church. I'm afraid we've taken our own understanding of leadership and read that into the Bible. The problem is not just pastors who make themselves the center or who don't listen to others. The problem is maybe even more that this is what we expect and what we promote.

Children, especially in the society that Jesus lived in when he spoke to his disciples, were not allowed the room to express any of the traits that we would normally associate with a leader. But, Jesus told his disciples that they needed to be more like a small child and even that the more they took on the position of a child, the greater they were.


It may not make sense to us, but we can't dismiss it just because it doesn't make sense. These are the words of Jesus, not just the words of a disciple. He said it. Do we understand? The more we try to explain it away, or the more it doesn't make sense, the more it means that we are off the mark. Maybe we are clueless, but we need to look at this further.


Your thoughts?

There Has to Be a Better Way

I just finished leading a church through a vision retreat. We only had one and a half days and had a lot to cover. The church is very conservative and though all present were key coworkers and leaders, they were all at different stages in their thinking on the church. Most did want and hope for change, but how much and where? And, even when we agree on the need for change and can agree on what needs to be changed, it is still a lot harder to actually overcome the inertia to do it and then work on all the other areas that this change affects to stick with it over the longer term. It reminds me of a statement by Shaun King, former pastor of of Atlanta's The Courageous Church. He says:

"Political campaigns based on radical change win.  Books written about radical change sell.  Sermons on radical change boost Sunday morning attendance.  The idea and thought of change is exciting to people, but mistaking that excitement for an actual willingness on behalf of those people to change now or later could be a miscalculation."

I'm praying that this church will be able to actually make some significant change even if not radical. Whatever reservations I have are not so much a lack of confidence in that church as it is a general statement about all of us. It really is exciting to go to a conference or a meeting and be challenged with making great changes, but then you go home to "the real world" and there is just too much to distract. Maintaining the status quo may not be the best, but it is a lot easier and more comfortable to most people.

I'm still thinking about the discussion raised when Pastor King resigned from the Courageous Church several weeks ago. I'll quote him again, "Big buildings. Huge crowds. Few disciples. I'm not with it. It's inefficient and just doesn't feel right with my soul. This is not a rejection of big buildings or huge crowds, but an indictment on how few disciples are being made in the process of it all. A better way has to exist."

I've been coming to similar conclusions over the years where I work. We talk a lot about how we must impact society and that the church is a lighthouse to the community, but in reality, how much impact is the church having on their neighborhood much less on society. If it were just my church or the country I worked in, I would need to look around at local issues, and certainly that is a part of what must be done. But, the problem is pretty universal and that means that we also need to look at the whole model of "church" that we've been doing. We must go back and think further about what we are doing and why.


That means going back to the original mandate. I would say that what we call the Great Commission was not really a mandate for missions but a mandate for the church. This Great Commission is not referring just to one of the programs of the church raising money for people who "go." This is the mission of the church--to make disciples of all peoples. Certainly our first "target" would have to be those we are closest to, but the mission of every church is the world.

But, I've been saying that all along in this blog and I don't want to focus on overseas missions right now. Even if we overlook the "all nations" part, we still have to look honestly at the rest. How good are we at actually making disciples--not converts, not members, but disciples. I don't think we're doing very well at all.  I'm ready to really rethink our idea of what the church is, and I believe that we have to start from this "mission statement" for the church. If the mission of the church is to "make disciples," that means that we order all that we do around that statement. The ultimate question for everything that we do should be, "In what way does this help us to make disciples?" and, "Is this the most effective thing that we could do to make disciples at this time and with the resources that we have?" Of course, we also need to think about whether we are giving the "all peoples" part a strong enough priority in our work, but let's skip over that for the moment. Even if all we are looking at is the immediate circle of people we have contact with (relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors), are the things we are doing really what is needed and are they the best way to accomplish what Christ has demanded that all believers do? One way to start on that is to go back to the beginning and look at the early church.

If you think about it, Jesus' mandate was audacious if not even a little ridiculous. Before Jesus ascended into heaven he had the small band of disciples gather together on a nearby mountain. There was the core 11 (Judas had betrayed him and was now already dead) and beyond them were maybe a few hundred more. They were ordinary people without a lot of education or money. They were fishermen, farmers, and even at least one tax collector. Probably most of them had never traveled beyond what is a daily commute for some of us. They knew very little about the world. They were out on the edges of the Roman Empire and Jesus' challenge was the world. That must have seemed unbelievable to even imagine that this group could do. But, not only that, when Jesus told them to make disciples of all nations (all peoples) that's about all he said. How should they proceed? Who should lead this movement? How should it be financed? I think that if I were there, I'd probably have said, "You've got to be kidding. You can't leave us with this and nothing else? How in the world can we even start on this?" You've got to give us a plan. You've got to be practical.

And yet's that's basically all that is recorded. Just do it. You figure it out. That's your mission. Get it done. It seems so radical, so huge, so impractical, and so skimpy. He does tell them that all authority in all the universe has been given to him--in other words, the outcome is already certain and he is already ruling. He does tell them that they will receive power when the Spirit comes down among them, but the strategy and planning are pretty open.

While that must have seemed scary and inadequate, at the same time, it is also freeing. There isn't a set plan beyond a few fundamentals. Other than those few things, it's all open. It means that we can be as creative and imaginative as we want and experiment as we see fit within those boundaries.

