RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Much has been said about the divisions in America today.  Though there have always been areas of disagreement, it seems as though today we are more divided than we have been in a long time.  And it seems that in our present situation(s) everything has boiled down to politics.  Many of us, myself included, have lost friends, or at least have to some extent distanced ourselves from long time acquaintances.  This is painful, especially when those from whom we have distanced ourselves are family, or fellow Christians.

Much of the conversation has gone from dialogue or even debate, to simply name - calling or pigeonholing.  Our temptation when called names or when disagreed with is to either return insult for insult or to distance ourselves.  (It's so easy to simply hit "unfriend" on our phone or computer that we find it easy to do the same with real person-to-person relationships.)  Yet we all know that we are losing something in this process.

One way that some use to avoid conflicts is to simply refuse to discuss "religion and politics." I have heard this recommended much of my life from those who feel they are taking "the high road."  But these are the issues that actually have meaning.  If we avoid all topics that could lead to controversy, our conversation becomes rather meaningless and we are left with discussions about movies, TV, sports, food or similar matters - things which are enjoyable but superficial.  (And discussions of these matters are not themselves free from controversy).

I feel that the issues of the day need to be discussed, especially by those who claim to be Christians - followers of Jesus Christ.  But how do we have discussions when many of us hold passionately to opinions that are diametrically opposed?

So I felt that I needed to write out my personal positions underlying my political and ethical opinions.  My thinking is that opinions are subject to change, but the bases for the opinions should not.  Or at least they should be very very difficult to change.  These positions, I feel should be the starting points for dialogue.  If my reader(s) and I can agree on these, we have a chance for agreement on other issues.  I realize of course that many will not agree with all (or even any) of these, but at least they will know where I'm coming from.

* First of all I am a follower of Jesus Christ.  He through his death on the cross and his resurrection has guaranteed me eternity with him and with God . I have committed my life to him as my Savior and Lord (even though I fail him often).

* I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and must be, when correctly interpreted, the standard by which I judge all matters, personal, ethical and political.  The follower of Christ is a partaker of what is known as the New Covenant as presented in the portion of the Bible known as the New Testament and is not bound by the laws given to Israel under the Old Covenant as elaborated in the Old Testament, although the Old Testament presents much having to do with God's character and His dealings with humankind.  The New Testament presents us with many moral and ethical teachings, though all fall under the Law of Love, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

* Yet I consider myself a thinker who is liberal as opposed to conservative, in the sense that my thinking is not bound by tradition or authoritarianism.  I believe that "all truth is God's truth" and I am open to new thinking.  I do not believe this is contrary to my faith in the truth of Scripture, but it does leave me open to new insights and interpretations.

* I believe that God is sovereign in all matters, including human government.  This does not necessarily however, imply that He approves of the actions and behavior of various human governments.  Both the Old Testament and New Testament tell us that God does hold the nations of the world accountable to certain moral standards.

* We who are followers of Christ are citizens of two Kingdoms.  Our first loyalty must be to the Kingdom of God, although we are also citizens of "the Kingdom of the world," of which America is a part.

* The United States of America is not a "Christian Nation," there is no such thing.  The only nation that could be called "God's nation" was the Old Testament nation of Israel.  Much of our conflict in today's discussion is due to the confusion of three separate entities:  the USA, the New Testament Church and the Old Testament nation of Israel.  Also we need to remember that the New Testament gives no standards as to which form of government or economic system we are to follow.

The above are my "rules of engagement."  The reader is free to disagree with these, but please remember, this is where I'm coming from.  Feel free to challenge these if you desire.  We can still have dialogue, as long as we know and respect one another.  I can supply Scripture references for the above claims if desired.

POST-TRUTH

I've been around a long time.  In my lifetime I've been exposed to many truth claims, not all of which are true - some by my contemporaries, some by those considered experts in their field, some by political leaders.  Truth telling seems most difficult for those in the political arena, even, especially for those with political power.  We as Americans, as Christians are often forced to distinguish between genuine facts and propaganda.

And we've heard some doozies from our leaders, even our Presidents and their spokesmen, many of them outright lies, intended to deceive:  justifications for wars, break-ins, sexual scandals.

But our present situation surpasses them all.  We have a President who tells us in the face of contradictory evidence, that three million people voted illegally for his adversary, that the crowds at his inauguration were the greatest ever, that his predecessor was not born in the USA (wait - he took that one back and blamed its spread on his opponent).  And those are just the laughable ones.  There are many more instances that are much more serious, designed to promote his agenda.

However, this battle against the truth did not begin with Donald Trump.

Friends who know I'm a reader, often recommend books to me, sometimes telling me, "You've got to read ______!"  Somehow those words raise resistance in me, so I seldom use them myself.  But this book is different.  To any and every Christian leader or thinker I'd say, "You've got to read this book:  Post Truth!"

We are in a battle for truth today. Of course, one could assert that we have always been engaged in this battle - ever since the serpent asked Eve, "Yea, hath God said ....?"  However, I believe that we have entered a period in America - and the world - where we are no longer attempting to ascertain facts, but are simply selecting assertions that confirm our own prejudices.  Truth has become that which we choose it  to be.

