Am I a dick? Let me count the ways.
I put a circle in the middle of a sketch-pad sheet of paper. I labeled that circle "Dickishness". I spent ten minutes jotting down my every negative trait that came to mind. Every time a fresh one popped into my mind, I drew a spoke away from the circle, and I labeled it with that trait. Some spokes had little spokes extending from them, fleshing out the faults. Whenever I stopped writing because fresh faults stopped popping into my mind, I just sat until more came.
This was not a time to mitigate, justify, or excuse. It was not a time to balance the unhappy traits of my character with the happier traits. It was a time to express my inner dickishness, which otherwise I express only with conduct. It was a time to inventory my faults, lest, overlooking them, I over-esteem myself.
This is what I came up with. In the limited time that I set aside.
I'm impatient with people in grocery-store lines who don’t pull out their cash-cards until the checker finishes scanning their groceries. You can pass the card through the card-reader after the first grocery item is scanned. People who wait hold up people in line. Of course, impatience is a form of greed – greed about time.
That one maybe isn’t so bad.
On the way out of the grocery store, I never say "hello" to the security guard. He has a terrible job. I don’t know how he bears standing there doing nothing for hours on end. I assume that a cheerful greeting would break the stultifying monotony. But I withhold greeting. I withhold greeting because I don’t want to feel obligated to greet him every time I pass by. I cherish my obliviousness.
Now, he might not welcome my greeting. For all I know, he cherishes being lost in his own thoughts from the beginning of his shift to the end.
But that’s not why I walk past him and say nothing. It’s all about me.
I get irritated with people in the swimming pool where I do laps. Especially when I do laps in the deep end where the lanes aren’t separated by lane-lines. When someone from another lane swims into mine, I fume.
I fume instead of putting up with less skilled swimmers for the sake of having a clean, well-kept, convenient pool to work out in, for a reasonable yearly fee. That thought should make me patient. But it doesn’t.
I don’t like young children, particularly. Maybe I like pictures of young children that can’t scream in restaurants or interrupt adults. Even as a young man, I didn’t enjoy teaching swimming lessons to the three-and-four-years-olds.
A few years ago, I paid a modest fee to upgrade to a first-class seat for a Mexico City flight. The stewardess plopped into the empty seat next to me a woman and her crying infant. It was a free upgrade for the woman. Done for kindness’s sake.
I hated it. Hated it. But I was the only one who did. All of the Mexican men in the first-class cabin spent the flight looking over at the crying infant and grinning. I spent the flight wishing that I could separate the infant’s vocal chords from his lungs.
Woah.
I flip off other drivers. There’s a hierarchy to my dickishness on the road. If I'm slightly vexed, I'll look at the other driver as I pass him (to see what kind of person does what he did). If I'm more vexed, I’ll glare at him. If I'm really vexed, he gets my middle finger.
Real mature.
I file my tax returns late.
I sometimes wait to pay utility bills until I get a shut-off notice. It’s not that I don’t have money. I just can’t be bothered.
On Facebook, sometimes I just have to correct other people. As if the world were waiting for me to deliver to the discussion-thread my highly-principled insight, like Moses delivering the Ten Commandments to the Israelites. Sometimes, it seems like bullying.
I have angry discussions when I’m alone in my car. With other lawyers – who aren’t there. With my brother/law partner – who isn’t there. With judges – who aren’t there. With the lady who told her little child to get a bag of potato chips from the grocery-store shelf, then put it back after the little child shook the bag like a toy, so the chips inside became crumbs – who wasn’t there. Come to think of it, my car is my rage room.
Some things maybe I should fault myself for, but I don’t. I don’t fault myself for talking back to cops who I think have stepped over a line. I don’t fault myself for not giving to beggars, unless they look like they really need a handout.
There were three faults that I thought of but didn’t write down.
So this was the product of ten minutes reflection. A good start.
I wish others would get the habit of making these lists.
I think we need humility – which is the gift of seeing ourselves as we really are. The worse society gets, the more we suffer from an optimistic view of our own character. And society is sinking.
Part of me wants to look at other people’s lists, hoping that I won’t measure up so bad.
But maybe that’s a false hope.
In the meantime, there’s no reason that I can’t add to and refine this list from time to time. Maybe it will keep my pride in check.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Back Off, Olbermann
Liberals like Keith Olbermann and Paul Krugman are screaming and spinning about President Obama's tax compromise with the Republicans. They forget that compromise is fundamental to American politics.
We owe our existence to it. Many of the men who signed the U.S. Constitution had mixed feeling about it. Why? Compromise.
I’m reading Pauline Maier’s Ratification
, about the, well, the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Sixteen of fifty-five participants in the Constitutional Convention did not put their names on the Constitution. Of these, many rejected some of the compromises that were needed to break the Convention’s gridlock. Some felt that safeguards were missing from the Constitution. Some of these men became powerful anti-ratification forces. They did their best to bring down the Constitution that probably saved our republic.
These opponents of the Constitution wanted to allow state ratification conventions to propose changes to the Constitution. They hoped in those state conventions to re-fight the battles they had lost at the Constitutional Convention.
Their idea to allow the state conventions to propose changes sounds reasonable. But here is the problem. The Constitution was a carefully-calibrated compromise among the interests of the various states. This compromise was possible because each delegation to the 1787 Constitutional Convention was free from instructions from their states. Their hands weren’t tied. They had the ability to compromise.
But at the state ratifying conventions, each state would amend the Constitution to suit their interests. So each state ratifying convention would propose different amendments than other state ratifying conventions would. The plan was that a second constitutional convention would iron out these differences. But the state delegations to the second constitutional convention would go with state-dictated instructions. These instructions would have destroyed the delegations’ ability to compromise.
The proposed second convention almost certainly would have ended in failure. And it wouldn’t have improved the product of the first convention.
The U.S. Constitution became the law of the land because the states accepted what was to them an imperfect federal government. Our nation survived because the states were willing to give a straight up-or-down vote on what they believed was a flawed document. The world was forever changed because the states accepted what was good, and did not hold out for what was perfect.
And that’s Obama’s take on legislation. He lives the old adage: You know a good deal because each side walks away a little bit unhappy.
But well-known liberal pundits are very unhappy to be a little bit unhappy. They expect Obama to beat the Republicans bloody in every contest. To them, legislation isn’t log rolling. It’s a Rambo movie. They would rather go down in defeat than compromise. Maybe they really do expect an action-adventure plot to unfold in Congress: the hero gets beat up by the bad guys at the beginning of the movie, and he beats up the bad guys at the end.
But this is not Commando. This is Congress. And Obama is operating in the American tradition. It isn’t flash-and-bang stuff. It’s the prose of politics.
So back off, Olbermann. Take a deep breath, Krugman. Obama is doing what he’s supposed to do.
Obama's problem: he was elected to be the cool friend; but he's governing as the responsible adult.
We owe our existence to it. Many of the men who signed the U.S. Constitution had mixed feeling about it. Why? Compromise.
I’m reading Pauline Maier’s Ratification
, about the, well, the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Sixteen of fifty-five participants in the Constitutional Convention did not put their names on the Constitution. Of these, many rejected some of the compromises that were needed to break the Convention’s gridlock. Some felt that safeguards were missing from the Constitution. Some of these men became powerful anti-ratification forces. They did their best to bring down the Constitution that probably saved our republic.These opponents of the Constitution wanted to allow state ratification conventions to propose changes to the Constitution. They hoped in those state conventions to re-fight the battles they had lost at the Constitutional Convention.
Their idea to allow the state conventions to propose changes sounds reasonable. But here is the problem. The Constitution was a carefully-calibrated compromise among the interests of the various states. This compromise was possible because each delegation to the 1787 Constitutional Convention was free from instructions from their states. Their hands weren’t tied. They had the ability to compromise.
But at the state ratifying conventions, each state would amend the Constitution to suit their interests. So each state ratifying convention would propose different amendments than other state ratifying conventions would. The plan was that a second constitutional convention would iron out these differences. But the state delegations to the second constitutional convention would go with state-dictated instructions. These instructions would have destroyed the delegations’ ability to compromise.
The proposed second convention almost certainly would have ended in failure. And it wouldn’t have improved the product of the first convention.
The U.S. Constitution became the law of the land because the states accepted what was to them an imperfect federal government. Our nation survived because the states were willing to give a straight up-or-down vote on what they believed was a flawed document. The world was forever changed because the states accepted what was good, and did not hold out for what was perfect.
And that’s Obama’s take on legislation. He lives the old adage: You know a good deal because each side walks away a little bit unhappy.
But well-known liberal pundits are very unhappy to be a little bit unhappy. They expect Obama to beat the Republicans bloody in every contest. To them, legislation isn’t log rolling. It’s a Rambo movie. They would rather go down in defeat than compromise. Maybe they really do expect an action-adventure plot to unfold in Congress: the hero gets beat up by the bad guys at the beginning of the movie, and he beats up the bad guys at the end.
But this is not Commando. This is Congress. And Obama is operating in the American tradition. It isn’t flash-and-bang stuff. It’s the prose of politics.
So back off, Olbermann. Take a deep breath, Krugman. Obama is doing what he’s supposed to do.
Obama's problem: he was elected to be the cool friend; but he's governing as the responsible adult.
Monday, November 29, 2010
A Stench in the Nostril of God
Lies are a stench in God’s nostril. In the first ten Psalms, four condemn lies and deceit. In the third chapter of the Bible, Eden is lost because of a snake. Satan is called a "liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44.)
To a believer, God hath said should be the last word. It may be, or not. And not everybody believes. So, God aside, here is a think-piece on truth and lies.
This is not "It’s nice to be good." This is a big deal. In Nixon’s "I’m not a crook"; in Reagan’s "[W]e did not - repeat - did not trade weapons, or anything else, for hostages"; in Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman"; and in Bush/43’s – well, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o – in all of these, our leaders pissed on public virtue. And America is fumbling with its zipper.
I don’t want to be preachy. But before we amble down into Gehenna with Richard, Ronald, Bill, and George, let’s look at the landscape of where we are headed. Let’s look back at what we are leaving.
1. Power.
Truth gives power to the weak.
In a court contest against a powerful adversary, a poorer, less-lawyered party can tell himself, "I have truth on my side". This declaration gives moral strength. It literally encourages.
And truth matters. By and large, judgment in court is based on truth. This is important, because a rich man can buy lawyers, but he can’t buy truth. If society values it, truth makes a legal contest more fair.
We expect that the party that should prevail in court can prevail. We expect that being right matters. Yes, our courts aren’t perfect. Sometimes courts convict the innocent. Sometimes courts give judgment against the righteous. But jurors try to rule right. They take seriously their duty to discover the truth. And that matters.
If judgment weren’t based on truth, it would have to be based on something else. Without judgment based on truth, judgment would be more often against the weak and for the powerful.
Like elsewhere. A former colleague of mine became a prosecutor in a court of another culture – I forget where. He told me that judgment there was based on the parties’ comparative status, not on the truth. And in Russia, jury tampering by the government is common. Russian jurors report government interference, but Russian judges do nothing; they even help the government. This happens because Russian courts exist not to determine the truth. They exist to vindicate the government.
These are examples of courts where truth plays a subordinate role. This is unheard of in America’s recent legal history. We assume that a court case is a search for the truth or falsity behind the charges. We may not perfectly find out the truth, but we try to, blunt as the effort sometimes may be.
But if truth is thought of as a shabby has-been, we lose the power of truth in our courts. We become like courts in other countries where truth is valued only if it meshes with any other goal of the court system – upholding the rich against the poor, upholding the insiders against the outsiders, upholding the government against the people. And that would be tragic for us.
2. Usefulness.
Truth is helpful.
Truth acts as a common ground. We might argue about values, but we fundamentally expect that we will agree on basic facts. If disagreement about facts separate us, we try to return to the common ground of agreed facts. If we did not intend for basic facts to be our common ground, the bedrock of our decision-making would be sinking sand.
Society makes life-and-death decisions based on facts. Do we go to war, or no? That depends upon whether our adversary is seeking weapons of mass destruction or not. Do we extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, or no? That depends upon whether the unemployed need the benefits to stay afloat while they seek work, or if a government stipend squelches their effort to find replacement work. Do we reform health care so that sick people don’t die because they are poor, or no? That depends upon whether the reform includes provisions to kill old people (aka "Death Panels"). These are decisions where truth was needed to make right, crucial choices. These are decisions where people will choose wrong if they believe lies. These are cases in which lives will be wasted by a wrong decision.
People who inject truth into society’s debates help society make right choices. People who inject lies corrode society’s decision-making.
People also make important personal decisions based on truth. Sometimes my clients wobble about whether to take a plea bargain or go to trial. I often tell them, "I wasn’t there. You were. You know what happened. If the charges are true, then this is a fair deal. But if the charges are false, then no deal is worthwhile and you should fight the case in front of a jury." Most of my clients make the right decision.
3. Morality.
Morality presumes truth.
Lies are the servants of immorality. A man who gets between sheets with a woman not his wife tells his wife that he was driving home a co-worker. A person who destroys the innocence of a child denies molestation. A police officer who wrongfully beats a man claims that the man assaulted him. A politician who betrays his constituency says he acted on their behalf. A thief denies stealing.
Lies make a mockery of morality. Some people labor to do right, even when doing wrong would be easier or more profitable. But the liar cheaply gains the benefit of virtue by falsely claiming it.
4. Culture.
In our culture, we value and expect truth.
In romance, we don’t expect a suitor to woo a bride with lies. Someone who does is called a cad.
In medicine, we don’t expect a doctor to give us advice he knows is wrong. A doctor who does is called a quack.
In law, lawyers have a duty to speak truthfully to the judge Dishonest lawyers are called shysters.
In science, we don’t expect scientists to fudge data. One who does is despised in the scientific community.
In business, businesses are expected to be upright. We are shocked to be cheated.
We expect our friends to be honest with us. When we discover that a friend has lied, we loose trust in him.
The assault on truth turns back all of these expectations and values.
5. Conclusion.
Lies do to truth what forgeries do to currency. They debase it. They shake people’s trust in it.
When nominated as a Republican Senate candidate, Lincoln said:
One last note. I started out saying that lies are a stench in God’s nostril. I started out saying that to believers, God hath said may be the last word. But to be clear: in my observation, believers are not noticeably more truthful than non-believers. This makes me sad to behold believers.
Sources
For more on Russian government interference with juries: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=russian%20juries&st=cse
To a believer, God hath said should be the last word. It may be, or not. And not everybody believes. So, God aside, here is a think-piece on truth and lies.
This is not "It’s nice to be good." This is a big deal. In Nixon’s "I’m not a crook"; in Reagan’s "[W]e did not - repeat - did not trade weapons, or anything else, for hostages"; in Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman"; and in Bush/43’s – well, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o – in all of these, our leaders pissed on public virtue. And America is fumbling with its zipper.
I don’t want to be preachy. But before we amble down into Gehenna with Richard, Ronald, Bill, and George, let’s look at the landscape of where we are headed. Let’s look back at what we are leaving.
1. Power.
Truth gives power to the weak.
In a court contest against a powerful adversary, a poorer, less-lawyered party can tell himself, "I have truth on my side". This declaration gives moral strength. It literally encourages.
And truth matters. By and large, judgment in court is based on truth. This is important, because a rich man can buy lawyers, but he can’t buy truth. If society values it, truth makes a legal contest more fair.
We expect that the party that should prevail in court can prevail. We expect that being right matters. Yes, our courts aren’t perfect. Sometimes courts convict the innocent. Sometimes courts give judgment against the righteous. But jurors try to rule right. They take seriously their duty to discover the truth. And that matters.
