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.

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.

IS CHURCH BORING?

"Men it's a sin to bore people with the Word of God!"

These were the words growled to a class of potential preachers by Haddon Robinson, our homiletics professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.  Haddon was undoubtedly one of the best preachers I have ever heard.  His voice was gravelly and he seemed to have a snarl when he spoke due to a slight disfigurement which made his mouth a bit off center.

We all held a bit of fear, even reverence for this man, and we took his words of warning seriously.  Of course later, after we'd graduated and entered into our ministries, we forgot them  and proceeded to bore people with the Word.  I must confess that I was among those who disobeyed.

We were required to attend chapel services every day and most of the times we went willingly, as we were fed with messages and sermons by some of the greatest theologians and preachers in the land.  After over forty years I barely remember  3 or 4 of the 500+ chapel messages.  But I do remember the singing!  Richard Seume was the seminary Chaplain and he felt that was his ministry to teach us how to worship.  He introduced us to the grand old hymns of the faith:  Charles Wesley's "And Can it Be?"; "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name" (the "Diadem" tune) and so many others.  After more than 40 years I still get chills as I recall 700 students and faculty - mostly men - belting the hymns out with gusto, some singing melody, while others sang their parts.  I believe Dr. Seume felt too, that it was a sin to bore people with their worship of God.  But as with Haddon's warnings, we went out and forgot.

Today we search for "relevance."   We've left behind those dusty old hymns and those biblically based sermons (of course with a nod to some Scriptural passages).  We give people "inspiring" sermons.  We sing songs that have few words and yet are easily forgotten - "seven-eleven songs" someone has labeled them - seven words repeated eleven times.

And in this attempt to be relevant, I believe we have made Christianity irrelevant - and boring!  We're afraid to seriously address theological issues because we're afraid we'll frighten or bore our congregations. We're afraid to speak on the moral issues confronting us, possibly because they've been pre-empted by the political parties and we don't want to sound political.

We don't sing those majestic hymns; we don't sing theological hymns; we don't sing hymns that might arouse emotions.

We have become "the bland leaders of the bland."

I retired from full-time ministry a decade ago and have now become one of those who fill up the pews.  Though I confess that I often find church services boring, I also recognize that in those years of ministry I was a contributor to that sort of boredom in my congregation.  Forgive us - forgive me - Lord for that sin that Haddon warned us of.

And forgive me dear reader, for  my curmudgeonly rant.

I do feel better now!

 

IS HATE THE PROBLEM?

"And He found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.  And He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple with the sheep and the oxen.  And He poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.  And He said to those selling the pigeons, 'Take these things out of here!  Stop making My Father's house into a shopping mall!'  And His disciples remembered that it is written, 'Zeal for your house will consume me!'" John 2:14-17.

John records this incident as occurring early in Jesus' ministry; the other Gospels record a similar event taking place in Jesus' final week.  In fact, Matthew tells us He accused the money-changers of making the temple "a den of thieves."

It doesn't take a great amount of imagination to visualize this scene.  Cattle and sheep running in all directions, confused merchants attempting to keep their animals from running away.  We can hear the mooing and baaing and the money rattling all over the floor; it's a smelly, noisy, chaotic mess.  And in the middle of it all is Jesus, violently swinging His scourge.  Is He angry?  Somehow we can't picture Him as not angry; fire is in His eyes, His voice is raised to a shout.

There are times when even the Savior seems out of control in His anger.  And this was not the only incident.

Saturday, August 12, 2017, the "Alt-right" held a rally in Charlottesville, VA. Various reasons were given for this rally, the ostensible reason being to protest the taking down of a confederate statue.  But the real motive was clear:  it was an opportunity for neo-Nazis and the KKK, along with other right-wing hate groups to have a show of force.

Others gathered to protest the rally.  The climax came when one of the "Alt-rights" drove his car into a crowd of those who were protesting them, killing a young woman and seriously injuring many more.  Had he not slammed into another car we can only assume he would have continued on his deadly mission.

Politicians, pundits and preachers immediately began to speak out on the incident.  Our President waited a while, then spoke out, placing the blame on "many sides."  Later he spoke out again, in anger, although his anger was directed mostly at the reporters who questioned him.