The little (172 pages) book Post-Truth by Lee McIntyre is an attempt to explain "How we arrived in a post-truth era, when 'alternative facts' replace actual facts, and feelings have more weight than evidence.'" (back cover blurb)  McIntyre, we are told, "is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School."  The book is a volume in The MIT Essential Knowledge Series.  The author informs us, however, that this book is unique in its topic.  It "was born from a sense of regret by those who worry that truth is being eclipsed" and that it is "impossible to achieve the kind of dispassionate neutrality that one might expect in an academic book." (Preface p. XIII)

He lets the reader know right at the beginning that he is not seeking a balanced view, which is clearly not possible.  "To do so would engage in a kind of false equivalence that is the hallmark of post-truth itself."  He goes on to explain that this challenge to truth is used "as a mechanism for asserting political dominance," and thus this book will not "shy away from politics." (p.xiii)

McIntyre gives us The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of post-truth as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."(page 5)  To understand post-truth we must, of course, know what truth is.  He gives us Aristotle's as his minimum definition ... "to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true." (page 7)

Post-truth is a subversion of truth and it can take many forms - simple "falsehood," "willful ignorance" and "lying" which involves the "intent to deceive."  Post-truth, however, goes beyond this to "self-deception and delusion" where one actually believes one's falsehoods and that this belief somehow changes the facts.  One has created one's own reality simply by believing.  The challenge of post-truth is not just to the knowledge of reality "but to the existence of reality itself." (p. 9, 10)  Facts have become subordinate to one's opinions, especially political opinions.

Though denial of truth has been around since the beginning, McIntyre sees its recent uptick in the denial of science in recent years - climate change, vaccine and evolution.  He presents the work of the tobacco industry in casting doubt on science with alternative views as being the pioneering work in science denial.  He speaks of "a straight line .... from the 'tobacco strategy' of the 1950's to today's "controversy over global warning." (p.27)  The strategy is not to disprove scientific data but simply to raise doubts about their accuracy.  And of course,  the media have willingly cooperated by presenting "'both sides of the story' on any 'controversial scientific issue.'" (p. 33)  Thus are implicated in this trend not only the industries who have a financial stake, but the news media as well.

The author devotes a chapter to "cognitive bias," its roots and its branches.  Cognitive bias is our tendency to accept as true those data which confirm our preexisting views.  He describes our tendency to "social conformity;" to "motivated reasoning" - "what we hope to be true may color our perception of what actually is true;" "the backfire effect" - doubling down when confronted with contradicting data; the "Dunning-Kruger effect"  - the inability to recognize one's own ineptitude.

Another chapter is devoted to "the Decline of Traditional Media." Not only are traditional news - sources losing their readership, but biased sources are arising to take their place.  Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh "set himself up as a source of truth in opposition to the rest of American media," (p. 68) exploiting confirmation bias. But even the traditional media have been complicit by attempting to "tell both sides of the story" and thus "creating false equivalence" between two sides of an issue even when there were not really two credible sides." (p. 72)

Chapter 5 is devoted to "Social Media" and "Fake News."  It would seem that the intelligent reader would be aware of the use of social media to spread deception, but many users simply click "share" and pass on anything without critical examination.  McIntyre devotes much material to the need for critical thinking in this area.

Though throughout most of the book, it is those of the political right, and especially Donald Trump who are given as examples, the left is not without excuse.  Academia is also to blame, especially the concept of postmodernism.  It is in this school of thought that "the notion of truth itself was now under scrutiny,"  (p. 125)  Truth claims are treated as merely expressions of ideology.  In postmodernism, "there is no such thing as objective truth." (p. 126)  Though the political right in the past was involved in battling postmodernism, they have evolved into its greatest users.  They have turned an abstract philosophical concept into a weapon.  Even Intelligent Design creationists have been guilty of utilizing its thinking.

The final chapter, "Fighting Post-Truth" was not very encouraging to me.  Though some strategies are given, most boil down to simply stating the truth in the face of its enemies.

So how do I, how do you the reader, react to the warnings in this book?  How do we who claim to be followers of the One who claimed to be "The Truth" react to the data presented here?

First of all we need to beware of "confirmation bias" on our part.  I am afraid that many Evangelicals are guilty of rejecting any truth claims simply because they appear to contradict our own rigid set of beliefs.  As has been said many times "all truth is God's truth."  We have nothing to fear.  Most of the assertions in this book are easily verifiable simply by observation of what's happening around us.

We need to get out of our bubble.  There's more out there for us than "Christian Radio" and/or Fox News.  Expose yourself to other thinking.  Read news magazines.  Watch the News. Learn to distinguish facts from opinions.  Don't be afraid to seek to know the facts about matters even though they may be threatening.

Become biblically and theologically astute.  What are the real moral issues on which we stand?  I have found that many Christians are guilty of opposing scientific knowledge, not because it contradicts the Bible, but because it doesn't agree with their political prejudices.  [Do you know that there is not one passage in the Bible that says manmade global warning cannot occur?]

