Beware of Bowlegged Politicians

And the horse they rode in on. I suspect most of my readers are tired of anything to do with politics at this moment, just having finished the mid-term election cycle with its endless campaign commercials on TV and billboards and yard signs everywhere. In spite of the fatigue, I am going to rant about the sorry state of political “debate” in this country. Again. (See What's Wrong With Politics in America) I saw an evaluation of an interview of a newly minted New York politician that was so shot full of erroneous statements that I nearly became livid.

If the title of this piece has you stumped, it is drawn from the root meaning of the word “prevarication” which literally means bowed legs. Why does the physical condition of bowed legs serve as a metaphor for lying? Dictionary.com lists synonyms: “divergence from the right course, transgression… duplicity, collusion or a stepping out of line.” They also say it meant “to walk crookedly.” I like to think it may come from the idea that a weak set of legs compares to a weak set of facts on which a false stands.

There is no shortage of those who “walk crookedly” in the realm of politics. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Donna Brasile are joined by the newly-minted Democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. What struck me this time was the utterly ridiculous nature of Ocasio-Cortez’s fabricated facts. The situation was all the more distressing given her college degrees in economics and international relations from Boston University. She is a poster child (age 29) for the working-class-kid-who-wants-to-make-a-difference crowd.

Ocasio-Cortez may also be proof that our higher education system is broken since she obviously has no clue how our economy works despite her degree in economics. If it’s not that, then she is one of the bowlegged politicians. Her story is so appealing, and she is so enthusiastic about her cause that I want her to be genuine. But the only way she can be excused for her stunning misstatements of the facts is to say she is ignorant. That, or she is a liar.

I must pause to say that I am not implying that only women lie or that only Democrats lie. There are plenty of male politicians from both parties who also walk crookedly. However, given the huge Democrat bias in our major news outlets, one supposes that any conservative liar would be treated to days if not weeks of media treatment. You don’t see much of that. True, they tried, “Bush lied; people died.” That charge was proven false when subsequent revelations of fact showed President Bush may have had erroneous intelligence reports, but that he acted truthfully with what he thought was true.

This brings me to the discussion of the essence of truth. Someone has said that perception is reality. This is correct only if one conceives of reality as a personal possession. The reality I possess under this scenario may not be the reality you possess. If one believes in absolute truth, one truth that is true for all, as Christians must, then perception is not reality. By definition, truth is that which comports with reality. That which is true for me must also be true for you. The facts must agree. Experience must prove it. (For more of my take on truth see  “True Lies,” “Liars Figure” and “The Truth about the Truth”)

People like Ocasio-Cortez are apparently disconnected from reality either by choice or by ignorance. The same distinction must have been apparent to Jesus when He reserved His harshest criticism for the hypocrites of His day. (Hypocrisy is a lie with legs; it walks crooked.) He told the Pharisees they were liars born of the father of lies. (John 8:44) Since Jesus was The Truth (John 1:14 and 14:6), lies are especially heinous to Him. Notice that He included liars among the vilest of sinners in one list. (Revelation 22:15)

I’d like to think that I hate lies mostly because I am being conformed into the image of the Truth. I’d also like to think that my fellow-Christians will keep their truth-detectors warmed up as we enter a season of shared power in the US Congress. There will be many more episodes like the shameful one that sparked this rant. As disciples of the One who is Truth, we must take a stand for truth. We must hold our representatives’ feet to the fire. Maybe the heat will un-bow their legs.

Christians are Responsible to be Politically Engaged

Daryl Fulp, a missionary in Guatemala and writer for Church Leaders, wrote an article on election day last week titled, “It’s Not Our ‘Christian Responsibility’ to Be Politically Engaged.” I am going to disagree with Mr. Fulp, so if you have had enough politics for the season (who hasn’t), click elsewhere.