Many more voices have since spoken out, some criticizing the President for his failure to distance himself from the far-right, but most speaking against "hate"; many also talked about the need for our nation to "come together," whatever that means.

But is "hate" really the problem?

Webster (11th Collegiate Dictionary) defines hates as "(n) 1a: intense hostility or aversion usually from fear, anger, or sense of injury.  b: extreme dislike or antipathy:  LOATHING (vt) 1:  to feel extreme enmity toward. 2: to have a strong aversion to: find very distasteful."

We all have felt or expressed hate in some form or another, even if only by the milder definition ("I hate broccoli."), although there are many things or actions we probably hate by the stronger definition.  So why do we say that "hate" is the problem?

The Bible speaks of hate well over 100 times, often with variations that appear contradictory.  It even speaks of God Himself hating.  I don't plan to go there, but there are a few passages that relate to God's people and their responsibility.  Here are a few:

            Leviticus 19:17.  "You shall not hate your brother in your heart ... "
            Psalm 97:10.  "Hate evil, you who love the LORD."
            Amos 5:15.  "Hate evil, love good, and establish justice ... "
            Matthew 5:43, 44.  "You've heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy;' but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."
            1 John 2:9 (also see 2:11; 3:15; 4:20)  "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness."

If I may summarize - maybe oversimplifying a bit - we who claim to be followers of Christ have no business hating any other human being!  We are to love them all - even those who have it in for us.  And yet we are to hate evil.  We have no business tolerating it!

Was Jesus acting out of hate when He drove out the money-changers?  I believe He was:  hate for evil; hate for the defilement of His Father's house; hate for the greed that was taking advantage of the needs of pilgrims.

So back to Charlottesville.  Yes there was hate on both sides.  But we can't just decide that both sides were equally in the wrong.  We can't simply say that love equals tolerance of evil.  One side represented a horrible evil:  Nazism, the Ku Klux Clan, as well as other groups of the same kind.  These groups have a history, not of hate in the abstract, but of violent acts of evil:  gas-chambers, mass-murder, lynching:  genocide in Europe and attempted genocide in the USA.  Should we hate the evil these groups stand for?  Yes!

Were those who were protesting these groups equally responsible?  No!  Did they hate?  Yes!  Undoubtedly some transferred their hatred of evil over to hatred of evil-doers.  But it is the Alt-Right that advocates racism and terrorism; it was one of their group who committed an act of terrorism that day!

We who claim to follow Christ cannot put the blame only on an abstract "hate."  We must not simply promote a "love" that refuses to recognize genuine evil.  We must speak out against the evil that is being promoted, not only at Charlottesville, but all over our nation.

Remember Niemoller's words.  (See blog:  NIEMOLLER FOR TODAY - 12/3/16)

WOULD JESUS GO TO A GAY BAR?

Most Americans were appalled at the slaughter in a gay night club in Orlando this past week.  The outpouring of sympathy and compassion for the survivors as well as the victims' families was quick and seemingly universal.  The words and acts of comfort, while never adequate, helped to soften the blow, at least for those of us not involved.  As a follower of Jesus, I was blessed, even proud to hear of many of the churches, of the ordinary Christians, as well as some of our spokesmen reaching out.
 

The pundits and politicians, however, were confused.  Should we call this a hate crime or a terrorist act?  After all, the perpetrator, a Muslim, boasted that he was doing this as a follower of ISIS. And I believe many in the Evangelical community are also confused.  We have been repeatedly told by many who claim to be our spokesmen that Islam is a great danger to America, threatening all we hold dear.  And on the other hand, we've been told that there is a conspiracy afoot by the LGBT community and their "liberal" fellow travelers to destroy America.  Throw in the fact that there are those of us who believe that every American has the right to own a semi-automatic weapon of mass destruction, and one can see why we are confused.  Guns, Islam and the gay rights' agenda - three issues that are perceived as hot button issues - have converged in this horrible act.

But where would Jesus be in all of this?  Where would we find the One who was accused of being "a glutton and a wine guzzler, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34)?  Some readers were probably put off by the title of this post, but really, where would He be?

