Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of… ?

An article in the April issue of Reader’s Digest has the provocative title: “Happiness: It’s Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be.” The article is reprinted from one written by Emily Esfahani Smith a couple years ago in The Atlantic. Smith, a writer and editor for several publications, has written a number of articles on the place of happiness in relationships. This one really caught my eye.

Smith relies heavily on the work of Victor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, a seminal book on the topic by one who honed his understanding in German concentration camps in WWII. Smith records Frankl’s assertion that, “It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness.” Smith further quotes Frankl: “Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself.”

Smith reports, “In a new study, which [has been] published in the Journal of Positive Psychology, … the researchers found that a meaningful life and happy life overlap in certain ways, but are ultimately very different. Leading a happy life, the psychologists found, is associated with being a ‘taker’ while leading a meaningful life corresponds with being a ‘giver.’” The authors write, "Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided."

This sounds eerily like the slogans of recent years: “You deserve a break today” and “Have it your way.” Michael Harper in The Love Affair identifies a narcissistic self-love that he calls “personalism.” He believes that, “In the Western world it has become a multi-million dollar industry, offering to meet a need previous generations did not know existed…. It is so obviously self-centered that  one wonders why so many millions have been taken in by it.” Why indeed?

One could argue that the elemental statement in our premiere founding document declares the pursuit of happiness to be a God-given right. Does this lead people to seek personal happiness to their detriment? There are those who think that even the Founders realized this; that perhaps we have been reading the document wrongly. Pardon a descent into the deep weeds of punctuation: there is a belief that the period after “happiness” in the Declaration of Independence was not in the original. This would make the clause affirming God-given rights relative to that which precedes and follows it. In other words the central point is about the social contract to protect the common good rather than a declaration of the personal pursuit of anything.

None of this should be surprising to any serious student of the Bible. The core principle driving all appropriate actions is to be self-giving, agape love as demonstrated by Jesus himself. Submission, deference and sacrificial giving, principle virtues recommended throughout Scripture, all fly in the face of personalism of any kind. The proper attitude is that identified by Frankl and the psychologists as that which leads to a fulfilled, if not happy life: giving. As for my current condition, I can learn from Paul’s declaration in Philippians: “I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation.” For the Christian it’s all about life (in Christ), liberty (being freed from sin) and the pursuit of being content in any and every situation. That’s my declaration of dependence.

A Willing Suspension of Memory

I have tried to understand the liberal/progressive mindset. I know the people who promote the cause are not uneducated, ignorant or naïve (OK, maybe naïve in Obama’s case). But do they really expect us to forget everything they have done or said in the past, or perhaps they know that most people just aren’t pay close enough attention to catch their “inconsistencies.” Time and time again they make statements that contradict their own words or revise history to support their narrative.

The latest round of apparent amnesia involves Hillary Clinton. During the flap surrounding her use of private email while Secretary of State she asserted that she had only one device. She must have forgotten that during an earlier interview she admitted carrying both an i-Phone and a Blackberry. There may be some way to use new math or parse the language so that there is no contradiction, but it sounds to me like a debate over the meaning of “is.”

The fact that she had those two devices tied not just to a private email address, but her own private server begins to sound like an earlier situation she doubtless wants us to forget. Anyone who has been paying attention to the Clintons since Bill’s two exciting terms as President would remember the Whitewater scandal. Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records that were subpoenaed and thought lost mysteriously turned up at the White House. We are supposed to believe they were taken there from Arkansas innocently and unknown to the Clintons. This time we are being asked to believe that Hillary can be trusted with her email records – that she has not deleted any government emails while refusing to allow outside inspection of her server.

Then there is Benghazi. The assassination of the Ambassador to Libya and his brave defenders happened on Hillary’s watch. The precise flow of information to Madame Secretary may never be known, thanks to the private server issue (again), but it is public knowledge that she promoted the false narrative concerning the motivation of the rioters who precipitated the murders. There are also other information sources that reveal her complicity in delaying the revelation of the true nature of the attacks. The fact that the whole affair transpired during a critical political season only makes it worse.