Fulp’s position is that Jesus was apolitical, and he further suggests that the New Testament nowhere encourages political involvement. I will debate each point. First, Fulp’s examples of Jesus’ interaction with the civil systems of His day do not make the author’s point in my opinion. He correctly points out that the first century Jews were expecting (hoping for) a political savior. They hated the Roman occupation and dreamed of a military figure on a white charger delivering them from Rome’s bondage. Fulp is also correct that Jesus declined the role of political savior.

However, Jesus did not teach, as Fulp suggests, that his followers refrain from all political activity. On the contrary, the exact opposite can be inferred from the Scripture passage Fulp recites. Matthew records an incident when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in seditious sentiments in the 22 chapter of his Gospel. They asked if they should pay taxes to Caesar, and Jesus famously said yes. Because Jesus also commanded more spiritual dues as well, Fulp thinks Jesus’ words forbid political activity.

I think the very point Jesus was making was that civil authority is owed their demands. The first century Jews had little or no right to participate in their government, but we do. We have both the duty to pay taxes and the right to enter the process which assigns those taxes. In a participatory government such as ours, part of rendering unto Caesar is giving service time to make the wheels turn. When Paul added to taxes due with, “revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed,” I believe he opened the door to political activity in our generation. It seems disrespectful and dishonoring to decline to participate in a system that is built on citizen participation.

In the last few weeks, the Scripture has been opened to me revealing that Jesus applied political language to the most intimate relationship He had – the Church. I recently posted, “What is the Church” detailing how the very word translated “church” (ecclesia) was a political term in Jesus’ day. I wrote, “In the Greek culture, for several centuries leading up to the coming of Christ, ecclesia referred the council of men who participated in the ruling government. This assembly made the rules that governed the actions of the citizens.”

The ecclesia, as the Romans practiced it and the disciples understood it, was a group of people who left their home culture and entered a conquered region with the express purpose of transforming it into a colony that reflected Roman culture, language and philosophy. The ecclesia took over where the Roman army left off. The army conquered the land; the ecclesia transformed the people. Jesus knew He was about to storm the “Gates of Hell,” and He was telling His disciples that they were going to continue His work.

I believe the purpose of the church, as Jesus instituted it, is to influence a “foreign” culture – the world – with the principles and properties of the “home” culture – heaven. The prayer Jesus once gave as an example says, “Your Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” [Note italics] The church commission is to establish Kingdom culture on earth. If that is not political, I don’t know what political is.

Mr. Fulp may be over-reacting to the over-zealous “Moral Majority” mindset that pervaded evangelical thinking some years ago. There was a false hope, perhaps even an un-Scriptural hope that Christians could take over the US government and make America a Christian nation. Fulp is right that our priority is to make disciples, not to remake government. Fulp is wrong, however, to suggest that Christians should not be involved politically. Any Christian who is moved to become engaged in the process that makes the rules can help influence other rule-makers to lean toward a system that is more, rather than less, conducive to Christian society.

I am blessed to live in a place where state and US legislative districts have Christian lawmakers. With their help, the forces of Lansing and Washington DC have done a few things right recently. Although I held my nose when voting for President Trump (see “Vote Anyway” and “Politics Stinks”), I am pleased to see that his administration has turned back many of the anti-religious-freedom policies of the former administration. Mike Pence had a similar effect during his term as governor of Indiana. Voting for these men was my duty, and it is my pleasure to see that America is more open to Christian activity because of their efforts.

I respect Mr. Fulp’s emphasis on Jesus call to another Kingdom not of this world. However, being a missionary to a politically charged region like Guatemala, Fulp must see that our call is not just to escape from the world, but to transform the world’s culture in any way we can. If escape was what our Heavenly Father had had in mind, I think salvation would have meant instant translation out of this world into Heavenly places. He did not intend that; we are here to bring His Kingdom to Earth. Let’s be about the Father’s business.