I believe His heart would be with the ones who reached out to those who were devastated by this tragedy.  He would be with the survivors - people already discriminated  against and now traumatized .  He would be with the families of the dead and wounded, some of whom may have found out for the first time that their loved one was gay or lesbian or transgender and some whom may not have been reconciled with their loved one's condition.  And He would be with the family of the dead killer as they attempt to deal with his actions.  And He would be with those of the Muslim community who now find themselves even more the objects of suspicion and loathing.

I believe we who are followers of Jesus, have a responsibility as well as an opportunity to help these who are all victims, to know the love of Jesus.  They need to know the loving compassionate Jesus, the One who left heaven's glory to become one of us.  They don't need more condemnation and political pronouncements. 

"When He saw the crowds, He had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."  Matthew 9:36

AMERICA IN DENIAL

The slaughter last week of nine African-American Christians at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, SC, seems to have had an impact on all Americans.  The picture of a young skinny white killer seemed contradictory.  He looked like a frightened child; he wasn't a tattooed skinhead.  Yet his racist Confederate paraphernalia told the story.

He had been welcomed into the church and sat for an hour through a Bible study before cold-bloodedly shooting his victims.

This horrible event seems to have awakened much of white America to the racism that lies very close to the surface of our culture.  After repeated news stories of police killings and abuse of black people, this slaughter seems to have finally brought forth an admission of this horrible American trait.

Or has it?  We have heard many expressions of sympathy for the families of the victims and for the members of Emanuel Church, but will that sympathy last?

We've latched on to some easy "solutions" to the problem.  There has been a nationwide outcry against the Confederate battle flag flying at the South Carolina capital - the same flag held by the killer in his proudly posted picture.  The governor of South Carolina and most of the state's legislators have agreed that the flag must come down.  Other states have spoken of removing it from public display as well.  Even Wal*Mart!  I agree it's about time, though actually it's about 150 years late.  No matter what its defenders say, the flag is a symbol that represents racism and slavery as many, both black and white have noted, though I have heard little mention of the fact that it also symbolizes rebellion against the United States of America; it is a treasonous symbol!

And then there are the cries for more and stricter gun regulation; of course, these cries will have no effect on a population living in fear.

I must say that I am pessimistic of any real change in America's situation.  Racism will continue.  There will be more cases of police racial profiling, of hate crimes, of injustice toward minorities, and yes, there will be more racist-motivated murders.

Because racism is in an integral part of our nation's history and culture.  And the reader's reaction to a statement like this is probably denial.  Surveys and polls inform us  that the majority of white Americans still do not see racism as a problem.  Inane denials that I heard 60 years ago are still being uttered today:

          "Some of my best friends are black (or colored or N_____s)."
          "I don't see color."
          "I'm not prejudiced."

And of course, the protests:

          "One lone incident does not mean we are all racists!"
          "What about black on white crime?"
          "What about black on black crime?"

The latest one:  "We mustn't politicize this tragedy."

What is so grievous is that Christians - people who claim to be followers of the One who commanded us to love our neighbor - are often the ones who are most caught up in denial.  While we may admit that racism exists, certainly "we have no part in it."

Some have referred to racism as America's Original Sin.  While I may not go that far, I believe that it ranks right up there as a contender for the title.  It has been with us from the beginning, with slavery and wars of extermination of native Americans.  Perhaps it is part of our American DNA as some have expressed.  And certainly it is not isolated to our nation.

I believe that racism - that fear of "the other" or the feeling that I am somehow superior to him - is an aspect of our fallen nature and that it dwells in some form or another in every one of us.  And we live in a fallen world of which America is a part.

Every one of us - I am speaking as a member of the white branch of the human race -  can find ourselves somewhere on a continuum of racism.  At the far end of this continuum we can find those who are members of the hate groups:  skinheads, neo-Nazis, Klansmen or "lone wolves" such as the young murderer of Charleston; and there are plenty of these.  But the rest of us, even those who consider ourselves "liberal" can find ourselves somewhere along this line if we'd bother to take an honest look.