If judgment weren’t based on truth, it would have to be based on something else. Without judgment based on truth, judgment would be more often against the weak and for the powerful.
Like elsewhere. A former colleague of mine became a prosecutor in a court of another culture – I forget where. He told me that judgment there was based on the parties’ comparative status, not on the truth. And in Russia, jury tampering by the government is common. Russian jurors report government interference, but Russian judges do nothing; they even help the government. This happens because Russian courts exist not to determine the truth. They exist to vindicate the government.
These are examples of courts where truth plays a subordinate role. This is unheard of in America’s recent legal history. We assume that a court case is a search for the truth or falsity behind the charges. We may not perfectly find out the truth, but we try to, blunt as the effort sometimes may be.
But if truth is thought of as a shabby has-been, we lose the power of truth in our courts. We become like courts in other countries where truth is valued only if it meshes with any other goal of the court system – upholding the rich against the poor, upholding the insiders against the outsiders, upholding the government against the people. And that would be tragic for us.
2. Usefulness.
Truth is helpful.
Truth acts as a common ground. We might argue about values, but we fundamentally expect that we will agree on basic facts. If disagreement about facts separate us, we try to return to the common ground of agreed facts. If we did not intend for basic facts to be our common ground, the bedrock of our decision-making would be sinking sand.
Society makes life-and-death decisions based on facts. Do we go to war, or no? That depends upon whether our adversary is seeking weapons of mass destruction or not. Do we extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, or no? That depends upon whether the unemployed need the benefits to stay afloat while they seek work, or if a government stipend squelches their effort to find replacement work. Do we reform health care so that sick people don’t die because they are poor, or no? That depends upon whether the reform includes provisions to kill old people (aka "Death Panels"). These are decisions where truth was needed to make right, crucial choices. These are decisions where people will choose wrong if they believe lies. These are cases in which lives will be wasted by a wrong decision.
People who inject truth into society’s debates help society make right choices. People who inject lies corrode society’s decision-making.
People also make important personal decisions based on truth. Sometimes my clients wobble about whether to take a plea bargain or go to trial. I often tell them, "I wasn’t there. You were. You know what happened. If the charges are true, then this is a fair deal. But if the charges are false, then no deal is worthwhile and you should fight the case in front of a jury." Most of my clients make the right decision.
3. Morality.
Morality presumes truth.
Lies are the servants of immorality. A man who gets between sheets with a woman not his wife tells his wife that he was driving home a co-worker. A person who destroys the innocence of a child denies molestation. A police officer who wrongfully beats a man claims that the man assaulted him. A politician who betrays his constituency says he acted on their behalf. A thief denies stealing.
Lies make a mockery of morality. Some people labor to do right, even when doing wrong would be easier or more profitable. But the liar cheaply gains the benefit of virtue by falsely claiming it.
4. Culture.
In our culture, we value and expect truth.
In romance, we don’t expect a suitor to woo a bride with lies. Someone who does is called a cad.
In medicine, we don’t expect a doctor to give us advice he knows is wrong. A doctor who does is called a quack.
In law, lawyers have a duty to speak truthfully to the judge Dishonest lawyers are called shysters.
In science, we don’t expect scientists to fudge data. One who does is despised in the scientific community.
In business, businesses are expected to be upright. We are shocked to be cheated.
We expect our friends to be honest with us. When we discover that a friend has lied, we loose trust in him.
The assault on truth turns back all of these expectations and values.
5. Conclusion.
Lies do to truth what forgeries do to currency. They debase it. They shake people’s trust in it.
When nominated as a Republican Senate candidate, Lincoln said:
A house divided against itself cannot stand'.(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.In truth and lies, the same must be true. Between virtue and evil, the middle cannot hold.
One last note. I started out saying that lies are a stench in God’s nostril. I started out saying that to believers, God hath said may be the last word. But to be clear: in my observation, believers are not noticeably more truthful than non-believers. This makes me sad to behold believers.
Sources
For more on Russian government interference with juries: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=russian%20juries&st=cse
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sean Hannity Died for Your Sins
Actually, he didn’t.
That’s the point.
Because I see Hannity’s point of view more prominent than that of Jesus.
I never understood the expression, "You are what you eat." But I truly believe that you are what you behold. If you spend your time watching God, godliness arises in you. Paul always looked to the author of his salvation. And he could say that Christ lived in him. (Galatians 2:20.) He could say that the spirit of God lives in us; if the spirit of Christ does not live in us, we do not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)
But America today is not Paul. We Americans collectively spend more time beholding Hannity than beholding Jesus. Our thoughts are not Christ’s. Our thoughts are Hannity’s. Our priorities are not Christ’s. Our priorities are Hannity’s.
So the question is: on the last day, will we know Jesus? Or will we know Hannity?
I see America becoming false. In my professional life, I deal with liars like never before. And in public life, I see lies, lies, lies. I wonder what started this flight from godliness.
I see a willfulness. I see politicians willing to ruin the country and bring suffering to its people, for political gain. This is a new thing. There are no rules. There are only winners and losers. Patriotism exists in name only, especially among those who appeal most loudly to patriotism.
And the reason is that Christianity is being eclipsed by politics.
People regard Hannity because they are convinced that his message is important for today. Because the immediate enemy is not the devil; it is the Democrats. Like a clanging cymbal, Hannity proclaims the evil of Democratic influence. The prospect of Obama having two terms looms as a greater crisis than the prospect of eternal damnation.
People regard liberal media stars, too. But I talk about conservative stars, because they are more likely to be the darlings of the religious. If any liberal reads this and thinks my message is only for conservatives, they misread me.
As for Jesus? Beating back socialism will take work, but salvation is easy. It’s taken care of. It’s a done deal. No worries.
As if confirmation were needed – we go to church. We approve when Glenn Beck speaks admiringly of Christian martyr Dietrich Bohnoeffer. We hate Muslims – that’s the same as loving God, right? We disapprove of secular humanism – isn’t that Christ within us? We believe in the Bible word for word – isn’t that faith?
No. And if your burning heart doesn’t tell you that, this short essay won’t either. If the decline in American morals doesn’t frighten you, these words won’t. But I remember what we were 30 years ago, and I see what we are now. And I'm afraid. Because I see in the soiling of America proof of God’s withdrawal from us.
There is a popular saying that goes, "Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good." In other words, don’t be so determined to bring about the best solution that you forsake a good solution and instead get nothing.
But religion is the opposite of that. To love your brothers and sisters, spouse and children, and father and mother is a very good thing. But Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 (NIV).) That is, to Christ, the good is the enemy of the best.
Think of whether the "good" or your news outlet, the "good" of your political party, crowds out the "best" of salvation.
Think of whether any other "good" thing crowds out God.
I’m thinking that it does.
I’m thinking that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a long trip through harsh conditions. And to make it safely to the end, you have to leave everything behind that will hinder you. I remember reading about pioneers. Often, at the beginning of their journey, they would take everything that was dear to them, only to leave their once-precious cargo along the way, when sheer survival compelled them to know the difference between luxuries and necessities. Cut loose the unnecessary early; it holds you back.
I speak what I do not do – I have my heroes, although they are liberal, not conservative. But I think I speak the truth. And I think I’m wiser for doubting my salvation than those who are sure of their place in Heaven.
That’s the point.
Because I see Hannity’s point of view more prominent than that of Jesus.
I never understood the expression, "You are what you eat." But I truly believe that you are what you behold. If you spend your time watching God, godliness arises in you. Paul always looked to the author of his salvation. And he could say that Christ lived in him. (Galatians 2:20.) He could say that the spirit of God lives in us; if the spirit of Christ does not live in us, we do not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)
But America today is not Paul. We Americans collectively spend more time beholding Hannity than beholding Jesus. Our thoughts are not Christ’s. Our thoughts are Hannity’s. Our priorities are not Christ’s. Our priorities are Hannity’s.
So the question is: on the last day, will we know Jesus? Or will we know Hannity?
I see America becoming false. In my professional life, I deal with liars like never before. And in public life, I see lies, lies, lies. I wonder what started this flight from godliness.
I see a willfulness. I see politicians willing to ruin the country and bring suffering to its people, for political gain. This is a new thing. There are no rules. There are only winners and losers. Patriotism exists in name only, especially among those who appeal most loudly to patriotism.
And the reason is that Christianity is being eclipsed by politics.
People regard Hannity because they are convinced that his message is important for today. Because the immediate enemy is not the devil; it is the Democrats. Like a clanging cymbal, Hannity proclaims the evil of Democratic influence. The prospect of Obama having two terms looms as a greater crisis than the prospect of eternal damnation.
People regard liberal media stars, too. But I talk about conservative stars, because they are more likely to be the darlings of the religious. If any liberal reads this and thinks my message is only for conservatives, they misread me.
As for Jesus? Beating back socialism will take work, but salvation is easy. It’s taken care of. It’s a done deal. No worries.
As if confirmation were needed – we go to church. We approve when Glenn Beck speaks admiringly of Christian martyr Dietrich Bohnoeffer. We hate Muslims – that’s the same as loving God, right? We disapprove of secular humanism – isn’t that Christ within us? We believe in the Bible word for word – isn’t that faith?
No. And if your burning heart doesn’t tell you that, this short essay won’t either. If the decline in American morals doesn’t frighten you, these words won’t. But I remember what we were 30 years ago, and I see what we are now. And I'm afraid. Because I see in the soiling of America proof of God’s withdrawal from us.
There is a popular saying that goes, "Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good." In other words, don’t be so determined to bring about the best solution that you forsake a good solution and instead get nothing.
But religion is the opposite of that. To love your brothers and sisters, spouse and children, and father and mother is a very good thing. But Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 (NIV).) That is, to Christ, the good is the enemy of the best.
Think of whether the "good" or your news outlet, the "good" of your political party, crowds out the "best" of salvation.
Think of whether any other "good" thing crowds out God.
I’m thinking that it does.
I’m thinking that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a long trip through harsh conditions. And to make it safely to the end, you have to leave everything behind that will hinder you. I remember reading about pioneers. Often, at the beginning of their journey, they would take everything that was dear to them, only to leave their once-precious cargo along the way, when sheer survival compelled them to know the difference between luxuries and necessities. Cut loose the unnecessary early; it holds you back.
I speak what I do not do – I have my heroes, although they are liberal, not conservative. But I think I speak the truth. And I think I’m wiser for doubting my salvation than those who are sure of their place in Heaven.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Daughters, Prisoners, and Builders
To believe is to believe that you have been torn1. The rich daughter.
from the abyss, yet stand waveringly on its rim.
– Christian Wiman, every riven thing, "Canyon de Chelly, Arizona" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2010).
That poem segment captures the uncertainty of salvation. Here is a true story about life with unwarranted certainty about salvation.
A woman in her nineties was financially independent. But she had an unexpected property-tax bill. She needed a bridge loan to pay it, until money came in that she was expecting. She turned to her daughter, a multi-millionaire with property and airplanes and vacation homes. The foundation for the daughter’s millions was seed money from her mother.
The daughter has long seethed with resentment against her brother. She doesn’t want her mother to give anything to the brother in her lifetime or in her will.
So the daughter coerced her mother to put all of her wealth into an irrevocable trust that named the daughter as trustee. That gave the daughter complete control over her mother’s property. She also coerced her mother to forsake her right to write her own will.
When the mother demanded to get back control of her own property, the daughter stopped giving money for her to live on.
From relatives, the mother scraped together a small sum to sue to wrest back control of her property. The daughter hired an expensive, silk-suit law firm to fight the mother. The daughter paid the legal bills from the mother’s trust.
The daughter fought in court until the trust was bankrupt. Then she settled the lawsuit. A piece of property in the trust remains to be sold, but when it is sold, the money will go to the daughter’s lawyers.
The daughter is a proud Christian.
If she knew the gospel of Luke, the daughter might see herself as the rich man of Luke 12 who stored his harvest of grain and counted himself safe and happy. But death took him. Jesus said: "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:21(KJV).) I don’t see a woman who ruins he mother as being "rich toward God."
But I doubt that she sees herself in that parable. Instead, I suppose she has brick-solid certainty in her salvation. I suppose she expects to be welcomed into the joy of God when on her deathbed she whispers for her soul to go. I suppose she is sure that cruelty to her parent will not cause God to kick her into the flames like a viper coiled on his foot. Because if she thought that evil-mindedness and cruel actions would bar her from eternal happiness, it’s hard to imagine that she would ruin her mother.
I don’t write about this daughter who ruined her mother so that we can rejoice that we are better than she is. I write about her so that we can contemplate how we are like her. It is her – no doubt – assurance of her own virtue that soothes her conscience and enables her to do evil. Her story serves us poorly if it soothes our own sense of virtue, rather than provoking us to search and strengthen our souls.
2. Life prisoners.
I represent prisoners who have life sentences. I try to get them parole. The prisoners who call forth my best efforts are those who make the most of their chance to win release. They stay out of trouble; they take self-improvement courses; they help other prisoners; they win the admiration of correctional officers; they take college classes; and they learn vocations. The ones who call forth my least effort are those who do the opposite – the ones who think they can get out of prison no matter what they do while inside of prison. They are hopeless causes.
God’s intervention opens the way to heaven for us. God opens the way to heaven, but salvation, while it is a gift, is also a partnership. To God’s divine effort, he expects us to add diligence, virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (2 Peter 1:5-8.) We do this to confirm God’s call and choice of us, so that we may be welcomed into his eternal kingdom. (1 Peter 2:10-11.)
I write about life prisoners so that we might be like the diligent prisoners who respond with great effort to the chance for freedom.
3. Foolish builders.
The alternative to adding these things to our souls – virtue, knowledge, self-control, etc. – is to be foolish builders. Jesus spoke of building a tower. Before you start, you should count the cost of finishing it, or you will lay the foundation and stop. Then you will be a laughingstock. (Luke 14:28-30.) Unfinished Christians will be the laughingstocks of Hell.
We must not be cruel daughters, un-reformed prisoners, or foolish builders. We must always add to our towers, brick by brick.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Bible on Itself
The Bible says a lot about itself.
1. (Imperfect) knowledge.
In scripture we know God, but our knowledge will be imperfect.
So says the apostle Peter in his second letter. He speaks of the "lamp" of scriptural prophecy that shines in the "dark place" of our times. He contrasts that lamp shining in a dark place with the coming light of dawning day. 2 Peter 1:19 (ASV):
The imperfect quality of our present knowledge is also told elsewhere in scripture. The apostle Paul says:
The Bible makes clear that scripture is important to the believer. 2 Peter, quoted above, makes this point well when it speaks of the scriptural prophecy as a lamp in a dark place. Other biblical passages also discuss the believer’s need of scripture.
Scripture is useful for our learning, and it gives us comfort and hope. Romans 15:4 (KJV):
3. Potentially dangerous.
But the believer must approach scripture humbly and carefully. Jesus in the desert answered the devil according to scripture, but also the devil used scripture to tempt him.
2 Peter 3:16 cautions the believer against being misled by scripture. Peter speaks of Paul’s letters and of scripture:
4. Moved by God and God-breathed.
The Bible speaks of divine influence in the origins of the Bible. 2 Peter speaks of prophets – "holy men" – speaking as God "moved" them to speak. 2 Peter 1:20-21.
Elsewhere, the Bible speaks of itself as being "God breathed". 2 Timothy 3:16 (ASV):
Sometimes it means the destructive power of God. So, for example, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (ASV) says:
5. God-breathed like humanity.
Here are my imperfect thoughts on the meaning of God-breathed.
