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.

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.

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?