I believe that it is time for the (white) church in America to stop "being conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) in its racism.  It is time for us to stop saying, "we have no sin" and stop "deceiving ourselves" (1 John 1:8).  I believe we need to - we must - examine our own hearts for the racism that lurks there.  We must repent and confess it to God, as well as to our fellow human beings.  We need to ask God not only to forgive us, but to continue to show us where we are racist in our thoughts and actions.  We need to ask Him to, by the power of His Holy Spirit, cleanse us of this sin, this chronic disease.

We cannot on our own eliminate racism from our nation but we as the church of Jesus Christ can move toward cleansing it out of our midst.  Only then, I believe can we expect to see a real change in our culture.

Father, we confess that we your church, have been guilty.  We and our fathers have sinned in our racism, our lack of love, our hatred toward those who are different than we are.  We have compounded our sin by our denial of its existence.  We have compounded our sin by our tolerance of it in our churches and among our fellow believers.  Forgive us.  Open our eyes.  Cleanse us we pray.

IDENTITY CRISIS

Does anyone else see the irony in the contrasting reactions to these two recent news stories?

A male former Olympic athlete, now in his 60's comes out as a female.  This has apparently been his (her?) true identity all along, despite external evidence to the contrary.  This person is then made up as a woman, adorned in beautiful (sexy?) feminine clothing and placed on the front cover of national magazines, ogled and admired and proclaimed a hero for coming out.

The president of the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP, who was assumed for years to be African-American, is outed as being white.  She is shamed, mocked and ridiculed by commentators and comedians, black, white, male and female.  She resigns in apparent disgrace.

What's wrong with these two pictures?  Why is one's reaction to an identity crisis considered heroic while the other's similar reaction is considered disgraceful?

I confess I know little about either of these people.  I suspect, however, that most of their admirers/detractors are as ignorant as I am.  Nor have I faced conflicts anything like theirs must have been and still are.  So how do I process this?

Usually when confronted with issues such as these I first tend to try to find some common ground, some connection with my own past experiences.  Though I can find little if anything to help me relate to the person with the sexual identity problem, I believe I can sympathize to some extent with the person with the "ethnic identity problem."  For years Uni and I were involved with ministries across racial lines.  There were times when I found myself identifying more with my African-American students and friends than with my white friends.  (And yet I still consider myself white.)

However, past experiences, while helpful are not enough.  The questions I must ask are "How does the Scripture address issues like these?"  "Or does it?"  "Are the two identity issues similar?"  "Or are they completely different?"

A few passages come to mind:

·       "... for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Galatians 3:26-28

·       "... and (you) have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.  Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all and in all."  Colossians 3:10-11

Our maleness/femaleness or our blackness/whiteness are of secondary importance.  It is our relationship to Christ that counts.  Both of the above persons as well as many others, undoubtedly have had and still have deep emotional struggles relating to their identity as human beings.  But in Christ these identity problems fade away and we who belong to Christ should recognize this.

Another passage which relates:

·       "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.  To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.  I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."  1 Corinthians 9:19-23

It would seem that Paul's concern for people - as that of his Master - was to love them and to bring them to the knowledge of Christ.  He empathized and he attempted to identify as much as possible with them and their situation.

While the world, the secular pundits and news media, may make heroes of some and condemn others, this is not to be our way.  The follower of Jesus must recognize the needs of others and point them to Christ and to a church in which they can find acceptance no matter what their "identity" and where they can ultimately find their identity in Christ.

FRANCIS & CHARLIE

I have been observing Pope Francis over the two years he's been in office and have admired him almost from the beginning.  The other day I finally sat down with my yellow pad and wrote out some thoughts which Uni and I discussed.  Uni types them and publishes them on the blog.  She had not yet done so when not long after this, she awoke me from napping during the evening news.  She informed me that I might not want to publish the post I had written; Francis had just said some things I may not like.

Well we got online and found his comments about the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.  Though he had previously condemned the act of violence, he now apparently felt that he needed to do a little "blame the victim."  And though he seemed to be attempting to be congenial, he rather came across as crude.

Some of his talk:  "You have an obligation to speak openly.  We have that freedom.  But without causing offense.  It's true we cannot react violently, but if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend, would say something insulting against my mother, a punch awaits him.  But it's normal ...  You cannot make provocations.  You cannot insult people's faith.  There is a limit ..."

