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.

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.

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?

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.