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.

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.

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.

WHITE TRASH

I have been mystified by the seemingly bizarre phenomenon of the rise of Donald Trump.  Here is a man who is (or at least claims to be) a multi-billionaire, who lives a sexually immoral life and boasts about it, who makes racist, misogynistic remarks, who mocks those he considers losers, who contradicts himself constantly (sometimes in the same sentence).  And yet he is adored, even worshipped (?) by a large number of the American people who are ready to make him our next president.

Even if we ignore the large number of blindly committed Republicans and the power greedy religious leaders, we are still left with a huge number of devoted trumpists.  Who are these people?  Are they really just "a basket of deplorables" as Hillary Clinton says?

When I heard about the book White Trash:  The 400 Year Untold History of Class in America, I felt I might find some answers or at least insights.  I was not disappointed.  This is an alternative history that ranks up close to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and while it does not go into the depth of detail of Zinn's book, it does fill in much detail and gives a different perspective from the history we learned in school.

The author, Nancy Isenberg, is the T. Harry Williams Professor of American History at LSU and is the author of other non-fiction books as well as a regular writer for Salon.com.  Though the book covers much material in its 300+ pages, reading it was never boring.  In fact I found it a real page-turner.

This is not a book about heroes.  It does not paint our founding fathers as exemplary.  It does not glorify the "American dream."  We are not, nor were we ever, a "city on a hill."  Rather we are given a history of the underclass, of those who are to a great extent, ignored by the writers of history.  It is as well, a history of the attitudes of those who did "make history" toward those regarded as inferior.

The underclass has always been with us, and we might even say that our nation was begun as a dumping ground for the poor of England and elsewhere in Europe.  They were always there - on America's frontiers, fighting her wars.  As Ms. Isenberg tells us, "Long before they were today's 'trailer trash' and 'rednecks,' they were called 'lubbers' and 'rubbish' and 'clay-eaters' and 'crackers' -- and that's just scratching the surface" (page 2).

The author traces the history of these people through the centuries -- and they were and still are, as she reminds frequently, still with us; and they are us.  The colonizers and early settlers, the squatters on the frontier were there at the beginning and were part of the westward movement of American "civilization."

There were periods of our history when these people were looked down on as an inferior breed; racism and classism were not that far apart.  The history goes on through the frontier settlement, even our first (but not our last) white trash president, Andrew Jackson.  The antebellum south was populated with these, and it was there when racism and classism were played against each other.  It seems that one way of keeping the lower classes in line was - and still is - is to give them some to look down on.

The author relates the history  of the eugenics movement in this country and the talk of "good breeding."  It seems that Hitler was not that far removed from some of the thinking in America.  While no one would advocate his extreme "solution," it was thought that the problems of the lower classes could be dealt with by proper breeding, even "eugenic sterilization."

The history is traced through the depression, the dust bowl, the "war on poverty," but always bringing to mind those on the bottom rungs.  Though at times the "country boy" or the "redneck" gained popularity, such as with country and country rock music, it was often double edged.  Much of our pop culture was thinly disguised mockery.  TV programs such as "The Beverly Hillbillies," "The Dukes of Hazzard," even "Andy Griffith" portrayed the lower classes as ignorant and uncouth.

So where is this book going?  Ms. Isenberg in her final chapter tell us, "If this book accomplishes anything it will be to have exposed a number of myths about the American dream, to have disabused readers of the notion that upward mobility is a function of the founders' ingenious plan, or that Jacksonian democracy was liberating, or that the Confederacy was about states' rights rather than preserving class and racial distinctions" (page 313).

As far as the question I raised at the beginning of this post, she answers it well.  I asked "who are these people (the followers of Donald Trump)?'  Her answer:  "Today as well we have a large unbalanced electorate that is regularly convinced to vote against its collective self-interest" (page 313).

We have people in America - white people - who feel beaten down.  They feel the system has failed them.  The political party that at one time was their hope, has ignored them.  They, as we all do, "need" someone to look down on, someone to blame.  And we have a demagogue who has found a way to take advantage of this need.  It has worked many times in the past.  They are taught to fear and at the same time to revile Mexicans, Moslems, blacks, gays, feminists and that black man in the White House.

But these are not people to look down on as simply "a basket of deplorables."  They are real people with real needs.  They are a part of my background, even my family.  What this book has done for me is convict me of my own classism.  In my abhorrence of racism I have found myself using derogatory terms such as are used in this book, to put down those I consider racist.  How often have I referred to them as rednecks or crackers or hillbillies or trailer trash?

When Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, He was clear that that term "neighbor" included everyone, even those who are unloving and unlovable.

Father forgive me for not loving my neighbor.

A RECENT DEATH?