Whatever else God-breathed means, it means that scripture reveals God. Paul says that the Bible is God-breathed; the Bible says that Man was created by the breath of God. Breath and breath. God-breathed Man is God’s likeness. (Genesis 5:1; James 3:9.) Just so, the God-breathed Bible reveals God.
I don’t think that God-breathed means that God himself created scripture in the sense of Psalm 33:6, where the "breath of God’s mouth"created the stars. I don’t think it means that God created scripture in the same way that he created the Ten Commandments. Exodus 24:16 says that God wrote the Ten Commandments and gave them to Moses:
Scripture doesn’t start with the words: "God said:" It doesn’t end with the words, "So said God." Where it quotes God, or it quotes Jesus, it makes clear that it is quoting. When that is not made clear, we are left with poetic words moved and God-breathed to describe God’s role in shaping the words of the Bible. For all we know, that poetic language means different things in different parts of the Bible.
6. Not from the Lord.
God is a moving force behind scripture. But perhaps not all of scripture.
Paul, if fact, makes a point of saying that some of what he says in his letters is not "from the Lord": 1Corinthians 7:10-13 (ASV):
7. Sufficient.
Maybe the Bible says as much about the origin of scripture as we need to know. Maybe the Bible itself must be a mystery, like the mystery of the meaning of many of its parts. Maybe in the brilliant compactness of the Bible, a hint of the Bible’s origin is sufficient.
There are other places to go to learn about the mechanics and origins and inspiration of the Bible. History books can tell us about why certain books were put into the Bible and others were left out. People study the history of the Bible for decades, and among them there is widespread common ground that sometimes even a single book of scripture is spliced together from the writings of more than one author. People have studied non-Jewish texts from before the Hebrew Bible was written. These people have seen a likeness between those texts and parts of the Bible such as some Psalms and Proverbs.
But the Bible does not lay out these mechanics and origins and inspiration. Perhaps this is because these things are external to the purpose of the Bible: they do not make us "wise unto salvation".
8. Conclusion.
I started out talking about Peter’s second letter, which suggests that our knowledge will be imperfect in this world. Paul supports this. And John.
So if scripture is like a lamp compared to dawning day, if we see as through a glass darkly, if we are as children until we come into God’s presence, so be it. We can plumb scripture from youth to old age, and never reach its depth, or the depth of God, in this world.
Paul had a bodily ailment that he prayed for God to cure. But God told him, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthinas 12:9 (ASV).)
I hope I don’t stretch scripture too far to say that God’s word to Paul could apply the same way to our imperfect knowledge from the lamp of scripture. We might want answers more exact than the Bible gives us. But God’s power is made perfect in weakness.
1. (Imperfect) knowledge.
In scripture we know God, but our knowledge will be imperfect.
So says the apostle Peter in his second letter. He speaks of the "lamp" of scriptural prophecy that shines in the "dark place" of our times. He contrasts that lamp shining in a dark place with the coming light of dawning day. 2 Peter 1:19 (ASV):
And we have the word of [scriptural] prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.Peter’s point that scripture illuminates and his point that it does so (relatively) dimly are expressed elsewhere in scripture. For example, Jesus appears unrecognized to certain disciples, after his resurrection. He explains to them how his sufferings were foretold in scripture. He reveals himself, he leaves, and his disciples said, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32 (ASV).) This shows the illuminating power of scripture.
The imperfect quality of our present knowledge is also told elsewhere in scripture. The apostle Paul says:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).)And the apostle John says that we are children compared to the adults that we will become in the presence of God. 1 John 3:2 (KJV):
Beloved, now are we the sons (NIV:children) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.2. Important to the believer.
The Bible makes clear that scripture is important to the believer. 2 Peter, quoted above, makes this point well when it speaks of the scriptural prophecy as a lamp in a dark place. Other biblical passages also discuss the believer’s need of scripture.
Scripture is useful for our learning, and it gives us comfort and hope. Romans 15:4 (KJV):
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.Scripture gives wisdom. Paul speaks to his disciple Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV):
[F]rom a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.Jesus was led to the desert to fast. After he had fasted for 40 days, the devil came and tempted him. Every time, Jesus answered the devil with scripture. Matthew 4:3-10(KJV):
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.Even before he began his ministry, we see Jesus immersed in scripture. Jesus’s parents left him behind in Jerusalem, realized their mistake, went back, and found him in the Temple, with the teachers. Luke 2:46-47 (ASV):
And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions: and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.So scripture is a lamp; it gives us hope, comfort, and wisdom unto salvation; it gives answers.
3. Potentially dangerous.
But the believer must approach scripture humbly and carefully. Jesus in the desert answered the devil according to scripture, but also the devil used scripture to tempt him.
2 Peter 3:16 cautions the believer against being misled by scripture. Peter speaks of Paul’s letters and of scripture:
[I]n [Paul’s letters] are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. [ASV]So scripture can lift up, but it can also cast down.
4. Moved by God and God-breathed.
The Bible speaks of divine influence in the origins of the Bible. 2 Peter speaks of prophets – "holy men" – speaking as God "moved" them to speak. 2 Peter 1:20-21.
Elsewhere, the Bible speaks of itself as being "God breathed". 2 Timothy 3:16 (ASV):
Every scripture inspired of God (NIV: "God-breathed") is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.This is poetic language. It’s meaning is not obvious. In the Bible, the breath of God has different meanings.
Sometimes it means the destructive power of God. So, for example, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (ASV) says:
And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth . . ..Also, for example, Isaiah 40:7 (ASV):
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the breath of Jehovah bloweth upon it; surely the people is grass.And Ezekiel 21:31(ASV):
And I will pour out mine indignation upon thee; I will blow upon thee with the fire of my wrath; and I will deliver thee into the hand of brutish men, skilful to destroy.Other times, the Bible speaks of the life-giving breath of God. For example, Genesis 2:7(ASV):
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Also, Job 33:4 (ASV):
The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth me life.Sometimes the breath of God is the act of creation. Psalm 33:6 (KJV):
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.So the breath of God can stand for a number of things.
5. God-breathed like humanity.
Here are my imperfect thoughts on the meaning of God-breathed.
Whatever else God-breathed means, it means that scripture reveals God. Paul says that the Bible is God-breathed; the Bible says that Man was created by the breath of God. Breath and breath. God-breathed Man is God’s likeness. (Genesis 5:1; James 3:9.) Just so, the God-breathed Bible reveals God.
I don’t think that God-breathed means that God himself created scripture in the sense of Psalm 33:6, where the "breath of God’s mouth"created the stars. I don’t think it means that God created scripture in the same way that he created the Ten Commandments. Exodus 24:16 says that God wrote the Ten Commandments and gave them to Moses:
And Jehovah said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them. [ASV]Exodus shows that the Bible can say that God wrote something – like it says that God wrote the Ten Commandments. But it makes no such claim in general about scripture.
Scripture doesn’t start with the words: "God said:" It doesn’t end with the words, "So said God." Where it quotes God, or it quotes Jesus, it makes clear that it is quoting. When that is not made clear, we are left with poetic words moved and God-breathed to describe God’s role in shaping the words of the Bible. For all we know, that poetic language means different things in different parts of the Bible.
6. Not from the Lord.
God is a moving force behind scripture. But perhaps not all of scripture.
Paul, if fact, makes a point of saying that some of what he says in his letters is not "from the Lord": 1Corinthians 7:10-13 (ASV):
[U]nto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife. But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.This is another reason to be careful with scripture.
7. Sufficient.
Maybe the Bible says as much about the origin of scripture as we need to know. Maybe the Bible itself must be a mystery, like the mystery of the meaning of many of its parts. Maybe in the brilliant compactness of the Bible, a hint of the Bible’s origin is sufficient.
There are other places to go to learn about the mechanics and origins and inspiration of the Bible. History books can tell us about why certain books were put into the Bible and others were left out. People study the history of the Bible for decades, and among them there is widespread common ground that sometimes even a single book of scripture is spliced together from the writings of more than one author. People have studied non-Jewish texts from before the Hebrew Bible was written. These people have seen a likeness between those texts and parts of the Bible such as some Psalms and Proverbs.
But the Bible does not lay out these mechanics and origins and inspiration. Perhaps this is because these things are external to the purpose of the Bible: they do not make us "wise unto salvation".
8. Conclusion.
I started out talking about Peter’s second letter, which suggests that our knowledge will be imperfect in this world. Paul supports this. And John.
So if scripture is like a lamp compared to dawning day, if we see as through a glass darkly, if we are as children until we come into God’s presence, so be it. We can plumb scripture from youth to old age, and never reach its depth, or the depth of God, in this world.
Paul had a bodily ailment that he prayed for God to cure. But God told him, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthinas 12:9 (ASV).)
I hope I don’t stretch scripture too far to say that God’s word to Paul could apply the same way to our imperfect knowledge from the lamp of scripture. We might want answers more exact than the Bible gives us. But God’s power is made perfect in weakness.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Faith that Trips
The pastor's sermon was very good. It was about the apostles. Among the apostles, he talked about Judas, the betrayer. His teaching about Judas was sensitive and thoughtful. But it was, in part, false.
Maybe he thought his hearers would lose faith if he spoke the truth. Maybe he feared they would lose their loyalty to him if he spoke factually.
Or maybe he could not choose between truths. Maybe he could not choose between saying the Bible is true and saying what the Bible says. So he tried to finesse the point, but failed.
1. Different reports of Judas’s death.
Because the pastor said, "We all know how Judas died." Er, no. Based on the Bible, we don’t know how Judas died. Because the Bible gives two different reports of Judas’s death. In Matthew chapter 27, Judas regrets delivering up Jesus. He takes his blood money back to the temple, he throws it into the temple, and the he leaves and hangs himself. The priests collect the blood money and buy a field. The field becomes known as the Field of Blood.
But Acts chapter 1 gives a different report. With the silver he earned by delivering up Jesus, Judas buys the field himself. Then he pitches forward in that field, and he bursts open, and his intestines spill out. Acts agrees with Matthew that the field became known as the Field of Blood.
Here’s the point. We don’t know how Judas died. If we believe Acts, we can’t believe Matthew. If we believe Matthew, we can’t believe Acts. The pastor did not choose between Acts and Matthew, nor did he state both reports. He made as if there were no differences about the death of Judas in different books of the Bible.
2. Different versions of creation.
The Bible seems unworried about telling different stories. The Bible’s first differing stories come early, in its first two chapters.
You can ask yourself: which came first, animals or persons? If you say persons, you disagree with Genesis chapter 1. There, both are created on the sixth day, but animals first. But if you say animals came first, you disagree with Genesis chapter 2. Because there, God creates man first, then livestock, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air. These turn out to be not-good-enough helpers for man, so God creates woman.
3. Different versions of how David met King Saul.
If you still think that the Bible is seamless, read 1 Samuel 16:14-23. Then read 1 Samuel 17. These are different reports about how David met King Saul. 1Samual 16 says that David was a grown man, a good fighter, and he came to Saul to play his harp to sooth Saul’s demon-provoked spirit. 1 Samuel 17 has David too young to accompany his older brothers to war. But when he brings food to his brothers, he kills Goliath. This brings him to Saul’s attention.
4. The Bible’s makers intended to record these different stories.
What do these different stories mean? Were the makers of the Bible unaware of these differences? Certainly not. I am unshakably sure that scripture’s makers knew exactly what was in it.
They could have made the Bible seamless. They could have kept out Genesis chapter 1 or 2; 1 Samuel chapter 16 or 17; and parts of Matthew chapter 27 or parts of Acts chapter 1. But they chose to keep everything in.
I even think that they were content to have in the first two chapters of Genesis two stories that did not mesh. It sent a signal. It made clear at the beginning that the reader should not take every Biblical word literally. It made less likely that readers would impose upon scripture a literalism that its makers did not share.
As to the David stories, it is interesting that the makers of the Bible put the version with David as a man and a fighter before the version with David as a youth. It’s as if the makers wanted to make clear that they included two distinct traditions about the first meeting between David and Saul. The Bible's makers could have first told the story of David the youth, and then the story of David the man; then, it would be easier to read one as a continuation of the other. But the Bible’s makers did not do that.
5. A blessing that the makers could not have foreseen.
There is no reason to treat these different versions like a spouse’s petty-theft conviction that we don’t want anybody to know about. The differences among parts of the Bible are an aid to faith. The conflicts in Genesis and in other books have become important in ways that the Bible’s makers could not have known about in the times that the books of the Bible were made.
Theirs was an age without science as we know it. The Hebrew Bible was written thousands of years before scientists could peer billions of years back in time and trillions of miles into space. It was written thousands of years before geologists studied Earth’s strata to learn how ancient is our world. It was written long before palaeontologists studied fossils.
The Hebrew Bible was written long before our forebears knew that the earth was round and suspended in a void, against the Genesis description of earth separating the waters above and the waters below. It was written long before Galileo discovered that Earth circled the Sun, against the witness of Psalms, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes.
But Genesis makes the Bible’s lack of accord with science alright. We don’t have to choose between science and the Bible. Because in its first two chapters, the Bible itself makes it clear that it is not a literal description of creation. It does this with unworried contradiction. Before there was science, the authors of Genesis, 1 Samuel, and Matthew/Acts wrote as if to sooth the mind troubled by knowing science and reading scripture.
5. True but not literal.
None of this make scripture less true.
As to Genesis, putting science at the beginning of the Bible would serve neither God nor us. Because an account of the Big Bang theory and natural selection would tell us nothing of the truth that the first chapters of Genesis really are about. This is the truth they tell: that God was immediate to, intimate with, and in control of the creation of the universe and everything in it.
It would not lead to salvation to know that the universe began with a colossal explosion. Nor that genetic mutations over time produced more advanced creatures. Nor that the earth is round instead of flat with waters above and waters below it. Nor that the Earth circles the Sun. These do not help a person get to heaven (but they do not hinder, either). So there was no reason to put these in a book that is really all about God, persons, and salvation.
But to know that God is the beginning of all that there is is useful for salvation. This is especially true if that knowledge is joined with awe.
So Genesis is true, even if it is not literal. And the Bible’s makers had no problem with making clear that it was not literal. This does not take away from its truth.
The truth beneath the two David stories or the two Judas’s-death stories is unclear to me. But that’s the Bible for you. Its basic message is so simple that a young child can grasp it. But you can plumb the Bible from youth to old age, and you will never find the bottom of it.
6. The comfort of literalism is certainty.
Now, to get back to the pastor. He is a man I respect. His sermons make me think. He knows more than I do.
But he encourages his hearers to read the Bible literally, and they encourage him. His hearers applaud when he says things like, "We are not Calvinists; we are Biblicists." His hearers approve when he says, "I don’t want to know what John Calvin says. I want to know what the Bible says." (Note to pastor: John Calvin interpreted the Bible.)
And, of course, his literalism caused him to slip around the fact that Judas dies differently in Matthew than in Acts.
Literalism is attractive because literalism is certain. I have argued before that certainty is valued in America in our time. The security of our lives cocoons many of us, leading to a sense of certainty about the world, and, by extension, about other things. (See below, "Certainty and Uncertainty.") So, in a way, certainty is not a choice we make but a choice that our culture has made for us.
People won’t shake off certainty for no reason. Nobody wants to shake off certainty until it discomforts more than it comforts. I believe that people find so much comfort in certainty that, to hold onto it, they will tightly clasp what they must know is impossible. The church I go to really does believe in the Bible, and I have no doubt that many members read it carefully and often. Many of them have read the passages that I talked about here. But their looking is colored by certainty, so they do not see obvious contradictions.
7. The problem with literalism.
If literalism is a path to salvation, I should not argue against it.