So is Francis correct?  If so, is he justifying the behavior of the Islamic terrorists?  Is he making the religious views of others off limits for satire?  Much of our humor in America seems to be composed of just that.

Perhaps he has forgotten that many Christians, including Roman Catholics are suffering, even being put to death in Moslem lands.  Their crime?  Blasphemy - insulting the Prophet Muhammad by claiming that Jesus is greater than he.

Or has he forgotten that during the Middle Ages and the Reformation, those of his own church tortured and put many to death for speaking out against them?  Is he justifying their actions?  And yes, Roman Catholics suffered at the hands of zealous Protestants?

Or perhaps he has not read of the Old Testament prophets who mocked the competing "faiths" of their day?  Isaiah draws a verbal cartoon that is definitely a lampoon of the idol worshippers of his day:

          "The ironsmith takes a cutting tool ...  The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil.  He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass.  He shapes it into the figure of a man ...  He cuts down cedars or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak ...  Then it becomes fuel for a man.  He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread.  Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it.  Half of it he burns in the fire.  Over the half he eats meat ...  And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol and falls down to it and worships it.  He prays to it and says, 'Deliver me, for you are my God!' ... No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, 'Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten.  And shall I make the rest of it an abomination?  Shall I fall down before a block of wood?'"  (Isaiah 44:12-19 - ESV)

There are plenty more where this came from!  Of course, the prophets frequently suffered the same kind of holy wrath that the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo suffered.

Move into the New Testament.  How about John the Baptist referring to the religious people of his day as a "nest of snakes"?  (Matthew 3:7)  Wasn't he mocking their faith?

And then Jesus used that same expression at least twice on those same religious people (Matthew 12:34; 23:33).  In fact, the first 33 verses of Matthew 23 are filled with scathing pictures of those religious people of Jesus' day - the same religion that Jesus belonged to!  The hyperbole and metaphors He uses bring up pictures in the readers' minds that could be perceived as cartoons.

          " ... they make their phylacteries (Scripture boxes they wore on their foreheads and wrists) broad and their fringes long" (Matthew 23:5).
          " ... you travel all over land and sea to make one convert and whenever he converts you make him into twice the son of hell you are" (verse 15).
          " ... blind guides ... " (verse 16).  Elsewhere He says, " ... if the blind guides the blind, they'll both fall in the ditch!"  (15:14).
          " ... straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" (23:24).
          " ... you clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence!"  (verse 25).

And of course we know where this kind of sarcasm got Jesus.

I've been warned by nice people of all persuasions - fundamentalists, atheists and others in between - that sarcasm and satire should not be used, that it signifies a weak argument or that it is hurtful.  Sometimes I simply reply, "Tell it to Jesus" or "Read the Bible" or "Read any good literature."

Our American culture is filled with sarcasm, satire and lampooning.  Admittedly much of it may seem crude and tasteless, though you may want to read Ezekiel 16, where Israel is compared to an old whore who is so undesirable that she has to pay her "lovers."

In many ways the cartoonists and late-night comedians of today fill in the space that was once occupied by the prophets.  They point out to us the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of our politicians, pundits and preachers.  Most of their sarcasm is spent not on our faith but upon its practitioners, and much of the time we deserve it and could even learn from it.  Sometimes they seem to understand the requirements of our faith better than we do.

I even attempt satire at times, though apparently I'm not succeeding very well; I've received no death threats!

WHY DO WE DO STUPID STUFF?

According to Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."  We may agree with her assessment, yet as we look around at the nations of the world, it would seem that paying attention to this prohibition should be a necessity for good government and that it is too often ignored.
 

Why do people in authority do stupid stuff?  This question has often come to my mind as I watch the daily news programs.  It seems that quite often those who should be leaders in their nations and communities fail to exercise anything that resembles good leadership.  I'm not thinking especially of immoral acts, but of acts and behaviors that appear to be contrary to the best interests, not only of those led, but of those very leaders.