Open Letter to Any Woman I Might Meet

I will apologize before I say anything. I am an old-fashioned guy, and I am likely to say something inappropriate when we meet. I tend to say what I am thinking without considering how it might be misunderstood. I have always thought that honesty and openness in relationships were good character traits, but I have been told that sometimes I should be less honest, less open. Apparently, I open my mouth and my thoughts fall out and get me into trouble.

I am bringing this into the open (there’s that openness again) because of a recent occurrence that echoes an earlier discussion I had with my very Millennial daughter. Here’s the back-story. Both of my daughters have worked as servers in restaurants at one time. Their experience caused me to understand the rough conditions servers sometimes have and the low hourly wage they earn. One result of this knowledge is that I tip generously unless my server has apparently ignored me or otherwise provided poor service on his or her part.

The other common result of my familiarity with the challenges of the restaurant work environment is that I am usually very friendly, helpful, courteous, kind, and sometimes humorous with my server. Here is where the problem comes: my very Millennial daughter once accused me of flirting with our waitress. I was not consciously doing so, but my daughter saw it as such. Since my wife was also at the table at the time, I asked her if she agreed with our daughter’s assessment. She did. She agreed that sometimes my “friendliness” might be mistaken for flirting.

If I were to flirt with a waitress, I am not so brassy as to do it in front of my wife and daughter, which was my defense to them: I was not intending anything but to make a little light spot in what could be a heavy day for the poor waitress. My two daughters’ experiences taught me that there are plenty of customers who will be rude, crude, cheap and downright mean to their server. I don’t want to be that person; I want to do the opposite. The problem is that in today’s over-sexualized, harassment-sensitive society, a kind or complimentary word spoken innocently can be misconstrued.

I think I may have stumbled into the same tar pit in my part-time job in retail the other day. On Halloween, employees were allowed to dress in costumes. One young lady I had not previously met came to work as what I would call a witch or sorceress. Her costume and make-up were really stunning: purple hair, hat and dress right out of some fantasy tale, and a face transformed cosmetically. I complimented her outfit, asking if she was the good witch, Glenda, from the Wizard of Oz. She corrected me saying she was a character from a tale I do not remember.

Fast-forward a couple days and I saw “Glenda” (names changed to protect the innocent) in her regular attire and make-up. I made some comment about how nice she looked without the purple hair and weird face paint. I think she chuckled; I don’t honestly remember, but I walked away wondering if I had just flirted unintentionally. I did not get summoned to the office, nor have I been served with papers naming me in a harassment suit. I think I am safe.

The problem is that now I am especially self-conscious when I pass Glenda on the sales floor or see her in the break room. I ask myself if she is seeing me as that creepy old guy who flirted with her after Halloween. It’s silly, I know. But having spent years walking on eggshells in the academic world where one accusation by a female can destroy a male teacher’s career, I may be the one over-reacting.

It is an especially sad situation when so many people, not just young women, could use a kind word or a compliment. I don’t know how to talk to women anymore; actually, I never did; it’s just more dangerous to be awkward these days. Jesus’ words to his disciples came to mind in this situation: “Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) Linking serpents and women may create a poor allusion, but the point seems to be that I should be careful what I say lest my dove-like intentions are received as the serpent’s hiss.

The easy solution to my dilemma is just to keep my mouth shut. However, there are plenty of other Bible verses that commend words of encouragement, random acts of kindness as some have called it. I can imagine refraining from any comments related to appearance. That’s a no-brainer. If I tell a woman that I am impressed with the way she handled a tough situation, might she think I am building a bridge for a pick-up line? Maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe I have absorbed too much of the sexualization that is everywhere these days.

If I may make a suggestion to women offended by certain male approaches, don’t make a complimentary remark from an old guy into something it may not be. In fact, even if a guy is angling for a date with you, that can be seen as a compliment too; somebody thinks enough of you to want to spend time with you. Lustful leering, catcalls and whistles have always been despised by women, I know. But maybe you could even receive them as clumsy compliments from guys without taste or manners. They’re still compliments. You can’t always control what a guy says to you, but you can control how you receive it. Am I wrong?