But I do. For one thing, even though I take it less literally than many, I think the Bible is fundamental to guiding people to salvation. And the better people know it, the better it guides them. Literalism is wrong, so it may lead people off-path. If you read something in a way that it was not meant to be read, you might miss something that you might learn if you read it right.
If we read Genesis as a natural history of creation, we might miss its message of God’s immediacy to, intimacy with, and control over creation; not to mention unnumbered other truths that the first two chapters of Genesis hold.
If we think the Bible is always simple and always literal, we don’t understand how deep and rich the Bible is. Then we might to approach it solely by the power of our minds. We are less likely to approach it humbly, prayerfully, and dependently. We need to depend upon God, prayer, and humility, not only the power of our minds, to plumb the Bible.
Also, literalism can harm the weak-in-faith. Based on literal reading of scripture, early missionaries to China calculated for Chinese rulers the date of the creation of the Earth. They were not believable, because Chinese dynastic records predated the supposed date of creation. Likewise, when we tout Biblical literalism, we become a rock of stumbling for people who believe in science.
It can harm the weak-in-faith in other ways. We want believers to read scripture. But their faith might be harmed if they read Genesis, Samuel, Chronicles, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Matthew/Acts and nobody can explain the differences between the passages, or the differences between the Word and the known world.
Biblical literalism should have been officially buried in 1992, when the Catholic Church apologized to Galileo. I regret that it lives on, because it harms.
8. Shedding certainty.
The Bible was not beaten, scourged, and nailed to a cross to die for all and to rise. The Bible points to God, but it is not God.
We should not read into it a literalism that its makers did not share. Instead, we should see it for what it is: simple but rich, straight but complex, all true but not necessarily all literal. We should be ready to read it for a lifetime, but also ready to know that, at the end of our lives, it still will have mysteries. The mystery should provoke us to make more earnest study and to hope in immortal joy with the one who can make clear all that now we see through a glass darkly.
Maybe he thought his hearers would lose faith if he spoke the truth. Maybe he feared they would lose their loyalty to him if he spoke factually.
Or maybe he could not choose between truths. Maybe he could not choose between saying the Bible is true and saying what the Bible says. So he tried to finesse the point, but failed.
1. Different reports of Judas’s death.
Because the pastor said, "We all know how Judas died." Er, no. Based on the Bible, we don’t know how Judas died. Because the Bible gives two different reports of Judas’s death. In Matthew chapter 27, Judas regrets delivering up Jesus. He takes his blood money back to the temple, he throws it into the temple, and the he leaves and hangs himself. The priests collect the blood money and buy a field. The field becomes known as the Field of Blood.
But Acts chapter 1 gives a different report. With the silver he earned by delivering up Jesus, Judas buys the field himself. Then he pitches forward in that field, and he bursts open, and his intestines spill out. Acts agrees with Matthew that the field became known as the Field of Blood.
Here’s the point. We don’t know how Judas died. If we believe Acts, we can’t believe Matthew. If we believe Matthew, we can’t believe Acts. The pastor did not choose between Acts and Matthew, nor did he state both reports. He made as if there were no differences about the death of Judas in different books of the Bible.
2. Different versions of creation.
The Bible seems unworried about telling different stories. The Bible’s first differing stories come early, in its first two chapters.
You can ask yourself: which came first, animals or persons? If you say persons, you disagree with Genesis chapter 1. There, both are created on the sixth day, but animals first. But if you say animals came first, you disagree with Genesis chapter 2. Because there, God creates man first, then livestock, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air. These turn out to be not-good-enough helpers for man, so God creates woman.
3. Different versions of how David met King Saul.
If you still think that the Bible is seamless, read 1 Samuel 16:14-23. Then read 1 Samuel 17. These are different reports about how David met King Saul. 1Samual 16 says that David was a grown man, a good fighter, and he came to Saul to play his harp to sooth Saul’s demon-provoked spirit. 1 Samuel 17 has David too young to accompany his older brothers to war. But when he brings food to his brothers, he kills Goliath. This brings him to Saul’s attention.
4. The Bible’s makers intended to record these different stories.
What do these different stories mean? Were the makers of the Bible unaware of these differences? Certainly not. I am unshakably sure that scripture’s makers knew exactly what was in it.
They could have made the Bible seamless. They could have kept out Genesis chapter 1 or 2; 1 Samuel chapter 16 or 17; and parts of Matthew chapter 27 or parts of Acts chapter 1. But they chose to keep everything in.
I even think that they were content to have in the first two chapters of Genesis two stories that did not mesh. It sent a signal. It made clear at the beginning that the reader should not take every Biblical word literally. It made less likely that readers would impose upon scripture a literalism that its makers did not share.
As to the David stories, it is interesting that the makers of the Bible put the version with David as a man and a fighter before the version with David as a youth. It’s as if the makers wanted to make clear that they included two distinct traditions about the first meeting between David and Saul. The Bible's makers could have first told the story of David the youth, and then the story of David the man; then, it would be easier to read one as a continuation of the other. But the Bible’s makers did not do that.
5. A blessing that the makers could not have foreseen.
There is no reason to treat these different versions like a spouse’s petty-theft conviction that we don’t want anybody to know about. The differences among parts of the Bible are an aid to faith. The conflicts in Genesis and in other books have become important in ways that the Bible’s makers could not have known about in the times that the books of the Bible were made.
Theirs was an age without science as we know it. The Hebrew Bible was written thousands of years before scientists could peer billions of years back in time and trillions of miles into space. It was written thousands of years before geologists studied Earth’s strata to learn how ancient is our world. It was written long before palaeontologists studied fossils.
The Hebrew Bible was written long before our forebears knew that the earth was round and suspended in a void, against the Genesis description of earth separating the waters above and the waters below. It was written long before Galileo discovered that Earth circled the Sun, against the witness of Psalms, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes.
But Genesis makes the Bible’s lack of accord with science alright. We don’t have to choose between science and the Bible. Because in its first two chapters, the Bible itself makes it clear that it is not a literal description of creation. It does this with unworried contradiction. Before there was science, the authors of Genesis, 1 Samuel, and Matthew/Acts wrote as if to sooth the mind troubled by knowing science and reading scripture.
5. True but not literal.
None of this make scripture less true.
As to Genesis, putting science at the beginning of the Bible would serve neither God nor us. Because an account of the Big Bang theory and natural selection would tell us nothing of the truth that the first chapters of Genesis really are about. This is the truth they tell: that God was immediate to, intimate with, and in control of the creation of the universe and everything in it.
It would not lead to salvation to know that the universe began with a colossal explosion. Nor that genetic mutations over time produced more advanced creatures. Nor that the earth is round instead of flat with waters above and waters below it. Nor that the Earth circles the Sun. These do not help a person get to heaven (but they do not hinder, either). So there was no reason to put these in a book that is really all about God, persons, and salvation.
But to know that God is the beginning of all that there is is useful for salvation. This is especially true if that knowledge is joined with awe.
So Genesis is true, even if it is not literal. And the Bible’s makers had no problem with making clear that it was not literal. This does not take away from its truth.
The truth beneath the two David stories or the two Judas’s-death stories is unclear to me. But that’s the Bible for you. Its basic message is so simple that a young child can grasp it. But you can plumb the Bible from youth to old age, and you will never find the bottom of it.
6. The comfort of literalism is certainty.
Now, to get back to the pastor. He is a man I respect. His sermons make me think. He knows more than I do.
But he encourages his hearers to read the Bible literally, and they encourage him. His hearers applaud when he says things like, "We are not Calvinists; we are Biblicists." His hearers approve when he says, "I don’t want to know what John Calvin says. I want to know what the Bible says." (Note to pastor: John Calvin interpreted the Bible.)
And, of course, his literalism caused him to slip around the fact that Judas dies differently in Matthew than in Acts.
Literalism is attractive because literalism is certain. I have argued before that certainty is valued in America in our time. The security of our lives cocoons many of us, leading to a sense of certainty about the world, and, by extension, about other things. (See below, "Certainty and Uncertainty.") So, in a way, certainty is not a choice we make but a choice that our culture has made for us.
People won’t shake off certainty for no reason. Nobody wants to shake off certainty until it discomforts more than it comforts. I believe that people find so much comfort in certainty that, to hold onto it, they will tightly clasp what they must know is impossible. The church I go to really does believe in the Bible, and I have no doubt that many members read it carefully and often. Many of them have read the passages that I talked about here. But their looking is colored by certainty, so they do not see obvious contradictions.
7. The problem with literalism.
If literalism is a path to salvation, I should not argue against it.
But I do. For one thing, even though I take it less literally than many, I think the Bible is fundamental to guiding people to salvation. And the better people know it, the better it guides them. Literalism is wrong, so it may lead people off-path. If you read something in a way that it was not meant to be read, you might miss something that you might learn if you read it right.
If we read Genesis as a natural history of creation, we might miss its message of God’s immediacy to, intimacy with, and control over creation; not to mention unnumbered other truths that the first two chapters of Genesis hold.
If we think the Bible is always simple and always literal, we don’t understand how deep and rich the Bible is. Then we might to approach it solely by the power of our minds. We are less likely to approach it humbly, prayerfully, and dependently. We need to depend upon God, prayer, and humility, not only the power of our minds, to plumb the Bible.
Also, literalism can harm the weak-in-faith. Based on literal reading of scripture, early missionaries to China calculated for Chinese rulers the date of the creation of the Earth. They were not believable, because Chinese dynastic records predated the supposed date of creation. Likewise, when we tout Biblical literalism, we become a rock of stumbling for people who believe in science.
It can harm the weak-in-faith in other ways. We want believers to read scripture. But their faith might be harmed if they read Genesis, Samuel, Chronicles, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Matthew/Acts and nobody can explain the differences between the passages, or the differences between the Word and the known world.
Biblical literalism should have been officially buried in 1992, when the Catholic Church apologized to Galileo. I regret that it lives on, because it harms.
8. Shedding certainty.
The Bible was not beaten, scourged, and nailed to a cross to die for all and to rise. The Bible points to God, but it is not God.
We should not read into it a literalism that its makers did not share. Instead, we should see it for what it is: simple but rich, straight but complex, all true but not necessarily all literal. We should be ready to read it for a lifetime, but also ready to know that, at the end of our lives, it still will have mysteries. The mystery should provoke us to make more earnest study and to hope in immortal joy with the one who can make clear all that now we see through a glass darkly.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Certainty and Uncertainty
The apostle Paul saw and heard the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. He spent the rest of his life preaching the gospel. He is a hero of the biblical book of Acts. We study his life and letters two-thousand years later.
You’d think that such a man would believe that he knew what he knew. But no. Paul knew that his knowledge was narrow and hindered by life in this world:
We Americans today are unlike Paul. At the risk of simplifying: spiritually, we are a People Who Know. We do not, like Paul, know the limits of our knowledge. The Unknown is a stranger to us.
Instead, we make a friend of Certainty. We are certain about religion. We are certain about scripture. We are certain that scripture is inerrant. And we are certain about our interpretation of scripture. We believe that scripture is easy, and that to interpret it, we need only to "believe" it, which often means to read it literally. Sometimes, a biblical answer is as simple as finding a Bible verse on an internet-Bible search engine.
Because we are certain about scripture, and because we are certain that we understand it, we are certain about our salvation. We quote Acts 16:31:
We are certain because our world seduces us into false confidence. Technology hides spiritual risk behind the mirage of easy living.
See how we live. Jets whisper us to far places. Computers in our cars warn us about engine problems before we are stranded on the freeway. Unemployment insurance protects us from the economic wreck of job loss (somewhat), and social security and 401(k) plans shelter us in old age. Police and firemen are a 9-1-1 call away, and 9-1-1 also summons an ambulance to rush us to an emergency room. Please do not infer that I am against these things; I say only that they hide the uncertainty of life in this world by making our lives more cocooned than the lives of our forebears.
Our forebears were moved to accept uncertainty by the uncertainty of the lives that they lived. In this country, they might leave behind what they knew and travel for months by wagon to the unknown. Death along the way was a known risk – death by heat, cold, hunger, thirst, sickness, injury, or attack. Pioneers carried guns because government protection was days or weeks away. Their wagons carried supplies that they would need, because chances to re-supply were few. A lame animal could doom a family.
Even urban life in times past had risks that are rare in our time and in our country. In times past, doctors could help only if you did not get too sick. A wound that modern medicine easily treats could be deadly in the times before antibiotics. Doctors did not wash their hand or clean their surgery tools before cutting into flesh, because they did not know about germs. Pregnancy came with danger, and birth came with only a hope that the child would live to adulthood. This was important, because children were the chief hope for livelihood in old age.
There was no social safety-net.
Diseases regularly decimated populations.
So the lives of our forebears were filled with risks that our own are not. Our benign world must affect the way we see our God, our lives, and ourselves. It leads us to see differently than we would see if we lived in the harsh world of our forebears. The ease and seeming-certainty of our material world mask the danger and uncertainty of the spiritual life.
The world of our forebears taught the right lessons; ours misleads us. They were hardscrabble; we are rich. And riches, we know, deceive. (Matthew 13:22.)
We are all on a countdown to the end of life. This countdown has no visible clock that tells us when our time will be up. That uncertainty is a metaphor for the uncertainty, corporeal and spiritual, of our lives. We turn away from this broad uncertainty at our own risk.
This is the beginning of my argument that we should bind uncertainty to our hearts.
You’d think that such a man would believe that he knew what he knew. But no. Paul knew that his knowledge was narrow and hindered by life in this world:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).)Paul freely confessed the limits of what he knew.
We Americans today are unlike Paul. At the risk of simplifying: spiritually, we are a People Who Know. We do not, like Paul, know the limits of our knowledge. The Unknown is a stranger to us.
Instead, we make a friend of Certainty. We are certain about religion. We are certain about scripture. We are certain that scripture is inerrant. And we are certain about our interpretation of scripture. We believe that scripture is easy, and that to interpret it, we need only to "believe" it, which often means to read it literally. Sometimes, a biblical answer is as simple as finding a Bible verse on an internet-Bible search engine.
Because we are certain about scripture, and because we are certain that we understand it, we are certain about our salvation. We quote Acts 16:31:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (KJV)We are more certain than we should be.
We are certain because our world seduces us into false confidence. Technology hides spiritual risk behind the mirage of easy living.
See how we live. Jets whisper us to far places. Computers in our cars warn us about engine problems before we are stranded on the freeway. Unemployment insurance protects us from the economic wreck of job loss (somewhat), and social security and 401(k) plans shelter us in old age. Police and firemen are a 9-1-1 call away, and 9-1-1 also summons an ambulance to rush us to an emergency room. Please do not infer that I am against these things; I say only that they hide the uncertainty of life in this world by making our lives more cocooned than the lives of our forebears.
Our forebears were moved to accept uncertainty by the uncertainty of the lives that they lived. In this country, they might leave behind what they knew and travel for months by wagon to the unknown. Death along the way was a known risk – death by heat, cold, hunger, thirst, sickness, injury, or attack. Pioneers carried guns because government protection was days or weeks away. Their wagons carried supplies that they would need, because chances to re-supply were few. A lame animal could doom a family.
Even urban life in times past had risks that are rare in our time and in our country. In times past, doctors could help only if you did not get too sick. A wound that modern medicine easily treats could be deadly in the times before antibiotics. Doctors did not wash their hand or clean their surgery tools before cutting into flesh, because they did not know about germs. Pregnancy came with danger, and birth came with only a hope that the child would live to adulthood. This was important, because children were the chief hope for livelihood in old age.
There was no social safety-net.
Diseases regularly decimated populations.