How ironic it is that Hillary is the one remembered for the phrase, “willing suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton soundly criticized General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for the bad situation in Iraq in 2007. She told Crocker, "It's not only the Iraqi government that has failed to pursue a coherent strategy. I think our own has as well." One wonders what that woman would think of the current strategy in the Mideast.  One must admit that there is a kind of coherence in the Obama/Clinton efforts: one mistake led to another and another and another.

Then there is the health care mess. Everyone associates the line, “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” with President Obama. It’s interesting to note that in the same context Hillary said, “If you have health insurance and you are happy with it, nothing changes… because we want to maximize choice for people.” Perhaps we are supposed to forget that the first time national health care was seriously proposed, it was called Hillarycare. Four years into the lurching launch of Obamacare, the truth is somewhat less optimistic. The promise of a $2,500 decrease in annual health insurance premiums has not materialized. The $2,500 figure is prominent however; rates have risen that much on average. And health plans are being cancelled right and left, so keeping yours may not be one of your maximized choices.

If you are still reading you may be wondering how this relates to heaven. Thusly: as believers we have a responsibility to elect people who will represent our interests in an honest way. I know “honest politician” sounds like an oxymoron to some people, but there are a few. Even if your sentiments lean toward a progressive agenda, you must have an honest presentation of the policies and honest reflection on their historical results. Without this, it is impossible to make sound judgments.

The other day I listened to a couple Democrat talking heads extolling the great accomplishments of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They were enthusiastic cheerleaders, but the word disingenuous doesn’t begin to describe their argument. The world is a complex place; no one has all the answers. But at the very least, we should insist that those looking for answers are not going to dissemble, obfuscate and obstruct honest investigation once they find them.

Everybody Knows That

June is approaching fast, the month of weddings. Everybody knows that. But did you know there are some interesting theories to explain June’s popularity. According to the Examiner, one says it goes back to the Roman custom of honoring the God of marriage, Juno. Another says it is the most practical month in an agrarian society because the inevitable first child will not be far enough along to hinder the mother from helping get in the first harvest for the new family. One of the most curious says that during Medieval times May was the time of the annual bath, so a June wedding assured all concerned would smell their best. (Agh!)

The Examiner goes on to reveal that June is being edged out by August if you can believe Hallmark Cards’ statistics. (Don’t let me get started on the outrageous price of greeting cards.)There are other traditions associated with marriage that are equally arcane and equally baffling to me, but then I am still just a guy (cue Brad Paisley). If you add up the cost of the traditional elements in the modern, Western wedding, you have a budget-buster. Cost of Wedding.com reports that the average wedding in the US costs $25,200.

Not surprisingly, the largest expense is the venue with its associated accoutrements, catering and rentals. Couples spend over $3,600 on average just for a place to say, “I do.” Add a $500 for a cake and another $4,700 for dinner and you are quickly approaching ten grand. That’s before you add $100 for each of the tuxedo rentals and $1,200 for the bride’s gown. Top it off with the obligatory wedding photographer at $1,600 and 10K is gone. The web site lists fifty (50) other items that commonly appear in the expense column of the average wedding. Fifty.

At the risk of sounding completely tone-deaf to the cries of all those brides-to-be and their mothers, I would like to offer some suggestions for trimming the cost of the blessed event (Wait; that refers to something later, doesn’t it.) For the venue, since not everyone lives on a farm with a giant barn anymore, renting a church is a good option, especially if a religious ceremony is being planned. In West Michigan, churches can be rented for under $500, many being free to members.

A wedding dress is just about the most impractical item a woman could ever buy. It is intended to be worn only once; it glamorizes the one person who is already the star of the event; by the wedding day, there is no need to impress the guy (still a guy) standing at the head of the aisle. Incidentally, I feel the same way about “prom” dresses. If something uniquely special is essential, there are rentals available, but even that is money thrown away. A nice rig that can be worn to dress-up affairs after the wedding makes a whole lot more sense to me. And let the guys wear their “Sunday best” and let it go at that.