As I said earlier, this is a must read book for the Christian leader or thinker. It is however, not a "Christian" book.  But if secular thinkers actually believe that we are engaged in a battle for the truth, then we who are followers of the Truth should be careful which side we are on.

CUT OFF?

I received the following question on a facebook post a while back:  "I'm listening to the Bible on audible.  What does it mean when someone is cut off from their people in Leviticus?  Is it like a social shun and ejection or their exclusion from God's "people" or something else?"

My reply was "I think that 'cut off' could mean any of the things you mentioned.  I think I need to dig a big deeper though.  I'll get back with you later."

Then someone else added, "Now I'm curious.  Do share your research please."

My reply, "When I get to it."

Well here we are.  Actually this is one of those expressions in the Bible that's quite troubling, so I suspect that I've ignored its meaning for that reason.  So, after doing a bit of study I'm still not sure.  I still feel that the meanings may vary according to context.

The Hebrew word is KARAT and its simplest meaning is "cut."  The meaning of "cut off" is usually clear from the context.  When used literally the meaning is obvious.

Exodus 4:25:  "And Zipporah took a knife and cut off her son's foreskin ...."

1 Samuel 17:51:  "And David ran up and stood over the Philistine (Goliath), grasped his sword, pulled it from its sheath and killed him and cut off  his head with it."

However, when used metaphorically the exact meaning is hard to determine.  A few passages clearly speak of capital punishment.

Exodus 31:14:  "You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy for you.  The one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:2, 3:  "Any one ... who gives an of his children to Molech shall be put to death ...  I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people..."  All of chapter 20 seems to equate cutting off with capital punishment, especially in the areas of idolatry and sexual taboos.

There are many passages that appear to refer to exclusion from the covenant community for failing to take part in the prescribed rituals.

Genesis 17:14: failure to be circumcised.

Exodus 12:15, 19:  failure to properly celebrate the Passover.

Exodus 30:33, 38:  using the holy perfume for personal use.

Leviticus 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 18:29; 19:8; 22:3:  ritual uncleanness, eating non-kosher food.

We could go on and on.  The word is used 100s of times.  While I would like to believe that its normal metaphorical meaning is exclusion or shunning or excommunication, I have a strong suspicion that it may usually refer to capital punishment.  We don't like to admit it but the Mosaic Law was extremely harsh, some would even say cruel.  However as we read the rest of the Old Testament we come to realize that these laws were often ignored and not regularly enforced; they were frequently broken or ignored, without penalty.

The Mosaic Law (Exodus - Deuteronomy) was given for many reasons.  While many parts of it are there to demonstrate the holiness of God and the requirements for approaching him, I believe that much of it was simply given (as laws are today) to regulate the behavior of sinful (though redeemed) people.

But this Law is not given to regulate the behavior of these who know Christ.  As Jeremiah promised, God has set aside the Old Covenant with its laws and given a New Covenant in which He writes His laws on the hearts of His people - including even us non-Israelites.

The Mosaic Law was also given to show us our lost condition.  It pronounced a curse on those who fail to follow it.  But as the Apostle Paul said in Galatians 3:13:  "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us."  (Read all of Galatians 3:10-14.)

MISPLACED ALLEGIANCE

The American embassy in Israel has been moved from Tel Aviv - where many nations still have theirs - to Jerusalem.  Though many students of American foreign policy believe this to be an unwise move, many feel that this was the right thing to do and has been too long in coming.  The nation of Israel claims Jerusalem to be its capital, though many Palestinians claim East Jerusalem is, or at least should be their capital - the capital of the Arab West Bank.

Our President claims that this move will ultimately lead to peace in the Middle East, without (of course) specifying how this is to occur.  Mr. Trump is lauded as a hero in Israel, with great ceremonies commending this move by America and its President.  Speakers in these ceremonies include prominent "Evangelical" preachers.  Meanwhile the conflict between Israel and its neighbors seems more volatile, while deadly demonstrations by Palestinians are carried on.  (Of course the "deadly" applies to the Palestinians, not the Israelis - 50+ Palestinians dead and innumerable wounded.)

Many in the American Evangelical community are rejoicing in this action, some seem almost giddy.  Why is this?

A large number of Evangelical Christians hold to a theological system known as Dispensationalism, even though many who hold this position may never have heard the word.  Dispensationalists take pride in "rightly dividing the Word of Truth," in noting the distinctions made in the Scriptures.  To some extent this is an excellent way to interpret the Scriptures.  But sometimes Dispensationalists make distinctions where the Bible is not that clear.  And they also at times carry those distinctions to illogical conclusions.

Dispensationalists distinguish (as do many Christians) between God's Old Covenant people and His New Covenant people, between the nation of Israel of the Old Testament and the Church of the New, between Judaism and Christianity.  They do not however see the Church (Christianity) as a continuation of God's promises, expanded to include both Jews and non Jews who believe in Christ. They seem to ignore Paul's words, "So then, know this; that those who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7).