Hosni Mubarak is deposed as dictator in Egypt; rather than giving ear to the complaints of his people, he attempted to violently suppress all protest, which ultimately resulted in his overthrow.  Even when it was apparent that his methods of suppression weren't working, he continued on the same course.  Mohammed Morsi was then elected as Prime Minister of Egypt in a fair election and when protests arose, he followed the same methods of oppression as his predecessor.  And he too suffered the same fate.  Now we have a third leader in Egypt who seems to be following the same course.

We could name more middle eastern dictators and wannabe dictators, who continue to follow non-workable government policies which get them thrown out of office or killed, or even worse, destroy their nations:  Assad in Syria, Maliki in Iraq.

But we don't need to go halfway around the world to witness these strange behaviors.  The actions of the police in Ferguson, Missouri come to mind.  Attempts to quell legitimate protest with militarized force only lead to more and more violence.

Don't these guys ever learn?  Don't they watch the news?  Can't they see that their methods don't work?  That they are counter-productive?

The above examples all demonstrate that force is not only ineffective but actually contrary to the best interests of all parties.  The use of force, however, is only one way in which those in leadership can act contrary even to their own best interests.

Having been involved in church "politics" for many years, as both a pastor and a layman, I can verify that this behavior is as often the rule as the exception.  I've also seen it among engineers and educators.

Browsing through the sale rack at the Half Price Bookstore, I came across a copy of The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman.  I am always delighted to find a book I haven't read but have wanted to for years.  Though the book is 30 years old it was still in great shape and at three dollars  I felt I couldn't afford to pass it up.  The book deals with the very question that had bothered me and it is a fascinating read.

Tuchman's first chapter sets the stage for the whole book.  She is concerned about "misgovernment" which she sees as being "of four kinds, often in combination ... :  1) tyranny or oppression ...; 2) excessive ambition ...; 3) incompetence or decadence ... and finally 4) folly or perversity" (page 5).  She tells us, "This book is concerned with the last, in a specific manifestation; that is the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved."  "To qualify as folly" she continues, a policy "must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time."  Also "a feasible alternative course of action must have been available. ... a third criterion" she says, "must be that the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler."

She cites examples from many different periods of history, but for purposes of her book homes in on just four, which make up the major sections of the book:

·       "Prototype:  The Trojans Take the Wooden Horse Within Their Walls"
·       "The Renaissance Popes Provoke the Protestant Secession 1470-1530"
·       "The British Lose America"
·       "America Betrays Herself in Vietnam"

The book is full of historical details which are usually ignored by many.  After all, I've been taught the Reformation from the view of the Reformers and the American Revolution from the American point of view without much consideration of what brought these on, from the "losers'" point of view.

But what fascinates is her comments and observations on the folly as demonstrated in the details.  She shows the various aspects of folly.  As I read I kept my iridescent yellow pen handy for every mention of the word "folly."

What we observe on our evening news then, is nothing new.  The pursuit by governments and lesser leaders of policies contrary to the interests of both governors and governed has been going on since the dawn of history; some of the earliest being Rehoboam's loss of 10 tribes and the reduction of the nation of Israel as well as the Trojan horse.

In the Epilogue Tuchman concludes, "If pursuing disadvantage after the disadvantage has become obvious is irrational, then rejection of reason is the prime characteristic of folly" (page 380).  She does not offer much hope of change but sees a need for an educated electorate "that will recognize and reward integrity of character and ... reject the ersatz" (page 387).

Tuchman does not write as a Christian but more as a pragmatist.  She does address matters, such as greed and the lust for power, but less from a moral position than a pragmatic one.  And yet as a Christian I find myself agreeing with her.  The moral position is often the practical one.  Greed, self-aggrandizement, the failure to consider what is best for one's neighbor; refusal to face the truth about one's actions -- these could all be recognized as sin.  And of course sin is ultimately self-destructive.

The Bible is full of stories similar to those found in this book.  In fact, the history of the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament in a continual repetition of the book's themes:  actions taken for which there were better alternatives; refusal to heed warnings -- in most cases the prophets.  And these actions ultimately brought down the nation.

Of course, we could go clear back to the Garden of Eden, to Eve's and Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit, which got the ball rolling.  We've been following their precedent every since.

How often have we -- have I -- taken actions that were not only sinful but destructive, not only to me but to those I am responsible for?  Forgive me Lord and help me to heed your warnings.