"The reports of my recent death have been greatly exaggerated."

- attributed to Mark Twain

I just finished reading the book, The End of White Christian America by Robert P. Jones.  As I am a Christian who happens to be white and American, I felt I needed to be informed concerning the demise of a group of which I am apparently a member.  The book has enthusiastic blurbs on the jacket by a number of men whom I respect.

Robert Jones, we are told, "is the founding CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and a leading scholar and commentator on religion and politics."  He informs us that he was raised in White Christian America (henceforth to be referred to as WCA) and comes from a long line of Georgia Baptists, though he does not claim to share their faith.

I have been concerned for many years about the politically rightward drift of many of my fellow Christians, especially of those in leadership roles.  My concern involves the association by many, of these three terms as describing themselves:  white, Christian and American; for some the words are practically synonymous.  So I wanted to see if this author could offer some encouragement.  Before I make further comments on the arguments presented, I must say I appreciate the data given.

The book begins with an obituary for WCA.  WCA is, as presented in this book, White Protestant American Christianity, which the author tells us, can be divided into two groups:  Mainline Protestantism and Evangelical Protestantism.  He starts with the stories of three buildings which he apparently considers allegories for the history of the decline of WCA:  the United Methodist building in Washington, DC (ca. 1923), the Interchurch Center in New York City (ca. 1960) and Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA (ca. 1980).  The decline of these three began almost as soon as they were built.

The author tells us that his story does not deal with the distinctions between the sub-groups, but deals with WCA as a "single dynasty."  "The key question here is not why one white Protestant subgroup is faring worse than another, but why white Protestantism as a whole - arguably the most powerful cultural force in the history of our country - has faded.  This is a story of theology and culture, but it is also a story of powerful demographic changes."  (page 40)

Chapter 2:  "Vital Signs ... " is the most informative with charts and graphs to back up its claims; this data makes a clear case that WCA is declining in number.  Though Mainline Protestantism was the first to decline from its position of power, Evangelical Protestantism is now beginning to decline - at least as a percentage of the American population.

Then follows Chapter 3:  "Politics:  The End of White Christian Strategy; Chapter 4:  Family:  Gay Marriage and WCA; Chapter 5:  Race: Desegregating WCA.  In these chapters the author presents brief histories of the actions of WCA, with criticisms for the behavior of Evangelicalism and mild praise for the behavior of Mainline Protestantism.  Most of the material in these chapters has been heard before and it is here that the author clearly reveals opinions that are sometimes biased.

The 6th and final chapter is entitled "A Eulogy for WCA."  In it the author uses Kubler - Ross' well-known stages of grief and applies them to WCA:  "Denial and Anger," "Bargaining," "Depression and Acceptance."  Though I don't believe their use was meant to be humorous, I actually found this chapter a bit amusing.

So?  What to do with this book?  I fear that like many books of this sort, it will be applauded by those who agree, and either condemned or ignored by those who disagree.  However, I find myself in some place in between.

Mr. Jones appears to be one who is not really mourning the end of WCA.  And while I agree with him in many areas, I find my major area of disagreement is that we come from two very different starting points.  The author seems to judge WCA from modern, pragmatic criteria, rather than a biblical, spiritual base.  His is the judgment of the "natural man" (to use Paul's term) or the man "under the sun"(to use Ecclesiastes' term).  So the following are my views on WCA:

- First, I agree that these three have been identified too closely by many of my Christian brothers and sisters.  We have failed to get out of our cultural shell and to judge our culture from a truly biblical worldview.

- The political adventures of many prominent Evangelicals have brought shame on the Name of the Lord.  Sadly this is becoming more and more evident in this election season.  What this book brought out is the idea that (perhaps) this is a last-ditch effort to recover an influence that is rapidly slipping away.

- The issue of race has been a burden of mine for a long time.  White Christians judge their brothers and sisters from their own WCA perspective and fail to deal with the blatant racism that permeates not only our politics, but our churches themselves.  The chapter on race points out many of these faults, criticizes and praises some, but seems to be brought more from an outside perspective.

- The issue of the church's dealings with the LGBT community is not as clear-cut as that of race, in spite of the claims made in this book.  With the race issue efforts can and must be made to clear away non-biblical traditions; but with the issue of sexual orientation, we cannot clear away biblical teachings to just get along.  We must learn to love those who are different, but we cannot endorse certain behaviors.

- The book did not (I feel) deal enough with the "America" part.  There is much more that needs to be said about the identification of Christianity with the super patriotism that is being over-emphasized by many today.

So is WCA dying?  I suppose so.  But Christianity is not!  I believe we need to shed WCA's trappings and live a purer Christianity - one that identifies with those of other ethnic and national groups.  Perhaps the information in this book will lead to a Christianity that is cleaner, purer and less encumbered with wrong standards and goals.