Dispensationalists see Israel as a people set aside until the end times when God will again deal with them.  "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob'" (Romans 11:26; Isaiah 59:20).  And many see the birth of the present (secular) nation of Israel in 1948, and the following events  as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.  According to Dispensationalist eschatology (the doctrine of last things) the nation of Israel, scattered for millennia, must be back in their land and undergo seven years of "Great Tribulation" before Jesus returns.  The recent move is seen as one more step in that direction.

And this eschatology has led some (not all) Dispensationalists to a strange devotion and commitment to a foreign nation.  Some even refer to themselves as "Christian Zionists."  Many American Dispensationalists appear to place their loyalty to Israel above their loyalty to their own country.  The nation of Israel is regarded not simply as an American ally in the Middle East, nor even as the homeland of a people who have been homeless for 2,000 years.  Israel in the land is regarded by them as the fulfillment of prophecy.  To disregard Israel is considered to be akin to heresy.

And so many Dispensationalists and other Evangelicals demand that the U. S. government support Israel both financially and militarily.  A great part of the pro-Israel lobby is in fact, not Jewish but "Christian."  There are even "Christian" organizations that support Israel and even promote the sending of Jews back to the land.

But why is this?  Though I no longer consider myself a Dispensationalist, even when I thought I was one I had second thoughts on this position.  If Israel's return to the land is a fulfillment of prophecy - and I'm not sure it is - then God is the principle Actor in this drama.  Does He need the help of well-meaning American Evangelicals?  Why should we rejoice over this nation?  Why should we seek to protect it?  Do we expect to prevent the "Great Tribulation"? Or are we actually hoping to bring it on?

When the New Testament was being written, the land of Judea, at that time a Roman province with similar boundaries, was going through political turmoil.  Their conflicts led to a revolt against their Roman overlords, ultimately leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jewish people.  Jesus prophesied these occurrences, and some think the Book of Revelation may also speak of these.  Yet nowhere are Christians of that day urged to support Israel financially or militarily.  In fact the Biblical writers Paul and Peter urge submission to the very government that would soon destroy their homeland.

The New Testament is clear as to what our obligations as followers of Christ are to our fellow human beings:  we are to love them as we love ourselves; we are to "go and disciple all the nations."  Distinctions are not made as to which people or which nations deserve our concern.

Peter says that we - the church - are "a holy nation, a people for His own possession."  It is this "nation" to which our allegiance belongs.

A HIGHER LOYALTY

"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." - Margaret Thatcher (quoted on page 158)

It seems that no one knows how to understand James Comey.  He is castigated by those on both sides of the political divide and by many in between.  Hillary Clinton blames him for her loss of the election; Donald Trump calls him a "slimeball."  And yet when he appears in interviews on TV, (and he's had a lot of them) he seems earnest and sincere.

James Comey is probably best known as the 6'-8" director of the FBI, who was fired in May of 2017 by President Donald Trump.  He was appointed to that position by Barack Obama, and had previously served as Deputy Attorney General under George W. Bush, and before that as assistant U. S. Attorney and U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  He has had a long history of service, although many only know of him from his appearances on the TV news programs.

After it seemed Comey had receded to the background of the news cycle, he began reappearing, promoting the release of his book, A Higher Loyalty - Truth, Lies and Leadership.  He appeared in interviews by many of the TV newspersons as well as some of the late night comics.  Reactions by the interviewers were mixed, generally relaxed, though some almost sounded prosecutorial and Stephen Colbert's seemed actually congenial.

But many of the critical comments on his book were almost malicious.  It was called "bitchy;" it "torches what's left of his own reputation."  Comey "surrenders the high ground," he "descends to Trump's level" [as if that were possible]; he lets "Trump, once again get the better of him;" he lowers himself to Trump's "sordid level;" "showing that his judgment is flawed."  All these, coming from the print media, both left and right seemed to contradict our early impressions of Comey as reasonable, honest and sincere.

So of course, Uni and I had to read his book.  And we somehow did not come away with the same impressions that the news commentators did.  The book in a sense, defies categorization - it is a memoir; it is an apologetic; it is a treatise on personal ethics; and of course it has much to say about our political situation in America, while attempting to be apolitical.  It is a book, as the author lets us know, about ­truth.  Comey lets us know the inadequacy he feels in writing a book about "ethical leadership," but feels that truth is under fire in America today and that this is "a time when examination of ethical leadership would be useful."  He tells us "... there is a higher loyalty in all of our lives...The higher loyalty is to lasting values, most important the truth."

The early chapters are well-written, fascinating reading.  Comey relates many details of his childhood, youth and college experiences that he apparently believes have brought him to where he is today.  Bullied as a child (he was not an early bloomer), threatened with a gun by a burglar; taking part in bullying himself in college; all these actions making an impression that would last.  He tells of those who mentored or had an early influence on him.  One who apparently made an impact on him was a grocer named Harry Howell, of whom he said, "Looking back, even after working for presidents and other prominent leaders in and outside government, I still think Harry Howell was one of the finest bosses I have ever had." (page 34).  Quite a statement considering the many other well known figures mentioned.