So, if we have some much freedom, why is it that all churches look basically alike? Yes, there are some huge differences in some areas and there are differences in theology, but they still look about the same (I'm talking about the "church" as a body and not about buildings, though that is true of buildings also). Some are liturgical, some free and open. Some are traditional (some even "ancient") and some contemporary. But beyond those surface things, churches still follow basically the same model.

If we have been given so much freedom, why are we still following the same basic models? And, especially when that the church is not keeping up and not fulfilling its mission, how is it that we are not crying out for change?

I want to explore that over a number of posts and hope that I can instigate some thinking and some discussion. I'm gathering a team to start a new church in the next year or so and I want the help. I don't want it to be just one more church. I want to go back to the beginning--both the original mandate and also the early church. We are in a different world than 2,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn from them. The growth of the church during those first few centuries was phenomenal. Some of the reasons for that don't exist today and can't be duplicated, but there still has be be a lot we can learn.

I'm listening. Let's talk.

The Courageous Church

Shaun King, the founding pastor of The Courageous Church in Atlanta has resigned after 3 years. I've never been to the church and didn't really know of its existence until just recently, so it would be foolish to take sides and make generalizations. I assume that there's always more to the story than I could possibly know, so I want to keep that in mind as I write.

But, reading about the church and Shaun's resignation stirred up emotions and pressed some buttons inside. I don't know all that Shaun was leading the church through and how he was trying to develop the ministry, but his description of the church ministry as being focused on making disciples and the feeling that the church was not doing a very good job of fulfilling that mission resonated. He say, "Big buildings. Huge crowds, few disciples. I'm not with it. It's ineficient and just doesn't feel right with my soul. This is not a rejection of big buildings or huge crowds but is an indictment on how few disciples are being made in the process of it all. A better way has to exist." 

The Courageous Church. What a name that is and what an expression of faith! It is a name that probably no church can really live up to and yet evokes something that we wish all churches would strive for. The idea of courageously forging ahead towards what you know is right no matter the cost and no matter the inconvenience is reminiscent of the church of the New Testament. It assumes that there will be suffering and there will be martyrs. In Atlanta, that wouldn't likely mean dying for one's faith in the midst of persecution, but it does mean living for our faith in such a "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" way that one's life (and position, honor, comforts, etc.) is not really important as you strive for the goal. And, isn't that what Christ said when he told his disciples that anyone who strives to preserve their life would lose it and those willing to sacrifice their life would save it?

But, the reality is normally quite different when you look at the church overall. There isn't much risk taking even in small areas much less those that would risk our life. Comfort, peace, harmony, stability are far greater values than courage. The typical church is much more of an institution than a body (an organization instead of an organism). Most of the energy, effort, time, money, and man-hours goes into the maintenance and preservation of the organization and its property. Often, little goes into direct ministry to those who most need it. Those who most need it are usually not those who attend "the church" but are outside the walls. Look at the business meeting agendas (whether the governing members are called deacons, elders, trustees, or whatever) and see what items are up for discussion and what items take the most time. It's normally organizational details and physical plant issues. Ministry discussions are usually because of a problem or because someone wants to do something. Not much time is often given to the mission of the church (either what it is, how to accomplish it, or whether what we're doing is accomplishing it).

That certainly wasn't true in the New Testament Church. What we see there is not an organization (in fact, there seems almost to be nor organization at all) but an organism. They were putting their lives on the line and it wasn't just a theoretical possibility. It was very serious. But, it wasn't the brash, "I know I can do it," proud kind of courage. It's more of a humble pressing on in spite of the dire straits, like Frodo and Sam at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. There was no certainty of success and a strong likelihood of failure, but they just knew that they had to do it. Giving up was not a reasonable option. They were just a group of ordinary people who had heard the gospel and believed it. They didn't just believe that it was true or that it was the best thing they'd heard so far and therefore ought to be at least close to true. They didn't believe that it would solve their problems, get them a better job, give them health, or give them a good support group. In fact, all the evidence so far showed them the opposite. It was going to make their lives very uncomfortable and maybe painful, maybe even to the point of being stoned to death. What they believed was something quite radical and sacrificial. They believed that Jesus, the Jesus that the leaders in Jerusalem (Jewish and Roman) had killed, was the Son of God. The believed that, even if they weren't a part of the decision to kill Jesus, they were still eternally and alienated from God. The believed that he had risen from the dead and after the shock that a man could return from the dead, the next (and greater) shock was that instead of taking vengeance, this Jesus was offering a superhuman grace of forgiveness and acceptance.

Look at the response after Peter's sermon to the crowd at the end of the second chapter of Acts. They were struck with fear and said, to paraphrase Francis Schaeffer and Ezekiel, "How then should we live?" "What does this mean for us?" The conclusion was radical. This changes everything. Nothing comes close to this in importance. We cannot live as we once did.

That's courage, and of a kind that I've seldom seen in today's church outside of some areas where there is great persecution. So, when I read about this church and Shaun's desire to lead it into a total rethinking of what the church should be and read of his description of what he expected, I wanted to say a hearty Amen!  The church should be making disciples and not just collecting warm bodies. I don't know the details of what he wanted to do, and maybe they aren't the best way, but still have to agree with him that something does need fixing. I applaud his courageous goals and his courage to step down when he felt he could not take the church there with him.

But, where do we need to go? I'd love to hear your comments. What do you think?