DEATH OF A KING

I recently finished reading the book, Death of a King:  The Real Story of Dr. Martin Luther King's Final Year, by Tavis Smiley with David Ritz.
 

This is a powerful book but not one to read when you're down.  Though it is brief and well-written, I found I had to chew on it in small bites and I was thankful that it was composed in brief chapters.  There are other, fuller biographies of Dr. King, which I would recommend, such as David Garrow's Bearing the Cross or Taylor Branch's 3-volume set subtitled America in the King Years.  These books will fill in much of what we need to know about Dr. King's life and the Civil Rights' movement in which he was involved.

But this book is different; it is as the title tells us, only concerned with the year preceding Dr. King's assassination.  It does not delve into the details of the movement and its surrounding politics.  It tells little about the rival factions in the movement.  It tells us nothing about Dr. King's assassin.

Smiley is concerned rather with Dr. King himself (whom he refers to as "Doc"), as much as possible getting inside his head.  He uses memoirs and personal interviews with Dr. King's associates and friends.  He delves into his speeches and writings which reveal much about the man.  Smiley does an excellent job; the reader can feel the author's empathy.  Clearly, Dr. King is his hero, yet he is not afraid to portray him warts and all.

The story begins on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before the assassination, with King's "dramatic and controversial speech in impassioned opposition to the Vietnam War" (page 5 - Smiley quotes portions of this and other speeches throughout the book.)

Though Dr. King had spoken against the war before his April 4th speech, it was this speech that marked his final break with the Johnson administration.  One of the great tragedies of our time was the break between these two men.  Lyndon Johnson and Martin King had both previously worked tirelessly together on Civil Rights' legislation.  Lyndon Johnson was and probably still should be regarded as the President who did the most for Civil Rights since Abraham Lincoln.  But his involvement in and escalation of what is perceived by many as a senseless war, drew a shadow over what he had accomplished.

Dr. King saw the war as most wars are, a rich man's war fought by poor men.  The draft took a disproportionate number of those same African-Americans for whom Dr. King - and President Johnson - had fought hard to bring into full rights in the mainstream of America.

And so the man who was recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was now perceived by many Americans as a traitor, along with others in the Peace Movement.  As Dr. King said, speaking of the nation's attitude toward Muhammad Ali, "There is a very dangerous development in the nation to equate dissent with disloyalty" (page 50).  There were many in the Civil Rights' movement at this time, though who were still supportive of the war, so Dr. King found himself out of step with many of his fellow workers.

Add to this the fact that Dr. King's non-violent path of civil disobedience was perceived by many younger people in the Civil Rights' movement, as being too slow and ineffective.  The more radical Black Power movement was coming to the fore.  And so his following was being shrunk from many directions. All of this on top of the white racism and hatred that he continually experienced.

Dr. King was becoming more concerned not simply with matters of race but also of poverty.  He spent much of this final year attempting to organize a "Poor Peoples' March" on Washington.  And there was the Sanitation Workers' strike in Memphis which he was working in support of.

King seemed to be sliding deep into depression and like many, this drove him into greater activity.  We find him flying from city to city, speaking and organizing.  He appeared exhausted emotionally and physically when he arrived in Memphis.

The story ends with tragic simplicity:

          "Then a shot rings out.

          The bullet finds its mark,

          Doc falls.

          At age thirty-nine, his life on earth ends."

The epilogue contains a eulogy that had been delivered earlier by Dr. King for Joseph Reeb, a murdered white civil rights' worker.  Smiley apparently feels it is a fit tribute to the man who gave it.  And we the readers do so as well.

Tavis Smiley is a well-known host of both PBS and Public Radio programs, as well as a prolific author.  His empathy, even love, for the man who is his subject is clear throughout the book.  He was less than four years old when Dr. King was murdered and so his knowledge is all second hand, yet it feels as though he has known him personally.

I am ashamed to confess that as a white evangelical Christian living in the north, I had little interest in or sympathy with Dr. King and all he was accomplishing during his brief life and ministry.  It was only after I moved south to Houston, TX in 1966 that I even began to understand.

At the time of Dr. King's assassination I was working in the engineering department of a large oil tool company.  As I recall, there were well over 100 men in one huge room (all white, of course).  When news of the assassination was heard, there was celebration.  No work was done for much of the day.  I had not witnessed such "joy" since Japan surrendered after WWII!  Dr. King's death was regarded by all - at least those who were vocal - as some sort of victory.  Of course, this was mixed with "righteous indignation" at those "n____s" who rioted afterward.