While the book is filled with many examples of positive leadership style, there are also a few who serve as bad examples.  The mafia leaders he dealt with as Assistant U. S. Attorney, whose leadership style was based on personal loyalty, the mafia killers whom he dealt with who could justify their actions and appear to be otherwise normal people, of whom he commented, "Evil has an ordinary face.  It laughs, it cries, it deflects, it rationalizes, it makes great pasta." (page 27).

Then there was the influence of his wife.  "But the person who taught me the most about leadership is my wife, Patrice." (page 43).  He tells of their struggles with the early death of their son and of Patrice's campaign for early testing for Group B streptococcus which had killed him, and of the wisdom in dealing with God and suffering that she had taught James.

Which brought up to us James Comey's faith.  Uni said, "He must be a Christian ... or at least he talks and acts like a Christian ought to."  We spent much time and conversation on this topic.  Religion was his second major as a college undergraduate.  He quotes Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther.  The paragraph on "God's role in human history" on page 47 reflects deep thought on God.

One could read this book superficially, simply as a series of episodes of adventure in the crime fighting profession.  We like the casual "name-dropping" and the roles he played in many national political crises.  His clash with some of President Bush's people, even his confrontation with the President himself, where he quoted Martin Luther, "Here I stand.  I can do no other." (page 96).

Yet James Comey did his best to avoid politics.  His concern was always "to do the right thing."  He speaks as one totally committed to truth and justice.  "I don't care about politics.  I don't care about expediency.  I don't care about friendship.  I care about doing the right thing.  And I would never be part of something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.  I mean, obviously we all make policy judgments where people disagree, but I will do the right thing." (page 94), an excerpt from his confirmation hearing was taped by his wife to the refrigerator door.

We also get the idea that he had a great amount of respect for both President Bush, under whom he served as Deputy Attorney General and President Obama,.who appointed him as FBI Director.  He seemed to actually like them both and wanted them to succeed, while at the same time avoiding politics.

Of course, nearly the entire second half of the volume is taken up with matters that are still discussed in the daily news:  Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation, the Russian influence on the 2016 election and of course his relations with, and firing by Donald Trump.  I suppose that this was the main reason many purchased this book.  The pundits of course homed in on this part of Comey's story and then criticized as mentioned above, also complaing that the book adds nothing to our knowledge of the current soap opera in Washington.

However, as for Uni and me, our motives for reading were not those of the pundits.  We both felt that here was a man with whom we could empathize, a man who sought to always "do the right thing" even at personal cost.  We felt that with all the lies and self-serving that accompany the current series of scandals, here was one man who stood above the crowd (and not just physically).

Yes, his remarks about Donald Trump are harsh, but nowhere do they descend to the level of that man.  His warnings to America are not sour-grapes or the angry reactions of his firing.  We agree with him that "Donald Trump's presidency threatens much of what is good in this nation," and that the adulation of "so-called conservative commentators, including some faith leaders ... strikes me (and us) as both hypocritical and morally wrong."  (page 25).

We believe that one reason there is so much criticism of James Comey is that very few of his critics, right or left, have ever met a man who is totally committed to "do the right thing," who believes in **a "higher loyalty."  And so they attack his person, and even worse, his motives.  Attacking a person's motives rather than his actions is wrong  headed and seems to us to show that there are no greater criticisms to levy.

We're not saying that James Comey is beyond criticism.  He may do something in the future to greatly disappoint.  But this book presents a man who is exemplary in both his motives and behavior, a man who is humble enough to examine himself - and he is much more honest in his self-evaluation than his critics.

MY 500TH POST

I have been blogging for over twelve years and it seemed to me that number 500 should be something special; but since no particular topic came to mind, I'll just post some rambling thoughts.

I keep a hard copy of every post, and save them in 3-ring notebooks of 100 each. So this one will fill up my fifth.  The first four notebooks took about two years each to fill up, but this last one took four years.  It's not that I have run out of stuff to say, it's just that much of what I have to say I've said before and I feel that I'm boring enough without repeating myself too much.  Plus, often when I think I need to speak up on a matter, I find that someone else has already written an article saying it better.

If there are any out there who have been reading this blog regularly over the yearsthey may feel that my thinking has changed in many matters, but as I re-read my old posts I feel that I have been reasonably consistent (although there are a few posts I feel need correcting or updating and a few need to be thrown out.)  I feel rather that my thinking has sharpened in many ways.  I'm only 81 years old and still learning.  Writing does have that effect on ones thinking, or as Sir Francis Bacon said:  "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man."

Though I have undoubtedly failed many times, I have attempted to keep my thinking and writing within a Biblical/Christian world view and I am open to correction whenever I appear to stray from this goal.  I also have attempted to think with a "liberal" mind, by which I mean a mind open to new truths.  And I believe strongly that there is such a thing as truth and that "All truth is God's truth." (Though I can't find an original source for that quote.)