So the lives of our forebears were filled with risks that our own are not. Our benign world must affect the way we see our God, our lives, and ourselves. It leads us to see differently than we would see if we lived in the harsh world of our forebears. The ease and seeming-certainty of our material world mask the danger and uncertainty of the spiritual life.
The world of our forebears taught the right lessons; ours misleads us. They were hardscrabble; we are rich. And riches, we know, deceive. (Matthew 13:22.)
We are all on a countdown to the end of life. This countdown has no visible clock that tells us when our time will be up. That uncertainty is a metaphor for the uncertainty, corporeal and spiritual, of our lives. We turn away from this broad uncertainty at our own risk.
This is the beginning of my argument that we should bind uncertainty to our hearts.
Friday, October 22, 2010
God, Madness, and Me
Madness changed the way I see myself and the way I see God.
Madness for me was foraging in dumpsters and looking for places to sleep out of the wind. (Orange groves are bad. Bushes next to freeways are good.) It was disembodied voices and a terrible vision. It was lying strapped to a gurney, howling while a hospital staff-member taunted me. It was hard, degrading, and scary.
I’m well now.
I won’t tell much about my life as a homeless lunatic. Not now, at least. Truth is, before today I've told this story to few people, and I've told the whole story to nobody. I worry that people will look down on me.
But if I keep the larger part of the story to myself, I will at least tell you a truth of its effect. This trauma led me to reject some beliefs that I shared with most American Christians. It fundamentally changed my cozy, easy ideas about God. It shifted the earth under me, and it cleared my mind.
My madness did not draw me closer to God. It did sharpen my belief in him. I know that he exists like I know the lines in my hand. But my experience was the opposite of rapture. It brought me no joy. It deepened me; it sobered me.
My Christianity was not cursory before my madness. I was a long-time churchgoer. I was a deacon at my Presbyterian church. I tithed. I took courses at a theological seminary in Pasadena. I left a career as a public prosecutor to travel to China, where, under an American Christian-service organization, I taught law at Chinese colleges and universities. I spent years absorbing scripture daily, sometimes for hours. I had read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation several times in several translations.
After my madness, I lost my hunger for scripture. Lately, the Bible has seized my attention again. I don’t know where this inspiration comes from, but I welcome it.
I haven’t gone without biblical musings in the years between my trauma and now. Based upon years of study, I could draw upon a pool of knowledge. These musings confirmed an accord between the Bible and what I learned from my season of madness. I believe that still as I test my beliefs by studying the Word.
The Spanish painter Francisco Goya became deaf. After his deafness, he produced paintings that were literally and emotionally dark, even monstrous. My theology after my madness became dark like Goya's paintings after his deafness.
From this dark place, I see a tidal wave coming. It's like madness taught me to reckon water that pulls back to sea that foretells a destructive wave to come. I worry for people, that they don't see this, that they don't talk about it, that they don't take steps to live and not to die.
Instead, I sense that America makes happy-talk about God and salvation. We are an optimistic people, and our theology is optimistic: God is kind, salvation is easy, and Hell is a place for people worse than us. Our material comfort fools us into a false sense of a benign universe and a tolerant God. God is tolerant, but only to a point.
This is because the stakes are supremely high. We want the world to be a pleasure boat, but it's a liberty ship trying to take us to safety through a sea filled with a dangerous enemy that seeks our harm. A liberty ship demands sterner discipline that a cruise ship.
So I speak out to warn. I feel like the ancient mariner of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem. He started on a voyage that seemed at first ordinary. But he and his fellow seamen were swept to a far-away, harsh sea. He sinned grievously. All died on this supernatural voyage but the mariner. He returned to the living to tell his sobering tale. It’s not a perfect simile, but like the "grey beard loon" of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, I think my journey gives me something important to tell. I have done this a little in past posts, and I plan to do it more in the future.
And yet:
Madness for me was foraging in dumpsters and looking for places to sleep out of the wind. (Orange groves are bad. Bushes next to freeways are good.) It was disembodied voices and a terrible vision. It was lying strapped to a gurney, howling while a hospital staff-member taunted me. It was hard, degrading, and scary.
I’m well now.
I won’t tell much about my life as a homeless lunatic. Not now, at least. Truth is, before today I've told this story to few people, and I've told the whole story to nobody. I worry that people will look down on me.
But if I keep the larger part of the story to myself, I will at least tell you a truth of its effect. This trauma led me to reject some beliefs that I shared with most American Christians. It fundamentally changed my cozy, easy ideas about God. It shifted the earth under me, and it cleared my mind.
My madness did not draw me closer to God. It did sharpen my belief in him. I know that he exists like I know the lines in my hand. But my experience was the opposite of rapture. It brought me no joy. It deepened me; it sobered me.
My Christianity was not cursory before my madness. I was a long-time churchgoer. I was a deacon at my Presbyterian church. I tithed. I took courses at a theological seminary in Pasadena. I left a career as a public prosecutor to travel to China, where, under an American Christian-service organization, I taught law at Chinese colleges and universities. I spent years absorbing scripture daily, sometimes for hours. I had read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation several times in several translations.
After my madness, I lost my hunger for scripture. Lately, the Bible has seized my attention again. I don’t know where this inspiration comes from, but I welcome it.
I haven’t gone without biblical musings in the years between my trauma and now. Based upon years of study, I could draw upon a pool of knowledge. These musings confirmed an accord between the Bible and what I learned from my season of madness. I believe that still as I test my beliefs by studying the Word.
The Spanish painter Francisco Goya became deaf. After his deafness, he produced paintings that were literally and emotionally dark, even monstrous. My theology after my madness became dark like Goya's paintings after his deafness.
From this dark place, I see a tidal wave coming. It's like madness taught me to reckon water that pulls back to sea that foretells a destructive wave to come. I worry for people, that they don't see this, that they don't talk about it, that they don't take steps to live and not to die.
Instead, I sense that America makes happy-talk about God and salvation. We are an optimistic people, and our theology is optimistic: God is kind, salvation is easy, and Hell is a place for people worse than us. Our material comfort fools us into a false sense of a benign universe and a tolerant God. God is tolerant, but only to a point.
This is because the stakes are supremely high. We want the world to be a pleasure boat, but it's a liberty ship trying to take us to safety through a sea filled with a dangerous enemy that seeks our harm. A liberty ship demands sterner discipline that a cruise ship.
So I speak out to warn. I feel like the ancient mariner of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem. He started on a voyage that seemed at first ordinary. But he and his fellow seamen were swept to a far-away, harsh sea. He sinned grievously. All died on this supernatural voyage but the mariner. He returned to the living to tell his sobering tale. It’s not a perfect simile, but like the "grey beard loon" of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, I think my journey gives me something important to tell. I have done this a little in past posts, and I plan to do it more in the future.
And yet:
Come now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or that. [James 4:13-15.]Still, these are my plans.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Christians, Nut Up.
We Christians are wont to hiss like punctured air hoses when we are criticized by outsiders. We cast a baleful eye at celebrated mockers like Bill Mahar, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. We resent films like Religulous
and books like The God Delusion
and God is Not Great. Books and films like these make us ache for the quick return of the Lord, so that these Christian-mocking miscreants speedily will be separated from their smug sense of superiority. "Amen", we say.
1. Placing the blame.
But these architects of anti-faith have powerful allies. Their allies are us. Jesus said,
2. Knowing our natures.
I think this places blame where it belongs. We are soiled. Increasingly, I nod grimly when I think of the biblical prophet Isaiah saying, "I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips . . .." (Isaiah 6:5 (ASV).) Lies are commonplace in our culture, from bottom to top.
And we love our money and our comfort. We live without qualm to the limit of our means, or beyond it. We buy cars big enough to host hockey games in; now that America is retreating from vehicular behemoths, it is not religious restraint that drums retreat, but the high price of gasoline. We squeeze into the pews of churches that assure us that God wants us to be rich.
Our love of money and comfort crowds out our love of God because we are rich. In America, the rich don’t repose only in Bel Air; compared to people in biblical times, virtually any resident of Colton, California is rich. And among nations, America is a rich nation.
Therefore it is dangerous for us to ignore how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But we don't worry; we clamber upon our camels and amble toward the eye of the needle that stands between us and the kingdom. (Mark 10:25.)
We don't know the Bible as we once did. Instead, we draw our principles from what we put in front of ourselves. We learn ethics from eight seasons of the television series "24", rather than from an equal number of seasons with the Bible.
The Bible instructs that:
3. Changing our thinking.
Reckless before chasm-sized topics, I suggest, as a start, three modifications of modern American theology.
First, we need to reevaluate our understanding of God’s grace. We seem to believe that salvation is like buying software online, putting a checkmark in the box next to "I agree". So easy.
Here’s a bleaker simile: we are like diners satiating ourselves at the table of sin, and when the grim reaper presents the tariff, we jerk our thumbs over our shoulders and say, "Give that to that guy over there, dying on the cross."
Theologian Dietrich Bohnhoeffer surveyed the doctrine of grace in his native Germany before the outbreak of World War II. He saw a country like ours, awash in belief in cheap grace. We all know how that turned out then: Christianity in Germany did not resist the war, and it did not resist the mass murder of the Jews.
Bohnhoeffer wrote a study of grace called The Cost of Discipleship
. It’s no light read; it requires much time and close attention. But it rewards the reading of it.
Second, we must learn to fear God. This is so biblical that it cries out from the pages of scripture. For example, "[Jehovah] will fulfil the desire of them that fear him; He also will hear their cry and will save them." (Psalms 145:19 (ASV).) And "Jehovah taketh pleasure in them that fear him, In those that hope in his lovingkindness." (Psalms 147:11 (ASV).) And "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge . . .." (Proverbs 1:7 (ASV).) And "[B]e not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 (ASV).)
Some mornings as I go into the courthouse, I hear lay preachers preaching hellfire and brimstone to the people lined up to go through the metal detectors. I confess, I groan inwardly. This is partly my reaction to the indecency of forcing a biblical harangue upon a captive audience. But it’s also partly that I don’t think that these lay preachers really fear God; they reveal more condescension than love and trembling. Fear of God must be more than lip service; it must be a holy dread.
Third, we would do well to have less confidence in our own salvation. This walks against the wind of popular "assurance of salvation." And yet I find nothing in scripture that establishes assurance of salvation. Instead, I read of a mere remnant of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob returning to their homeland from Babylonian captivity. I read of many disciples abandoning Jesus when he teaches hard things. (John 6:26-66.) I read Matthew 7:21-23:
4. Practicing the spiritual disciplines.
Those are suggestions about how to think about our God and ourselves. What then do we do? This is another mountain, one that I’ll try to scale in two paragraphs.
When a flight attendant gives instructions about emergencies, she tells the passengers to put the oxygen cup over their own air passages before helping other passengers. That’s probably pretty good advice for spiritual growth.
Therefore study. Learn. Grow. This, like almost everything else I have touched on so far, is a huge subject, not exhaustible in a blog post. So I’ll just say where to get direction. Aside from the Bible, I recommend three books. Richard Foster wrote a modern classic called Celebration of Discipline
. One great thing about Foster’s book is that he lists other resources. I also recommend Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines. Don Postema’s Space for God 
is good for group study.
5. Conclusion.
I have said grim things. Maybe I’m a crank. But I urge an antidote to the free, easy, empty Christianity of our time. Who wants to spend a lifetime in church and an eternity apart from God? I fear that too many of us will be mocked in Gehenna for our unfinished towers. (Luke 14:28-30.)
John the Baptist said to the multitudes who came to him to be baptized, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7 (ASV).) Forget who warned us; let's be warned.
I started out this post by mentioning our dislike of criticism by professional skeptics and others. But here is a saying: "Take care of your character, and your reputation will take care of itself." This should be the Christians' response to our critics.
Note:
I cite books, from the rank to the sublime, in the text. Where I cite a book, I usually provide a link to that book on Amazon.com. I provide the link only for your convenience. If you want the book, great; but it doesn’t matter to me where you get it.
and books like The God Delusion and God is Not Great. Books and films like these make us ache for the quick return of the Lord, so that these Christian-mocking miscreants speedily will be separated from their smug sense of superiority. "Amen", we say.1. Placing the blame.
But these architects of anti-faith have powerful allies. Their allies are us. Jesus said,
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. [Matthew 5:13 (ASV)]The simple, sorry truth is that when enemies of faith tread on people of faith, it is because we have lost our saltiness. The would-be debunkers aren’t to blame; we are. When our adversaries tread us under foot, they only prove that Jesus was right.
2. Knowing our natures.
I think this places blame where it belongs. We are soiled. Increasingly, I nod grimly when I think of the biblical prophet Isaiah saying, "I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips . . .." (Isaiah 6:5 (ASV).) Lies are commonplace in our culture, from bottom to top.
And we love our money and our comfort. We live without qualm to the limit of our means, or beyond it. We buy cars big enough to host hockey games in; now that America is retreating from vehicular behemoths, it is not religious restraint that drums retreat, but the high price of gasoline. We squeeze into the pews of churches that assure us that God wants us to be rich.
Our love of money and comfort crowds out our love of God because we are rich. In America, the rich don’t repose only in Bel Air; compared to people in biblical times, virtually any resident of Colton, California is rich. And among nations, America is a rich nation.
Therefore it is dangerous for us to ignore how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But we don't worry; we clamber upon our camels and amble toward the eye of the needle that stands between us and the kingdom. (Mark 10:25.)
We don't know the Bible as we once did. Instead, we draw our principles from what we put in front of ourselves. We learn ethics from eight seasons of the television series "24", rather than from an equal number of seasons with the Bible.
The Bible instructs that:
[W]hoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me: But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea. [Matthew 18:5-6 (ASV).]But the Catholic Church had to take costly instruction from secular courts about protecting children in their care. This is only the most dramatic religious scandal in a society that grows accustomed to religious scandals, or accustomed to scandals of the pious.
3. Changing our thinking.
Reckless before chasm-sized topics, I suggest, as a start, three modifications of modern American theology.
First, we need to reevaluate our understanding of God’s grace. We seem to believe that salvation is like buying software online, putting a checkmark in the box next to "I agree". So easy.
Here’s a bleaker simile: we are like diners satiating ourselves at the table of sin, and when the grim reaper presents the tariff, we jerk our thumbs over our shoulders and say, "Give that to that guy over there, dying on the cross."
Theologian Dietrich Bohnhoeffer surveyed the doctrine of grace in his native Germany before the outbreak of World War II. He saw a country like ours, awash in belief in cheap grace. We all know how that turned out then: Christianity in Germany did not resist the war, and it did not resist the mass murder of the Jews.
Bohnhoeffer wrote a study of grace called The Cost of Discipleship
. It’s no light read; it requires much time and close attention. But it rewards the reading of it.Second, we must learn to fear God. This is so biblical that it cries out from the pages of scripture. For example, "[Jehovah] will fulfil the desire of them that fear him; He also will hear their cry and will save them." (Psalms 145:19 (ASV).) And "Jehovah taketh pleasure in them that fear him, In those that hope in his lovingkindness." (Psalms 147:11 (ASV).) And "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge . . .." (Proverbs 1:7 (ASV).) And "[B]e not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 (ASV).)
Some mornings as I go into the courthouse, I hear lay preachers preaching hellfire and brimstone to the people lined up to go through the metal detectors. I confess, I groan inwardly. This is partly my reaction to the indecency of forcing a biblical harangue upon a captive audience. But it’s also partly that I don’t think that these lay preachers really fear God; they reveal more condescension than love and trembling. Fear of God must be more than lip service; it must be a holy dread.