Though I didn't speak up, I realized that as a follower of Jesus, I was on a different side than my co-workers, even though many of them also claimed to be Christians.  This was not my first epiphany, but it surely was the strongest.  I believe that many white evangelicals of my day, while we may not have seen ourselves as racists, were simply indifferent as to how racism - even our passive racism - is in total contradiction to the life and teachings of Christ.  I fear this is still a lingering problem.

I strongly recommend this book.  Read it with a copy nearby of A Testament of Hope - the Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by James M. Washington.  I'd also recommend one or both of the biographies mentioned above.

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.

THE DIVIDE

I often choose to read books that trouble me - books of social commentary - books that describe and discuss matters that should concern me as a Christian.  Usually books such as these are not written by Christians; at least the authors do not profess to be Christians.  However, they often give the feel of moral indignation and of a sense of injustice.

One such book that I recently read was The Divide by Matt Taibbi, a contributing editor for Rolling Stone magazine and the author of other books of social commentary.  The cover blurb describes the problem addressed as " ... a statistical mystery:  Poverty goes up.  Crime goes down.  The prison population doubles.  Fraud by the rich wipes out 40 percent of the world's wealth.  The rich get massively richer.  No one goes to jail."

Hence the title of the book.  The Divide tells the stories of our two justice systems:  one for the "haves" and another for the "have-nots."

While the author does do a great deal of analysis, the power of the book lies in the stories he tells, stories from both sides of the divide, illustrating his points with accounts of real people.  But before diving too deeply into these he gives this statement:

"Unquestionably, however, something else is at work, something that cuts deeper into the American psyche.  We have a profound hatred of the weak and the poor, and a corresponding groveling terror before the rich and successful, and we're building a bureaucracy to match those feelings" (page xx).

Taibbi all through the book shows his moral indignation.  He feels a sense of unfairness that enormous crimes by the rich go unpunished and even rewarded, while the poor are rounded up for alleged infractions and often end up helpless and/or imprisoned.

Chapter after chapter, story after story, Taibbi makes his case.  His stories are accounts of real people - poor blacks, poor whites, poor Hispanics, caught in the "stop and frisk" or similar policies of large cities.  He devotes a long chapter to the stories of the abusive treatment of undocumented immigrants.  And he alternates these with tales of successful (often "legal") swindles pulled off by millionaire bankers.  The poor have little, if any, legal counsel and are rushed through impersonal court systems, while the wealthy are represented by top-of-the-line law firms.

This is not a "political" book.  Taibbi doesn't place the blame on any one political party or politician.  He does, however, place much blame on a memo authored by our current Attorney General Eric Holder, when he was a little-known official in the Clinton administration.  The memo warned of the dangers of "unintended consequences" if large corporations and their executives were prosecuted - job losses for innocent lower level employees and the resulting economic losses.  Apparently the "too big to fail" thinking resulted from this.  Of course, a corollary would be "too-big to jail."

The book is over 400 pages thick and I suppose my greatest criticism would be that the stories at times are too long and detailed.  And yet this is one of the books great strengths; Taibbi forces us to share in the misery of those who are being beaten down by the system, as well as in the frustration at the long legal maneuvers of those who get away with their crimes.

This book does make some suggestions, but mainly I felt a sense of hopelessness when I had finished.  What can be done?  Some things can be done to alleviate much of the injustice, but probably not too much will be.  What can I as an individual do?

Stepping back and looking at the present situation through the lenses of history and the Bible, we can see that while the particular injustices that Taibbi describes may be unique to our country and our age, they are not new phenomena.  The poor appear to have always been the ones to suffer more for their "crimes," while the rich and powerful seem to be free from the consequences of theirs.

We see these problems addressed in the Old Testament Scriptures.  The author of Ecclesiastes had a few things to say (cynically?) about this nearly 3,000 years ago:

"If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and righteousness in the province, don't be shocked at the sight ... (Ecclesiastes 5:8; see also 4:1-3; 7:7).

The prophets raged against it.  In fact, as I read The Divide I kept being drawn back to Amos' tirades:

"Those who turn justice into wormwood and put down righteousness to the earth" (Amos 5:7; see verses 10-15).

But the most severe threats against injustice come from Jesus Himself.  He concludes His sermon on things to come by promising that He Himself is going to return to judge the nations for their mistreatment of the poor, the hungry and the prisoners.  See Matthew 25:31-46.

Is Taibbi correct in his analysis?  Do we in America really hate "the weak and poor"?  Do we really have a "groveling terror of the rich and successful?"  I fear that he is correct.  I have heard statements from many implying this and sadly I have heard such things from those who claim to follow Jesus.

I'm not sure what we can do about injustice.  But one of the first necessities is to admit it exists.  Another is to cease blaming the victims.