I believe that ethics, morals and politics have been changing within American culture, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better.  And sad to say, ethics, morals and politics have also been changing within the church, at times going right along with those of the culture around us, at other times in a reactionary fashion.  This, I suppose has not been happening only in my last 12 years of blogging, nor in the years of my lifetime, but since the beginning of the human race.

"If you see something, say something" is a current exhortation.  Well I suppose that much of what I write on this blog is just that; when I see something that I feel requires me to speak, I must speak.

I have found quite a few would agree with my thoughts and quite a few would disagree.  I still welcome any comments.  A few requests for those who disagree:

            - If you are a Christian please make sure of where your disagreements come from.  Are they compatible with a Biblical/Christian worldview? It's very difficult to resolve matters when we are starting from different points.

            - Please avoid ad hominem arguments and please avoid trying to put me in a box and please don't think you've proven anything because you've called me names. ("You think that way because you're a ...!")  I've lately been accused of being a "liberal blowhard," a "Marxist," an "American-bashing historical revisionist," "delusional" and a few more.

Actually I take some comfort when disagreements and criticisms degenerate into name calling.  I figure I must be saying something right when these are the only arguments that can be mustered.

I welcome any suggestions for further posts.  Of course, then I'll have a buy a new 3-ring binder.

THE STRUGGLE TO SHAPE AMERICA

That's the subtitle of the 600+ page book that I finally finished reading.  The full title is The Evangelicals - The Struggle to Shape America by Frances FitzGerald.  Though the book was at times tedious (to me) it is a book well worth reading for anyone concerned about where the Church in America is at present.

As I have long considered myself an Evangelical Christian, I felt that this book was a necessary read, especially as the title seems to be almost an oxymoron, and in itself, I believe, is illustrative of the false dilemma that the evangelical church finds itself in.

The author, we are told, "is a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award and the Bancroft Prize, among others."  She is a prolific author of a number of non-fiction works, though this is the  first I've read.  She is now on my list of authors for future reads.

Ms. FitzGerald does not (to my knowledge) herself claim to be an Evangelical though she has written extensively on the subject.  This is what attracted me to her book.  I strongly believe that we Evangelicals desperately need to get outside of our box and see how we are perceived by others.  The book should not be a threat to the fearful, as she attempts to be objective and even appears to be mildly sympathetic.  The photo on the jacket of her sitting casually in her blue jeans before a wall of books is, I'm sure, designed to put the reader at ease: she is erudite, but relaxed and non threatening.

In her introduction, she tells us "This book is not a taxonomy or attempt to describe the entirety of evangelical life, but rather a history of the white evangelical movements necessary to understand the Christian right and its opponents that have emerged in recent years" (page 5).  In my opinion, she has accomplished her purpose well.

Ms. FitzGerald is quite thorough in covering the movement in America.  She begins her narrative with accounts of what are known as "The Great Awakenings" of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and moves on to the growth of the revivalist churches  - Methodists and Baptists - and the movement away from the older, historical denominations.  From there to the divisions over slavery in the antebellum period, then to the revivalism and the liberal/conservative divides of the late 19th century.  These movements - the first two American centuries - are covered quite briefly before she moves to the 20th century, which period occupies the remaining chapters of the book.

The first half of the 20th century - the period preceding the Second World War is, as the first two centuries, covered in a bit hastier fashion, serving as an important prelude to the post war activities.  It is however in this period we see the Fundamentalist/Modernist conflict and the great divisions in the church  - the early Pentecostal movement and the founding of smaller separatist Fundamentalist groups as well as their colleges and seminaries.  Of course the Scopes' "Monkey Trial" is seen as a significant marker, Darwinian evolution and German "higher criticism" being seen as factors contributing to the conflict.

After WW2 the narrative slows down and becomes more detailed.  It is here that Ms. FitzGerald seems to see the beginnings of modern Evangelicalism:  the Billy Graham crusades, the National Association of  Evangelicals, Christianity Today magazine and other periodicals, a movement away from the rigid Fundamentalism of earlier years, yet without abandoning its theological distinctives.

Though much of the prewar history was familiar to me, it is postwar history that seized my attention as more personal; I found much in these pages that I could relate to, having lived through the period covered.  I suppose I would call myself  a "seeker" during those early postwar years, and then a convert in the middle  '50s.  I was involved in a Fundamentalist  church for 11 years, then having escaped that , a Bible church which was less combative, less legalistic, but still holding the same theology.

Two major, seemingly incompatible, schools of thought had effects on Evangelicalism in those years and still do.  These theologies have, to a great extent spread into most of Evangelical thinking, and are held in different variations, even  by many who would never claim the labels:

-  Dispensationalism, which had its beginnings in the early 19th century, has been around so long that its teachings are accepted by many is essential to Evangelicalsm.  Briefly Dispensationalism holds that God has dealt in different manners with different groups during various "dispensations."  We are presently in the "dispensation of grace" or the Church Age.  However God has set aside the nation of Israel, to be dealt with in a future "Great Tribulation" {Ms. FitzGerald mistakenly adds an s to the word) immediately preceding Christ's "premillennial" return. This is the form of Evangelicalism with which I am most familiar, having spent most of my life as a Dispensationalist.
- Reconstructionism  (also known as Dominionism) holds that God's Law, given to the Nation of Israel, is actually meant for all nations to be subject to and the task of the church is to somehow bring this about, leading to the Millennium - 1,000 years of peace at the end of which Christ will return.