With all due apologies to my dear friend, Kirk, who makes his living as a photographer, are the wedding photos that get put in an album and parked on a shelf really worth $1,600? If one family member or guest knows how to operate a digital SLR, a few portraits of the bride and groom and maybe one of the wedding party can be taken and sent to Walgreens for enshrinement in a lovely binder at one tenth of the cost. For some great additional memories, place a disposable camera at each table and invite your guests to offer their photographic impressions.

If a sit-down dinner must be part of the event (as a kindness to attendees who are far from home), why not make it a pot luck? Everyone who lives close enough to participate in this very homely tradition can bring a dish and supply the recipe so the bride has a start on her own box of favorites. I know I am getting into some really wet sand here, but the real tradition of marriage is the celebration of community; what better way for the community to honor the new couple than with something homemade and helpful?  

Maybe you think that talking about average costs is unrealistic since the million dollar weddings weigh against the under $100 justice of the peace affairs. Consider then that the median number, the cost most couples incur, is still $10,000. What good might be accomplished by a believer with that amount of money? Meals From the Heartland packages meals to ship to hungry people around the world at a cost of about twenty cents per meal. Ten grand would feed an entire village of 500 people for over three months… or 22 families of six for a year. Or your diverted wedding expense could dig 277 wells to provide safe water for people in Africa. Get together with four of your soon-to-be-wed friends and pool your savings and support one overseas missionary for a whole year. Etcetera ad infinitum.

If this whole topic has been distasteful to you, post a reply below and tell me how you would defend the expense of an extravagant wedding. If this topic has made you rethink your plans for an upcoming event, share it with your friends. Christians believe that our possessions are not our own; how we spend our money is the truest expression of our faith. But everybody knows that.

Who's on a High Horse?

President Obama has said something remarkably stunning for its arrogance or ignorance, I know not which. At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, speaking of the violence perpetrated by radical Islamists, the President chided Christians for historical indiscretions saying, "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. " (full text)

As a linguist I am fascinated by the President’s obviously condescending use of the first person pronoun “we.” No one thinks he imagined himself on any horse. This is an example of using inclusive language to surreptitiously exclude oneself from the intended class. The President then slips in a second person reference, more aligned with his true intention, calling his audience to “remember.” This implied “you” points the royal finger squarely where “we” think it belongs. Then, to complete the thought, our erudite leader finishes the sentence with a third person reference to the actual perpetrators of the actions he wishes to condemn.

Peter Wehner wrote an excellent review of Obama’s speech in Commentary. Wehner’s article makes one wonder if the President can truly be as clueless as this makes him sound. If there is a parallel between the Crusades and today’s war on terror, it is the fact that Western civilization is fighting an all-out war against Islamic extremists who want to conquer the world in the name of Allah. Invoking the Crusades serves to reinforce the historical context regarding the battle with Arabs.

The next thing I expect to hear is that Jews killed thousands upon thousands of “Arabs” according to God’s directive in the conquest of the Holy Land. Obama doubtless would suggest we redress those centuries-old grievous misdeeds by compelling modern Israel to return what they stole. For years the left has been has been claiming that what happened in 1948 and again in 1967 was internationally sanctioned terrorism – a land grab by the undeserving of the territory of those unprepared to defend their rights.

The historical sequence goes something like this: God gave Israel the land in perpetuity in the twelfth century BC. After centuries of gaining and losing the Promised Land, they were finally driven out by the Romans in the first century AD. They reclaimed their land in the twentieth century after a curious coalition of religious and secular groups lobbied internationally for over one hundred years. It is probably coincidence that Philistine sounds so much like Palestine, but it is not inaccurate to say that the two people have much in common, not the least of which is a long-standing dispute over a strip of land on the Mediterranean coast.

President Obama and those who support him are not ignorant; they know this history. However, they seem to ignore (the root word of “ignorance”) its implications. This is a holy war if for no other reason than the Islamists say it is. To equate defenders of religious freedom with Islamic terrorists is ludicrous.

The only high horse here is Obama’s, and it appears to be a childish rocking type rather than any sort of mature war horse. That Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast as his platform serves to underline the urgency with which Christians need to start mounting a defense against this kind of nonsense. If we don’t stand up soon, we may not have a leg to stand on, equine or otherwise.