Third, we would do well to have less confidence in our own salvation. This walks against the wind of popular "assurance of salvation." And yet I find nothing in scripture that establishes assurance of salvation. Instead, I read of a mere remnant of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob returning to their homeland from Babylonian captivity. I read of many disciples abandoning Jesus when he teaches hard things. (John 6:26-66.) I read Matthew 7:21-23:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [ASV]Acts 2:21 superficially seems to contradict Matthew 7:21-23:
And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.In light of Acts 2:21, what of those of Matthew 7:22 who prophesied, cast out demons, did mighty works "by thy name", and were not saved? On the day of judgment, they could only say "Lord, Lord" (Matthew 7:22), not the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21). The reconciliation of these two passages is this: not all who claim Jesus in their lives on Earth will be permitted to call on the name of the Lord on the day of judgment.
4. Practicing the spiritual disciplines.
Those are suggestions about how to think about our God and ourselves. What then do we do? This is another mountain, one that I’ll try to scale in two paragraphs.
When a flight attendant gives instructions about emergencies, she tells the passengers to put the oxygen cup over their own air passages before helping other passengers. That’s probably pretty good advice for spiritual growth.
Therefore study. Learn. Grow. This, like almost everything else I have touched on so far, is a huge subject, not exhaustible in a blog post. So I’ll just say where to get direction. Aside from the Bible, I recommend three books. Richard Foster wrote a modern classic called Celebration of Discipline
. One great thing about Foster’s book is that he lists other resources. I also recommend Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines. Don Postema’s Space for God is good for group study.5. Conclusion.
I have said grim things. Maybe I’m a crank. But I urge an antidote to the free, easy, empty Christianity of our time. Who wants to spend a lifetime in church and an eternity apart from God? I fear that too many of us will be mocked in Gehenna for our unfinished towers. (Luke 14:28-30.)
John the Baptist said to the multitudes who came to him to be baptized, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7 (ASV).) Forget who warned us; let's be warned.
I started out this post by mentioning our dislike of criticism by professional skeptics and others. But here is a saying: "Take care of your character, and your reputation will take care of itself." This should be the Christians' response to our critics.
Note:
I cite books, from the rank to the sublime, in the text. Where I cite a book, I usually provide a link to that book on Amazon.com. I provide the link only for your convenience. If you want the book, great; but it doesn’t matter to me where you get it.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
A Further Defense of the Despised Westboro Baptist Church
I listened to a sermon by Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. I would be pleased to say that his sermon reeked from the moment he cleared his throat to his last "Amen".
But I can’t say that. Agree or disagree with it, Phelps’s theology -- at least from this sermon -- is consistent and not outright laughable. It demands to be taken seriously.
1. The serious theology of Rev. Phelps.
Phelps drew the sermon that I listened to from the Biblical book of the prophet Jeremiah. Phelps emphasized from Jeremiah imprecatory prayer: prayer to bring harm upon a person, a people, or a nation; a curse. Phelps directs his imprecatory prayer toward America, just as Jeremiah directed his imprecatory prayer toward Judah, the remnant of the Jewish state before Babylonian captivity. For example, Jeremiah prayed:
That an American pastor would curse America might shock, but it shouldn’t surprise. We’ve seen this before. Remember Jeremiah Wright? Remember "God damn America!"? Phelps is Jeremiah Wright, version 2.0.
2. God and America.
But here’s the thing. For all we know, Phelps might be right. His monomania about gays reveals shallowness; but it might be that God is in the process of withdrawing his blessing from America.
I say withdrawing his blessing, because I cannot look at American history without seeing divine protection and abundant blessing. Here is the briefest possible proof: in times of greatest peril, we have been gifted with indispensable leaders. We had irreplaceable George Washington when we needed George Washington. We had irreplaceable Abraham Lincoln when we needed Abraham Lincoln. We had irreplaceable Franklin D. Roosevelt when we needed Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is only a glimpse of the hand of God guiding, protecting, and strengthening America.
God has kept us safe in times past, but America today is different than what it has been. We are more distant from God than our forebears. The evidence of this is that throughout our history, our culture was infused with scripture; that is no longer true. "The pervasiveness of the Bible in American culture from the colonial period onward has often been observed . . .." (Robert Alter, Pen of Iron
, 1) But "[t]he Bible is surely not ubiquitous in American culture as it once was . . .." (Ibid., 6.)
America’s alienation from God is supported by an argument from scripture.
3. America as Babylon.
I cannot read parts of the Book of Revelation without an unease that I am reading about us. Not necessarily America as it is today, but America that is becoming. Revelation chapter 17 prophecies what will happen just before the end of history and the coming of the eternal Kingdom of God: the destruction of Babylon. And we might be Babylon.
Revelation chapter 17 describes Babylon as "the great whore that sittith upon many waters". (Revelations 17:1 (AV).) It also speaks about "The seven . . . mountains, on which the woman [Babylon] sitteth." (Revelation 17:9 (AV).) These two passages puzzle scholars. Historical Babylon sat on canals – "many waters" – but it had no seven mountains. Historical Rome had seven hills, but although the Tiber flowed through it, this hardly is "many waters." But Babylon and Rome were the superpowers of their day, as we are today. So a plausible interpretation of "Babylon" is not a particular city at a particular time, but any profane superpower. I draw on George Eldon Ladd’s fine A Commentary on the Revelation of John
in this analysis, though Ladd’s interpretation of Revelation chapter 17 is somewhat different than mine.
There is more that points from Babylon to America. After Babylon’s swift destruction, nations will mourn her – at least, they will mourn their loss of wealth from trading with her:
There are hurdles to this interpretation of the Book of Revelation’s Babylon; one hurdle is not so insurmountable. That is, the Book of Revelation speaks of Babylon’s deadliness toward the people of God: "And I saw the woman [Babylon] drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus". (Revelation 17:6 (AV).) Well, we aren’t known for assassinating prophets and Christians.
But the time might come. Prophets provoke. In fact, authoritative commentator Abraham Heschel finds it remarkable that the people of Israel and Judah tolerated the prophets at all:
4. Signs of America’s plunge.
Just like a person can stand by a river and know that there was a flood upstream by the flotsam going by, an observer of America today can see evidence of America’s flight from God in the pollution of American morals.
When I started out in law, yes, lawyers lied; but the ones who lied stood out. Now I confront in my profession a tsunami of liars. What once evoked my outrage now gets a checkmark in the margin. Also, I hear shameless, unselfconscious lies from political leaders and from the media. I don’t remember this in earlier times. I see this calculated un-tethering from reality as the dead canary in a moral mineshaft foretelling fatal fumes. Jeremiah lamented commonplace lies before God destroyed Judah by foreign conquest.
So Rev. Fred Phelps’s theology of God’s outrage at America is far from laughable. Perhaps pastors who assure their congregations that God wants them to be rich do worse than Phelps.
The credibility of Phelps’s theology is another reason that I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and protects him and his provocative congregation. His theology is serious, but unpopular. And if he commits outrage to call attention to his beliefs, at least he succeeds in bringing attention to a word that is heard in few other places, so far as I know. If you are hearing these kinds of things from your pulpit, I would like to hear about it.
One last thing. Writing about religion makes me self-conscious. I really, really hope that I don’t come across as touting my own holiness. I have none. And I don’t mean that in the Apostle I-am-the-chief-of-sinners Paul sense. I mean that, truly, I am appalling.
Note:
I provide a link in the text to Amazon.com when I cite a book. This is only for your convenience.
But I can’t say that. Agree or disagree with it, Phelps’s theology -- at least from this sermon -- is consistent and not outright laughable. It demands to be taken seriously.
1. The serious theology of Rev. Phelps.
Phelps drew the sermon that I listened to from the Biblical book of the prophet Jeremiah. Phelps emphasized from Jeremiah imprecatory prayer: prayer to bring harm upon a person, a people, or a nation; a curse. Phelps directs his imprecatory prayer toward America, just as Jeremiah directed his imprecatory prayer toward Judah, the remnant of the Jewish state before Babylonian captivity. For example, Jeremiah prayed:
O Lord of Hosts who art a righteous judge, testing the heart and mind, I have committed my cause to thee; let me see thy vengeance upon them. (Jeremiah 11:20 (NEB).)And:
Drag them away like sheep to the shambles;So Rev. Phelps preaches imprecatory prayer.
Set them apart for the day of slaughter. (Jeremiah, 12:3 (NEB).)
That an American pastor would curse America might shock, but it shouldn’t surprise. We’ve seen this before. Remember Jeremiah Wright? Remember "God damn America!"? Phelps is Jeremiah Wright, version 2.0.
2. God and America.
But here’s the thing. For all we know, Phelps might be right. His monomania about gays reveals shallowness; but it might be that God is in the process of withdrawing his blessing from America.
I say withdrawing his blessing, because I cannot look at American history without seeing divine protection and abundant blessing. Here is the briefest possible proof: in times of greatest peril, we have been gifted with indispensable leaders. We had irreplaceable George Washington when we needed George Washington. We had irreplaceable Abraham Lincoln when we needed Abraham Lincoln. We had irreplaceable Franklin D. Roosevelt when we needed Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is only a glimpse of the hand of God guiding, protecting, and strengthening America.
God has kept us safe in times past, but America today is different than what it has been. We are more distant from God than our forebears. The evidence of this is that throughout our history, our culture was infused with scripture; that is no longer true. "The pervasiveness of the Bible in American culture from the colonial period onward has often been observed . . .." (Robert Alter, Pen of Iron
, 1) But "[t]he Bible is surely not ubiquitous in American culture as it once was . . .." (Ibid., 6.)America’s alienation from God is supported by an argument from scripture.
3. America as Babylon.
I cannot read parts of the Book of Revelation without an unease that I am reading about us. Not necessarily America as it is today, but America that is becoming. Revelation chapter 17 prophecies what will happen just before the end of history and the coming of the eternal Kingdom of God: the destruction of Babylon. And we might be Babylon.
Revelation chapter 17 describes Babylon as "the great whore that sittith upon many waters". (Revelations 17:1 (AV).) It also speaks about "The seven . . . mountains, on which the woman [Babylon] sitteth." (Revelation 17:9 (AV).) These two passages puzzle scholars. Historical Babylon sat on canals – "many waters" – but it had no seven mountains. Historical Rome had seven hills, but although the Tiber flowed through it, this hardly is "many waters." But Babylon and Rome were the superpowers of their day, as we are today. So a plausible interpretation of "Babylon" is not a particular city at a particular time, but any profane superpower. I draw on George Eldon Ladd’s fine A Commentary on the Revelation of John
in this analysis, though Ladd’s interpretation of Revelation chapter 17 is somewhat different than mine.There is more that points from Babylon to America. After Babylon’s swift destruction, nations will mourn her – at least, they will mourn their loss of wealth from trading with her:
The merchants . . . which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, and saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, and cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. (Revelation 18:15-19 (AV).)This passage in Revelation reveals that Babylon was loved for its capacity to make people rich; but it also implies the catalyst for Babylon’s downfall – its love of luxury. (1 Timothy 6:10: "[T]he love of money is the root of all evil . . ..") I submit for your consideration that all superpowers share this vulnerability, including America. Our love of comfort and consumer goods crowds out our love of God. And what nation but America is the vortex of world trade?
There are hurdles to this interpretation of the Book of Revelation’s Babylon; one hurdle is not so insurmountable. That is, the Book of Revelation speaks of Babylon’s deadliness toward the people of God: "And I saw the woman [Babylon] drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus". (Revelation 17:6 (AV).) Well, we aren’t known for assassinating prophets and Christians.
But the time might come. Prophets provoke. In fact, authoritative commentator Abraham Heschel finds it remarkable that the people of Israel and Judah tolerated the prophets at all:
The striking surprise is that prophets of Israel were tolerated at all by their people. To the patriots, they seemed pernicious; to the pious multitudes, blasphemous; to the men in authority, seditious." (Heschel, The ProphetsI can imagine an America further from God than it now is, and a prophet who desecrates a cherished, even a patriotic, belief, provoking us beyond our capacity to endure. Those who dispose of the prophet or the prophets, and those who give silent assent to this, will become the agents of Revelation 17:6.)
4. Signs of America’s plunge.
Just like a person can stand by a river and know that there was a flood upstream by the flotsam going by, an observer of America today can see evidence of America’s flight from God in the pollution of American morals.
When I started out in law, yes, lawyers lied; but the ones who lied stood out. Now I confront in my profession a tsunami of liars. What once evoked my outrage now gets a checkmark in the margin. Also, I hear shameless, unselfconscious lies from political leaders and from the media. I don’t remember this in earlier times. I see this calculated un-tethering from reality as the dead canary in a moral mineshaft foretelling fatal fumes. Jeremiah lamented commonplace lies before God destroyed Judah by foreign conquest.
They . . . never speak the truth; they have trained their tongues to lies; . . . deceit follows deceit." (Jeremiah 9:5-6 (AV).)5. Conclusion.
So Rev. Fred Phelps’s theology of God’s outrage at America is far from laughable. Perhaps pastors who assure their congregations that God wants them to be rich do worse than Phelps.
The credibility of Phelps’s theology is another reason that I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and protects him and his provocative congregation. His theology is serious, but unpopular. And if he commits outrage to call attention to his beliefs, at least he succeeds in bringing attention to a word that is heard in few other places, so far as I know. If you are hearing these kinds of things from your pulpit, I would like to hear about it.
One last thing. Writing about religion makes me self-conscious. I really, really hope that I don’t come across as touting my own holiness. I have none. And I don’t mean that in the Apostle I-am-the-chief-of-sinners Paul sense. I mean that, truly, I am appalling.
Note:
I provide a link in the text to Amazon.com when I cite a book. This is only for your convenience.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
In Defense of Outrage: Westboro Baptist Church
Westboro Baptist Church pickets funerals of fallen American soldiers. They proclaim that soldiers’ deaths are God’s revenge for America’s toleration of homosexuality. They celebrate these deaths as a triumph of the Lord.
On Westboro Baptist Church’s website, I listened to an hour-long sermon by its pastor, Rev. Fred Phelps. He holds himself out as prophetic in the mold of Jeremiah.
He is wrong. For reasons I might go into in a later post, it is clear that Rev. Phelps is self-deceived.
But though he is no prophet, he is like a prophet; he does prophetic things.
To explain: a prophet is not like smooth jazz. He does not calm jangled nerves. He does not sooth agitated spirits. He does not assuage raging souls. He jangles, agitates, and rages against injustice, iniquity, and impiety. He puts the fright on people who have turned their backs on God.
I am rereading the Book of Jeremiah. Here’s a little history. Abraham’s descendants divided into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah. Both sinned against God. God caused Israel to be conquered and its people to be sent into exile. Judah lasted longer than Israel, but it suffered the same fate. After 70 years, God gathered many of his exiled people to resurrect their kingdom.
But before they were exiled, and before they were re-gathered, they were conquered. When the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem, King Zedekiah sent an emissary to Jeremiah to ask if God would intervene with a miracle to save the king and the city. Jeremiah said this:
That was Jeremiah. Let me be clear: when Pastor Phelps’s lips move, I don’t hear God speaking. But make no mistake: prophets outrage. "The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered, and awesome. Beliefs cherished as certainties, institutions endowed with supreme sanctity, he exposes as scandalous pretensions." (Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (Perennial Classics)
.)
Certainly, fallen soldiers and their families are close to our hearts. A piece of us is buried with the soldiers; a part of us stands with their families and friends grieving beside the graves. I won’t say that a true prophet would choose Westboro Baptist Church’s scourge to lash America. But he or she might expose another cherished institution and would similarly provoke outrage.
So we must not get carried away with our outrage against Rev. Phelps and his congregation. Outrageous as they are, they might be prophets. And even if they are not, as is more than likely, our action toward them would set a precedent for disposing of real prophets, should real prophets arise among us.