It would seem obvious that these two schools of thought should be incompatible, Dispensationalism seeing the situation as inevitably getting worse and worse and Reconstructionism seeing it as having the potential for getting better and better.  Yet it seems to me that elements of both are held by much of Evangelicalism, leading to a sort of schizophrenic theology and thus to a schizophrenic politics.

The last half of the book is involved with the growth of actions of the Christian right and the interesting cast of characters that we all know so well:  Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and James Dobson, as well as brief narratives of lesser but colorful characters, such as Jim and Tammy Fae Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and other televangelists.  She also deals here with the fact that many Evangelicals have disagreed strongly with the views and actions of the Christian Right:  Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, Gregory Boyd and others who are often regarded as progressives, though I believe they are simply striving to be more biblical in their ethical and political views.

I must confess that I have been naive.  Though I have always attempted to keep myself somewhat aloof from the Christian right, I have found many, perhaps most of my Christian friends and family sympathetic with their views and so I have tried to not become too outspoken.  I had been unaware of how great was the constant meddling of these people in the affairs of state.  I had thought that what I read in the news magazines and heard on TV a bit exaggerated, that their picture of Evangelicalism was a stretch.  We're not really like that.  But we are!  The massive quantity of data is all there.

The Christian right has lost its way; the political power that was gained during the G. W. Bush years has drained away any spiritual power.  Evangelicalism has lost its Evangel - its good news!  We are too busy trying to do as the subtitle says:  struggling to shape America.  Christ and His commission have been left behind!

I highly recommend this book to any who want to understand how we, the Evangelical church in American got to the sad state we are in today.

My two major criticisms:

- Ms. FitzGerald has underestimated the power of racism in America.  Even though she mentions its influence throughout, I feel she hasn't considered how powerfully it has affected much of the thinking and many of the actions of the right.
- She doesn't devote anywhere near the space to the Obama years and what follows as I would have liked (another 100 pages?).  I believe that the politics of today have been greatly affected by the theology and racism of the Right - both religious and other.

A NEW COMMANDMENT

Meditations on the Cross, 13

"A new commandment I'm giving you  - that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you love one another.  By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34, 35)

These words of Jesus, spoken to his 11 disciples in the upper room on the eve of his crucifixion, are often quoted and have been paraphrased, even put to music.  (We sang them often during the 70s.)  But what was Jesus referring to when he said, " ... as I have loved you"?  Our thoughts usually go to the cross when we think of the greatness of his love - but these words were spoken before he went to the cross!

Jesus had previously often quoted Leviticus 19:18 which he referred to as the Second Great Commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  By "neighbor" of course, he was alluding to anyone who might have need of love, i.e. our fellow human beings, but in this "New Commandment" he was narrowing the field to "one another," by which he means his hearers' fellow disciples.  And he has raised the standard of love from  one's normal self-love to the love he had shown them..

I believe that John (who refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"), the author of this story and an eyewitness to the events, gives us some clues in the preceding narrative.

John tells us that at this point in time, at what is usually referred to as "the Last Supper," Jesus had full knowledge of what was going to happen to him within a few short hours. He  knew "that his hour had come that he would depart from this world to the Father ... the devil already having put into the heart of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot that he would betray him ... that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God ..."  (13:1-3)  And yet, though all these matters, good and bad, were occupying his mind, "... having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end!" (13:1)

And then Jesus performed a strange act.  He "... got up from supper and  laid aside his garments, and taking a towel, tied it around himself.  Then he put water into the wash basin and began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them off with the towel which was wrapped around him."

I'd suppose that every eye was fixed on Jesus, as he went from one reclining man to the next, speaking strange things to one of them, Simon Peter, but otherwise silent.  Washing the feet of the dinner guests was an act usually performed by a servant, or (I'm told) if no servant were available, by each dinner guest on the next guest to arrive.  But no one had done so.  Perhaps as they entered they had been engaged in deep conversation; perhaps they had been at this time even involved in the dispute mentioned by Luke in his account (Luke 22:24ff) "as to which one of them was the greatest."

I would imagine some consternation and confusion among these twelve men.  After all they were disciples of the man who recently had ridden into Jerusalem and was hailed by the crowds as "The King of Israel."  He was the Rabbi they had followed for three years, the one they referred to as Lord.  And here he was - naked on his knees on the floor,  performing the act of a common slave!

John continues his narrative, telling of Jesus confrontation with Peter, the brief discourse on washing one anothers' feet, the prediction of Judas' betrayal.  And then the chapter comes to a climax in the words quoted at the beginning of this post.