The genius of our Constitution is that it shelters the genuine and the fake, the prophet and the fraud, the insightful and the foolish. It shelters the fake, the fraud, and the foolish to protect the genuine, the prophetic and the insightful. For a long time, judges have not trusted judges to determine what speech nourishes and what speech taints. They have followed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s admonition that "[T]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."
I agree with Holmes. I think most people do.
So in the court case now pending, I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and extends a Constitutional safety ladder to this troublesome congregation and its leader. It matters to me, by the way, that Westboro Baptist Church's protest in this case was out of sight and out of earshot of the funeral.
For brevity, what I have written simplifies Constitutional law, and it simplifies the prophetic mission. In addition to discomfiting, prophets instruct and offer hope. I am practiced in the law, but I am re-limbering my theological muscles after a long hiatus. But I think I mostly got it right.
Note:
I have provided in the text a link to Amazon.com for Heschel's book The Prophets. I did this for your convenience. If you want to buy the book, great. But it really doesn't matter to me where you get it.
On Westboro Baptist Church’s website, I listened to an hour-long sermon by its pastor, Rev. Fred Phelps. He holds himself out as prophetic in the mold of Jeremiah.
He is wrong. For reasons I might go into in a later post, it is clear that Rev. Phelps is self-deceived.
But though he is no prophet, he is like a prophet; he does prophetic things.
To explain: a prophet is not like smooth jazz. He does not calm jangled nerves. He does not sooth agitated spirits. He does not assuage raging souls. He jangles, agitates, and rages against injustice, iniquity, and impiety. He puts the fright on people who have turned their backs on God.
I am rereading the Book of Jeremiah. Here’s a little history. Abraham’s descendants divided into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah. Both sinned against God. God caused Israel to be conquered and its people to be sent into exile. Judah lasted longer than Israel, but it suffered the same fate. After 70 years, God gathered many of his exiled people to resurrect their kingdom.
But before they were exiled, and before they were re-gathered, they were conquered. When the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem, King Zedekiah sent an emissary to Jeremiah to ask if God would intervene with a miracle to save the king and the city. Jeremiah said this:
I will take Zedekiah king of Judah, his courtiers and the people, all in this city who survive pestilence, sword, and famine, and hand them over to Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, to their enemies and those who would kill them. He shall put them to the sword and shall show no pity, no mercy or compassion. (Jer. 21:7(NEB).)God spoke to Jeremiah and instructed him:
I will compel men to eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters; they shall devour one another’s flesh in the dire straits to which their enemies and those who would kill them will reduce them in the siege. Then you must shatter the jar before the eyes of the men who have come with you and say to them, These are the words of the LORD of Hosts: Thus will I shatter this people and this city as one shatters an earthen vessel so that it cannot be mended, and they shall be buried in Topheth because there is no room elsewhere to bury them. (Jer. 19:9-11 (NEB).)A career of saying uncomfortable things like this made Jeremiah unpopular and the object of conspiracies.
That was Jeremiah. Let me be clear: when Pastor Phelps’s lips move, I don’t hear God speaking. But make no mistake: prophets outrage. "The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered, and awesome. Beliefs cherished as certainties, institutions endowed with supreme sanctity, he exposes as scandalous pretensions." (Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (Perennial Classics)
.) Certainly, fallen soldiers and their families are close to our hearts. A piece of us is buried with the soldiers; a part of us stands with their families and friends grieving beside the graves. I won’t say that a true prophet would choose Westboro Baptist Church’s scourge to lash America. But he or she might expose another cherished institution and would similarly provoke outrage.
So we must not get carried away with our outrage against Rev. Phelps and his congregation. Outrageous as they are, they might be prophets. And even if they are not, as is more than likely, our action toward them would set a precedent for disposing of real prophets, should real prophets arise among us.
The genius of our Constitution is that it shelters the genuine and the fake, the prophet and the fraud, the insightful and the foolish. It shelters the fake, the fraud, and the foolish to protect the genuine, the prophetic and the insightful. For a long time, judges have not trusted judges to determine what speech nourishes and what speech taints. They have followed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s admonition that "[T]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."
I agree with Holmes. I think most people do.
So in the court case now pending, I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and extends a Constitutional safety ladder to this troublesome congregation and its leader. It matters to me, by the way, that Westboro Baptist Church's protest in this case was out of sight and out of earshot of the funeral.
For brevity, what I have written simplifies Constitutional law, and it simplifies the prophetic mission. In addition to discomfiting, prophets instruct and offer hope. I am practiced in the law, but I am re-limbering my theological muscles after a long hiatus. But I think I mostly got it right.
Note:
I have provided in the text a link to Amazon.com for Heschel's book The Prophets. I did this for your convenience. If you want to buy the book, great. But it really doesn't matter to me where you get it.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Eric Sevareid, Send Help!
If broadcaster Eric Sevaried were alive and working today, he would be like a giant among pygmies. His farewell speech expressed humility and exhibited profundity. It’s worth viewing, both to behold the man and to remember how different broadcasting was when Sevareid retired in November, 1977.
America at that time was neither bland nor homogeneous. The Watergate era ended with Richard Nixon’s August, 1974 departure from the White House in disgrace. Also in that year, the first "March for Life" pro-life rally took place in Washington D.C. Saigon fell in April, 1975, the same month that the last Americans died in the Vietnam War. In 1978, 100,000 persons marched in Washington D.C. to extend the time to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Sevareid retired in turbulent times.
Yet Sevareid could look into the camera in his farewell address and say that the listening public "applies one consistent test, not agreement with one on substance, but the perception of honesty and fair intent." This generalization astonishes the listener of our era, when people often choose their news programming according to its correspondence with their cherished opinions. Fox News viewers choose Fox News for the Fox News slant. The same is true of MSNBC viewers. Neither station apologizes for its point of view. They revel in it.
These networks evoke extreme reactions. One night, I sat in my bedroom listening to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, and a conservative friend who shares the house came by my room. Seeing who I was watching, he said he wanted to vomit. I have seen online expressions of raw hatred against Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
So it would be refreshing if people today heeded Sevareid’s counsel "to retain the courage of one’s doubts as well as the courage of one’s convictions in this world of dangerous passionate certainties." "[C]ourage of one’s doubts" is a deep phrase. An open mind is a dreadful thing for people with no tolerance for uncertainty, of whom there are legions. The quest for certainty among them is like a hunger so intolerable that they will fill their minds with mental empty calories, rather than discriminately seek out what nourishes their judgment.
Instead of counseling the courage to embrace one’s doubt, some networks plant shallow certainties, fertilizing them with us-versus-them rhetoric, and watering them with appealing spokespersons. It is as if, once they implant in their audience's minds a conviction, they want to expel from their audience’s minds any openness to a contrary point of view.
So the media closes minds, and seals them with raw appeals to negative emotion. So Bush is a fascist. So Obama is Hitler. Or a racist, a socialist, or a tyrant. The recklessness of these hyperbolic accusations bears scrutiny. In my five decades, I have learned that reckless disparagement of someone else’s character always indicates the reckless party’s low principles. Low principles in an individual is disturbing. Low principles in a powerful media conglomerate is blood-draining-from-the-face frightening.
Low principles in a network give rise to no consoling belief that that network will heed one of Sevareid’s other counsels: "To elucidate when one can, more than to advocate." Disregard of this principle is not the failing of only one network. But one network fails more conspicuously than others. One network conspicuously promotes a political movement, the Tea Party. One network donated one-million dollars to the Republican Governors Association, a donation unmatched by any other media company to the Democratic counterpart. One network has on its payroll every major Republican candidate for President in 2012, who isn’t presently holding office or named Mitt Romney. I don’t mean to pick on Fox News, but Fox News and its parent, News Corp., go conspicuously beyond any other news organization. If I am wrong, I crave correction.
Sevareid counseled "[t]o remember that ignorant or biased reporting has its counterpart in ignorant and biased reading and listening. We do not speak into an intellectual or emotional void." Sevareid reminds us that a broadcaster can appeal to the better angel or the worse angel of our nature. Those that strive to inform, those who don’t have the motto "We report, you decide" but act as if they did, appeal to the better angel. Those that do have that motto, but only as a farce, appeal to the worse angel.
Let me here promote www.NYTimes.com. It has a point of view that it expresses on its Op/Ed pages, but its reporting is first class. It will satisfy the curious on topics from politics, to travel, to health, to world affairs, and all else. The right fulminates against it for partisan reporting, but it broke the story of Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, misrepresenting his military record. Fox News cheerleaded for Bush, but New York Times columnists do not hesitate to criticize Obama. I love the New York Times, and I wish more people would read it on a daily basis.
Just before he said "goodbye", Sevareid said this: "Millions have listened intently and indifferently, in agreement and in powerful disagreement. Tens of thousands have written their thoughts to me. I will feel always that I stand in their midst." Sevareid thought of himself as standing in the midst of those who disagreed with him as well as those who agreed. This is a refreshing thought in times like his and ours when there were/are "dangerous passionate certainties"; and especially in times like ours when media stars use hate-mongering like a scourge to drive apart the American people.
Sources:
Eric Sevareid’s 1977 farewell broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY&NR=1
The fall of Saigon and the last American to die in Vietnam: http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index4.html
Timeline of women’s liberation movement, including 1974 pro life rally and 1978 rally to extend ERA: http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/womenslliberation/womensliberation.htm
News Corp. (Fox News parent corporation) donates $1,000,000 to Republican Governor’s Association: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081704338.html
Every major Republican Presidential candidate for 2012 who isn’t currently in office or named Mitt Romney is on Fox’s payroll: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
New York Times breaks the story of Richard Blumenthal’s false claims that he served in Vietnam: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?ref=nyregion
America at that time was neither bland nor homogeneous. The Watergate era ended with Richard Nixon’s August, 1974 departure from the White House in disgrace. Also in that year, the first "March for Life" pro-life rally took place in Washington D.C. Saigon fell in April, 1975, the same month that the last Americans died in the Vietnam War. In 1978, 100,000 persons marched in Washington D.C. to extend the time to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Sevareid retired in turbulent times.
Yet Sevareid could look into the camera in his farewell address and say that the listening public "applies one consistent test, not agreement with one on substance, but the perception of honesty and fair intent." This generalization astonishes the listener of our era, when people often choose their news programming according to its correspondence with their cherished opinions. Fox News viewers choose Fox News for the Fox News slant. The same is true of MSNBC viewers. Neither station apologizes for its point of view. They revel in it.
These networks evoke extreme reactions. One night, I sat in my bedroom listening to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, and a conservative friend who shares the house came by my room. Seeing who I was watching, he said he wanted to vomit. I have seen online expressions of raw hatred against Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
So it would be refreshing if people today heeded Sevareid’s counsel "to retain the courage of one’s doubts as well as the courage of one’s convictions in this world of dangerous passionate certainties." "[C]ourage of one’s doubts" is a deep phrase. An open mind is a dreadful thing for people with no tolerance for uncertainty, of whom there are legions. The quest for certainty among them is like a hunger so intolerable that they will fill their minds with mental empty calories, rather than discriminately seek out what nourishes their judgment.
Instead of counseling the courage to embrace one’s doubt, some networks plant shallow certainties, fertilizing them with us-versus-them rhetoric, and watering them with appealing spokespersons. It is as if, once they implant in their audience's minds a conviction, they want to expel from their audience’s minds any openness to a contrary point of view.
So the media closes minds, and seals them with raw appeals to negative emotion. So Bush is a fascist. So Obama is Hitler. Or a racist, a socialist, or a tyrant. The recklessness of these hyperbolic accusations bears scrutiny. In my five decades, I have learned that reckless disparagement of someone else’s character always indicates the reckless party’s low principles. Low principles in an individual is disturbing. Low principles in a powerful media conglomerate is blood-draining-from-the-face frightening.
Low principles in a network give rise to no consoling belief that that network will heed one of Sevareid’s other counsels: "To elucidate when one can, more than to advocate." Disregard of this principle is not the failing of only one network. But one network fails more conspicuously than others. One network conspicuously promotes a political movement, the Tea Party. One network donated one-million dollars to the Republican Governors Association, a donation unmatched by any other media company to the Democratic counterpart. One network has on its payroll every major Republican candidate for President in 2012, who isn’t presently holding office or named Mitt Romney. I don’t mean to pick on Fox News, but Fox News and its parent, News Corp., go conspicuously beyond any other news organization. If I am wrong, I crave correction.
Sevareid counseled "[t]o remember that ignorant or biased reporting has its counterpart in ignorant and biased reading and listening. We do not speak into an intellectual or emotional void." Sevareid reminds us that a broadcaster can appeal to the better angel or the worse angel of our nature. Those that strive to inform, those who don’t have the motto "We report, you decide" but act as if they did, appeal to the better angel. Those that do have that motto, but only as a farce, appeal to the worse angel.
Let me here promote www.NYTimes.com. It has a point of view that it expresses on its Op/Ed pages, but its reporting is first class. It will satisfy the curious on topics from politics, to travel, to health, to world affairs, and all else. The right fulminates against it for partisan reporting, but it broke the story of Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, misrepresenting his military record. Fox News cheerleaded for Bush, but New York Times columnists do not hesitate to criticize Obama. I love the New York Times, and I wish more people would read it on a daily basis.
Just before he said "goodbye", Sevareid said this: "Millions have listened intently and indifferently, in agreement and in powerful disagreement. Tens of thousands have written their thoughts to me. I will feel always that I stand in their midst." Sevareid thought of himself as standing in the midst of those who disagreed with him as well as those who agreed. This is a refreshing thought in times like his and ours when there were/are "dangerous passionate certainties"; and especially in times like ours when media stars use hate-mongering like a scourge to drive apart the American people.
Sources:
Eric Sevareid’s 1977 farewell broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY&NR=1
The fall of Saigon and the last American to die in Vietnam: http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index4.html
Timeline of women’s liberation movement, including 1974 pro life rally and 1978 rally to extend ERA: http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/womenslliberation/womensliberation.htm
News Corp. (Fox News parent corporation) donates $1,000,000 to Republican Governor’s Association: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081704338.html
Every major Republican Presidential candidate for 2012 who isn’t currently in office or named Mitt Romney is on Fox’s payroll: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
New York Times breaks the story of Richard Blumenthal’s false claims that he served in Vietnam: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?ref=nyregion
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Eliminating Bigotry for a More Perfect Union, Part 3
(Parts 1 & 2 below.)
Anyone who aspires to love his neighbor or love his country should fling bigotry away like a scorpion on the back of his hand.
1. Bigotry’s destructiveness.
Bigotry is wildly destructive. It harms individuals, and it harms the nation.
a. Individual harm.
Bigotry harms people socially and in their livelihoods. The law provides few if any remedies for social discrimination. The law provides imperfect remedies for occupational discrimination.
These remedies are costly. And defendants often invent pretexts to justify discrimination. Only the rare employer will admit that he failed to promote a Muslim, or fired her, because she was Muslim. With any foresight and a modicum of cunning, the employer will justify his action based on some employee failing or fault; few employees have none. These obstacles to justice can be overcome, but they make justice more difficult to attain, and sometimes impossible.
Also, bigotry can lead to wrongful conviction. This is true because bigotry toward a person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation can make jurors eager to believe the worst about him. As a longtime lawyer, I know that a even a defendant’s looks can influence jurors, or whether he is substantially overweight. Clearly racial, religious, and like factors can, too.
Some say that the most important right is freedom of speech. Some say that it’s the right of the ballot box. But maybe the most important right is the right to sit on a jury. I’ll be blunt: sometimes a person gets more justice from people of his own race or religion than from people of other races or religions. That’s just reality.
These social, occupational, and penal harms defy the golden rule – a rule anchored in the earliest parts of the Bible. Deuteronomy 10:19 says: "Love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
But instead of the golden rule, nowadays people want to apply a reverse golden rule. People remind us that Baptist churches aren’t welcome in Riyadh. That supposedly justifies opposition to the proposed mosque near the former World Trade Center Twin Towers.
I am less concerned about bigotry’s consequences for those who incite bigotry than about the consequences for their victims. But there are consequences to them, too. Now they may have their day. I do not believe that their day will last forever.
Eric Sevareid, in his final CBS broadcast, said, "There is in the American people a tough, undiminished instinct for what is fair." I think he’s right, but that instinct waxes and wanes. Controversies over mosques on both coasts and in between reflect its waning at this moment in time.
I have faith that this instinct for what is fair will re-surge. And when it does, those who inflamed bigotry will pay a price.
b. National consequences.
In a sense, bigotry’s consequence to individuals is a consequence to America, because the individuals are a part of America.
And as a nation, we believe in justice; so, as a nation, we must be appalled at injustice to any part of us.
Also, as injustice broadens, the gap narrows between What Is and some evil What Might Be. Lynching became rare only in the 1930s and 1940s; it declined to about ten a year in the 1930s and three a year in the 1940s. As such, only four generations separate us from the time when lynches became relatively rare. Four generations do not make a practice culturally irretrievable. (I do not imply in any was that there is such thing as a "tolerable" number of lynches.)
About the same number of generations separate us from the World War II internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
I do not take for granted justice, democracy, or the rule of law. History is unpredictable. Hard as it is to remember those times, on September 10, 2001, no one expected that we would spend nine-years-and-counting at war in Afghanistan, and seven-years-plus in Iraq. Because history is unpredictable, we cannot know what circumstances might come that make widespread iniquity arise within our shores.
I can’t predict what apocalyptic circumstances might arise. But nobody can promise that they won’t arise. Therefore, I would like our national morality to be strong and taut to empower us to resist national iniquity, whatever circumstances might arise. But mainstream bigotry implies a lax morality, which would not protect us in truly terrible times.
Between justice as practiced and injustice as feared, I prefer a wide moat. Bigotry narrows the moat.
More immediately, as we become known as an intolerant nation, we risk diminishing the flow of educated, intelligent foreigners to fill positions for which there are insufficient numbers of qualified American candidates. In truth, American depends upon attracting talented scientists and engineers from overseas. We cannot even fill our schools only with qualified American-born candidates. Anything that threatens to diminish the flow of talented foreigners to our schools and companies directly threatens our national well-being.
c. International consequences.
I yearn for America to be a beacon to all nations, admired and respected. We cannot be admired or respected if we embrace bigotry. National bigotry dims our prestige in the eyes of any nation worth being respected by.
America hasn't always stood for democracy and justice in her foreign policy. But she has in those times for which I am most proud of her. I yearn to be proud of America. But if we stand for democracy and justice in our foreign policy, we are hypocrites if we embrace bigotry in ourselves. I want America to stand for democracy and justice, and I don’t want America to be a hypocrite among nations.
We need to be powerful in the world. The world is dangerous, and there is safety in power. We can be grateful that our military is more powerful than any the world has ever known. But it makes no sense to rely solely on military might. If we can persuade our international adversaries, we don’t have to engage them in warfare that is costly in blood and treasure. Like military might, persuasion is power.
As persons, we are persuaded by others of goodwill more readily than by persons of conspicuous moral defect. That’s why politics is so occupied with destructive accusations. That’s why politicians are eager to project positive images of themselves. Nations largely are no different.
Therefore, goodwill is a source of power among nations. It makes no sense to slough off a source of national strength. But bigotry undermines our image as a nation of goodwill.
2. Solutions.
The first step to overcome bigotry is recognize that we have a problem with it. I hope that these essays have contributed to that step.
The second step is wanting to overcome it. That means examining the morality of bigotry and its practical consequences. It means evaluating what it means to love our neighbor. It means cultivating a deep concern for our country in this generation and in future generations – in a word, patriotism.
The third step is holding on to the ground we already have – never yielding to popular pressure on this issue. Some politicians have been conspicuously brave in the face of popular opposition to the proposed mosque near the former World Trade Center Twin Towers, for example. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg comes to mind.
Others have yielded to pressure. But we must have faith that the world will turn, and that the innate sense of fairness and justice that Americans have will reassert itself in time. When that happens, that will be the time to reap the rewards of virtue. But that requires patience and the willingness to undertake political risk in the near term. Politicians might take heart that some members of the public admire political courage above conformity with their own position on any given issue. If done with conviction, rowing against the tide can take you to near-term as well as far-off benefits.
Someone once said that righteousness and success go a long way together; but that eventually they go in different directions. When that happens, we learn about our character.
Someone else said that for most of the time, we can muddle along without making hard choices. But times arise when the grey of the everyday world separates into black and white. In those times, hard choices must be made. This might be such a time.
The fourth step is expanding tolerance. The best way to do this is to set a good example. This requires us to be strong in the conviction that tolerance is a virtue. This strength comes from a variety of sources.
Spiritual depth is one source. Earnest spirituality opposes bigotry. I come from a Christian tradition, so I know books on spiritual growth in that tradition. Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth is a modern classic. Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives
is also recommended. Don Postema’s Space for God : The Study and Practice of Prayer and Spirituality Study Guide (Bible Way) is good for group study. Foster’s book recommends other books.
Education is another source. Education can take the form of studying other cultures, particularly cultures you would not otherwise be open to. Also, ethnic studies can be valuable. Ethnic-studies departments in colleges and universities should be encouraged and supported for our national well-being.
Language study should not be overlooked. I find myself more interested in people when I try to learn their language. That has been true with learning Spanish. The same was true when I lived in China and spent time learning Mandarin.
I started studying Spanish a few years ago, in my late 40s. My efforts have ebbed and flowed. But over the years I have improved to the point that I am no longer helpless when a Spanish speaker calls my office or drops by. By the way, I have no gift for learning languages, but I do it anyway.
Travel can be a form of education. This is particularly true if you can find a way to engage the locals, instead of sitting in a high-priced hotel where the only local you encounter serves your margarita. Not everybody has the gift of travel. But everybody can learn to do it better. I recommend Alain de Botton’s book The Art of Travel
.
Great travel books can shake you out of any seven-cities-in-six-days mentality that you might have, though I don’t want to disparage those kinds of vacations. All travel is good. But even if you will never, never imitate Rory Stewart’s walk across Afghanistan, his book
The Places In Between might nudge you to more adventuresome travel, if you have any inclination in that direction.
Good novels from foreign or ethnic or religious authors increase knowledge of other cultures, races, or religions. Foreign cultural, historical, or religious books are valuable to read.
Ditto foreign DVDs.
All of this, of course, is just a beginning.
It’s never inappropriate to quote Lincoln. So this from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:
End note:
Where I mention a book, I provide a link to that book on Amazon.com. This is only for your convenience. If you are interested in a book, great, but it truly doesn't matter to me where you get it.
Sources:
U-Tube video of Eric Sevareid’s 1977 farewell broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY
Lynching: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#b
America’s dependence on foreign engineers and scientists: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/13654/
Anyone who aspires to love his neighbor or love his country should fling bigotry away like a scorpion on the back of his hand.
1. Bigotry’s destructiveness.
Bigotry is wildly destructive. It harms individuals, and it harms the nation.
a. Individual harm.
Bigotry harms people socially and in their livelihoods. The law provides few if any remedies for social discrimination. The law provides imperfect remedies for occupational discrimination.
These remedies are costly. And defendants often invent pretexts to justify discrimination. Only the rare employer will admit that he failed to promote a Muslim, or fired her, because she was Muslim. With any foresight and a modicum of cunning, the employer will justify his action based on some employee failing or fault; few employees have none. These obstacles to justice can be overcome, but they make justice more difficult to attain, and sometimes impossible.
Also, bigotry can lead to wrongful conviction. This is true because bigotry toward a person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation can make jurors eager to believe the worst about him. As a longtime lawyer, I know that a even a defendant’s looks can influence jurors, or whether he is substantially overweight. Clearly racial, religious, and like factors can, too.
Some say that the most important right is freedom of speech. Some say that it’s the right of the ballot box. But maybe the most important right is the right to sit on a jury. I’ll be blunt: sometimes a person gets more justice from people of his own race or religion than from people of other races or religions. That’s just reality.
These social, occupational, and penal harms defy the golden rule – a rule anchored in the earliest parts of the Bible. Deuteronomy 10:19 says: "Love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
But instead of the golden rule, nowadays people want to apply a reverse golden rule. People remind us that Baptist churches aren’t welcome in Riyadh. That supposedly justifies opposition to the proposed mosque near the former World Trade Center Twin Towers.
I am less concerned about bigotry’s consequences for those who incite bigotry than about the consequences for their victims. But there are consequences to them, too. Now they may have their day. I do not believe that their day will last forever.
Eric Sevareid, in his final CBS broadcast, said, "There is in the American people a tough, undiminished instinct for what is fair." I think he’s right, but that instinct waxes and wanes. Controversies over mosques on both coasts and in between reflect its waning at this moment in time.
I have faith that this instinct for what is fair will re-surge. And when it does, those who inflamed bigotry will pay a price.
b. National consequences.
In a sense, bigotry’s consequence to individuals is a consequence to America, because the individuals are a part of America.
And as a nation, we believe in justice; so, as a nation, we must be appalled at injustice to any part of us.
Also, as injustice broadens, the gap narrows between What Is and some evil What Might Be. Lynching became rare only in the 1930s and 1940s; it declined to about ten a year in the 1930s and three a year in the 1940s. As such, only four generations separate us from the time when lynches became relatively rare. Four generations do not make a practice culturally irretrievable. (I do not imply in any was that there is such thing as a "tolerable" number of lynches.)
About the same number of generations separate us from the World War II internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
I do not take for granted justice, democracy, or the rule of law. History is unpredictable. Hard as it is to remember those times, on September 10, 2001, no one expected that we would spend nine-years-and-counting at war in Afghanistan, and seven-years-plus in Iraq. Because history is unpredictable, we cannot know what circumstances might come that make widespread iniquity arise within our shores.
I can’t predict what apocalyptic circumstances might arise. But nobody can promise that they won’t arise. Therefore, I would like our national morality to be strong and taut to empower us to resist national iniquity, whatever circumstances might arise. But mainstream bigotry implies a lax morality, which would not protect us in truly terrible times.
Between justice as practiced and injustice as feared, I prefer a wide moat. Bigotry narrows the moat.
More immediately, as we become known as an intolerant nation, we risk diminishing the flow of educated, intelligent foreigners to fill positions for which there are insufficient numbers of qualified American candidates. In truth, American depends upon attracting talented scientists and engineers from overseas. We cannot even fill our schools only with qualified American-born candidates. Anything that threatens to diminish the flow of talented foreigners to our schools and companies directly threatens our national well-being.
c. International consequences.
I yearn for America to be a beacon to all nations, admired and respected. We cannot be admired or respected if we embrace bigotry. National bigotry dims our prestige in the eyes of any nation worth being respected by.
America hasn't always stood for democracy and justice in her foreign policy. But she has in those times for which I am most proud of her. I yearn to be proud of America. But if we stand for democracy and justice in our foreign policy, we are hypocrites if we embrace bigotry in ourselves. I want America to stand for democracy and justice, and I don’t want America to be a hypocrite among nations.
We need to be powerful in the world. The world is dangerous, and there is safety in power. We can be grateful that our military is more powerful than any the world has ever known. But it makes no sense to rely solely on military might. If we can persuade our international adversaries, we don’t have to engage them in warfare that is costly in blood and treasure. Like military might, persuasion is power.
As persons, we are persuaded by others of goodwill more readily than by persons of conspicuous moral defect. That’s why politics is so occupied with destructive accusations. That’s why politicians are eager to project positive images of themselves. Nations largely are no different.
Therefore, goodwill is a source of power among nations. It makes no sense to slough off a source of national strength. But bigotry undermines our image as a nation of goodwill.
2. Solutions.
The first step to overcome bigotry is recognize that we have a problem with it. I hope that these essays have contributed to that step.
The second step is wanting to overcome it. That means examining the morality of bigotry and its practical consequences. It means evaluating what it means to love our neighbor. It means cultivating a deep concern for our country in this generation and in future generations – in a word, patriotism.
The third step is holding on to the ground we already have – never yielding to popular pressure on this issue. Some politicians have been conspicuously brave in the face of popular opposition to the proposed mosque near the former World Trade Center Twin Towers, for example. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg comes to mind.
Others have yielded to pressure. But we must have faith that the world will turn, and that the innate sense of fairness and justice that Americans have will reassert itself in time. When that happens, that will be the time to reap the rewards of virtue. But that requires patience and the willingness to undertake political risk in the near term. Politicians might take heart that some members of the public admire political courage above conformity with their own position on any given issue. If done with conviction, rowing against the tide can take you to near-term as well as far-off benefits.
Someone once said that righteousness and success go a long way together; but that eventually they go in different directions. When that happens, we learn about our character.
Someone else said that for most of the time, we can muddle along without making hard choices. But times arise when the grey of the everyday world separates into black and white. In those times, hard choices must be made. This might be such a time.
The fourth step is expanding tolerance. The best way to do this is to set a good example. This requires us to be strong in the conviction that tolerance is a virtue. This strength comes from a variety of sources.
Spiritual depth is one source. Earnest spirituality opposes bigotry. I come from a Christian tradition, so I know books on spiritual growth in that tradition. Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth
is a modern classic. Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives is also recommended. Don Postema’s Space for God : The Study and Practice of Prayer and Spirituality Study Guide (Bible Way) is good for group study. Foster’s book recommends other books.Education is another source. Education can take the form of studying other cultures, particularly cultures you would not otherwise be open to. Also, ethnic studies can be valuable. Ethnic-studies departments in colleges and universities should be encouraged and supported for our national well-being.
Language study should not be overlooked. I find myself more interested in people when I try to learn their language. That has been true with learning Spanish. The same was true when I lived in China and spent time learning Mandarin.
I started studying Spanish a few years ago, in my late 40s. My efforts have ebbed and flowed. But over the years I have improved to the point that I am no longer helpless when a Spanish speaker calls my office or drops by. By the way, I have no gift for learning languages, but I do it anyway.
Travel can be a form of education. This is particularly true if you can find a way to engage the locals, instead of sitting in a high-priced hotel where the only local you encounter serves your margarita. Not everybody has the gift of travel. But everybody can learn to do it better. I recommend Alain de Botton’s book The Art of Travel
. Great travel books can shake you out of any seven-cities-in-six-days mentality that you might have, though I don’t want to disparage those kinds of vacations. All travel is good. But even if you will never, never imitate Rory Stewart’s walk across Afghanistan, his book
The Places In Between might nudge you to more adventuresome travel, if you have any inclination in that direction.Good novels from foreign or ethnic or religious authors increase knowledge of other cultures, races, or religions. Foreign cultural, historical, or religious books are valuable to read.
Ditto foreign DVDs.
All of this, of course, is just a beginning.
It’s never inappropriate to quote Lincoln. So this from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; . . . – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
End note:
Where I mention a book, I provide a link to that book on Amazon.com. This is only for your convenience. If you are interested in a book, great, but it truly doesn't matter to me where you get it.
Sources:
U-Tube video of Eric Sevareid’s 1977 farewell broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY
Lynching: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#b
America’s dependence on foreign engineers and scientists: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/13654/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)