Jesus' words and actions are loaded with symbolism.  Everything he does has significance.  Leaving aside his discourse on foot washing (a later post?) we see him in a sense, acting out a parable of his incarnation.

The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Philippians (2:6-8) tells his readers in a beautiful piece of poetry of the preincarnate Christ:

            "Who being God in form

            did not consider equality with God something to be clung to
            but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,
            becoming in the likeness of humans
            and being found in outward form as a man,
             he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death
            - even death on a cross."

This I believe, is what Jesus was illustrating for them - and for us - by his actions. He had laid aside his garments at the table, as he had done at his incarnation.  He had taken the role of a slave, there in the upper room, as he had in Bethlehem.  And as he would do on the cross the next day.

And though some may disagree, I believe that there on the floor in the upper room Jesus was totally naked.  Nakedness in the Bible in some sense symbolizes shame Genesis 3 tells us that it was when Adam and Eve sinned that they first realized their own nakedness.  Was Jesus in his nakedness identifying himself with that pair in their nakedness and shame?

And the next day in Golgotha he would hang naked as the soldiers gambled over his clothing.  This was the final stage in his obedience, his shame, his humiliation.

And yes, he took on himself not only the shame, but also the guilt of those men in the upper room; and he took on our shame and guilt as well.

And he makes a demand of us, of all who have taken advantage of his grace by placing our faith in him.  We are to love one another as he has loved us.  That's quite a demand. Are we willing to "empty" ourselves, to face humiliation, to bare ourselves to one another (though not literally), for the sake of our brothers and sisters in Christ?

[Of course this isn't the end of the story.  See:  What's in a Name] 

SQUIRREL ANSWERS

A Sunday School teacher posed the following question to her class of children:

     "I'm thinking of something that is furry, has four legs and a bushy tail and collects nuts for the winter. What is it?

     Hands shot up immediately.  "Jesus!" shouted one little girl.

     "Jesus?" said the teacher.  "Why did you say Jesus?"

    "Well," was the reply.  "It sounded like a squirrel but this is Sunday School, so I knew the answer was Jesus!"

 

I believe that this little tale is the source of the occasional usage of the expression "Squirrel Answers" by my daughter Sherry, with whom I am in frequent communication.  While I felt I agreed with her usage, I also felt I need a more concise definition.  However, Mr. Webster was of no help and  when I  googled it, all I got was pictures of little creatures and statements regarding them. I didn't think that this was what Sherry was referring to so I texted her for her definition .

 

Her reply: "That's a hard one.  I use squirrel answer because otherwise I have to give a whole paragraph.  LOL."

 

"I guess basically it's when somebody gives you a trite, by the book answer to a complex, and often personal question.  It is an answer meant to stop the conversation so it is quite often judgmental in nature."

 

"For instance you say that you're having a hard time dealing with the suffering in the world and they quote a Bible verse.  Or you say that gun control is a complex issue and they chastise you for causing strife."

 

After further thought she continued:   "However, based on the jokes that that comes from (apparently a reference to the above story) I think it's when people give you the spiritual answer they're expected to give you - with little regard to whether it's true or not."

 

Not concise, but pretty clear.

 

We're all used to hearing evasive answers from politicians and other public figures:

     "Is it true that you called the president an idiot?"

     "I will not lower myself to answering a question like that!"

 

But it is sad when Christians who are  supposed to have an answer for everyone who asks, can only give canned, evasive answers or out-of-context Bible verses.  I'm not sure why this is done, but I believe squirrel answers are symptoms of more serious problems.  If I may speculate on some of the sources.

 

First I believe that some, as the little girl in the story, assume that this is what we're supposed to do.  As children we are taught to memorize Bible verses, usually with no regard to context.  This continues into adult life.  Many Bible even have tables printed, listing various needs or problems, each followed by an appropriate (?) verse or verses.  We assume that "there's a verse for every problem" (as I have actually been told), that maturity includes a knowledge of the right verse for every situation and that all the questioner needs is to find the right verse.  But the Bible is not a magic book full of magic verses.  It's a complex book that deals with many moral issues in various contexts.  It demands thought!

 

The above types of squirrel answers may not necessarily be judgmental but often are, and whether or not, will be perceived as such.

 

Another source of these answers (related to the one above) is that the answerer believes he/she has attained a greater knowledge than the questioner and again all that is needed are the appropriate words or cliches, which are to be accepted without question.

 

But I suspect that one of the main reasons for squirrel answers is a lack of faith, a fear that shows up when questions are raised for which there appear to be no obvious answers.  I suspect that some Christians have a faith which can be easily shaken by sincere questions.  A pious canned answer can be a protection against such questions.  It can also put the questioner on the defensive.

 

But a faith in the truth and authority of Scripture, a faith in a God who is sovereign, has no need to fear questions for which the answer is not clear or is not known.  The follower of Christ has no need for fear but should take every question as an opportunity for growth in faith.

 

I read somewhere of a graffiti slogan sprayed on a wall, "Jesus is the answer!"  Below it was  sprayed in a different hand, "What was the question?"

 

(By the way: the little girl in this story was not Sherry.)