Stupitegrity

I know the title is not a word; I made it up. It represents my feelings about the "stupid" concept of "integrity." I shall explain. Being stupid is like being ignorant except that it's willful. There are times when one must choose to be ignorant of the consequences of one's actions. Practicing integrity of character can frequently bring on that situation. There are times when integrity demands the submission to certain rules or standards when the results are unknown. This is "stupitegrity."

Case in point: I bought a car from a private party and the Secretary of State wanted to know what I paid for it so the transaction can be taxed.  (I will reserve the rant about the Governor getting between private party sales for now.) I have been in this situation before, and I had a conversation with the nice lady behind the counter. She said politely that neither she nor the Governor cared what I paid for the vehicle; she just needed a number to report for tax purposes. Knowing that six percent of my answer would be going to Lansing, I really struggled with my answer.

My through-the-Bible reading schedule has me in the Gospels right now, so I am continually having those WWJD moments. “Hand me that title,” Jesus says. Looking at it he asks, “Whose name is on the document?” “The State of Michigan,” I respond. “Then render unto Snyder that which is Snyder’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” Then he turns away and leaves me to do what integrity demands… stupitegrity.

I might easily “get away with” saying I paid five hundred for the five thousand dollar car. But here’s what haunts me: when I ask God to bless the cattle in my fields, which in today’s world are Fords and Chevys or Deeres and Mahindras, can I honestly expect a blessing when I have not been obedient? I do not believe in the “Christian” version of karma which so many preachers shout about these days. Do good and your cars run great; do bad and get mechanical difficulties out the wazoo. I do however believe that I cannot live with myself if I “cheat” Caesar and expect the best from God. Stupitegrity.

Or on a far more serious level, a Christian marriage involves the expression of certain vows. When two love birds go all google-eyed and promise to love and cherish and all that, "for better or worse... etc," they have no idea what integrity might demand of them down the road. Too many marriages crash and burn because of a lack of integrity – they don’t take the vows seriously. Burn my toast once too often and you’re outta here, Baby. But I think of the guy who watches his wife descend into early Alzheimer’s or MLS or whatever and he stays by her side cherishing, honoring… that’s stupitegrity.

And there are encounters like this every day. You may call me simple, naïve, or even stupid, but this is what I think it means for a believer to have integrity. I recall reading something else Jesus said: “If you’re honest in small things, you’ll be honest in big things; if you’re a crook in small things, you’ll be a crook in big things. If you’re not honest in small jobs, who will put you in charge of the store? No worker can serve two bosses: he’ll either hate the first and love the second, or adore the first and despise the second. You can’t serve both God and the Bank.” (Luke 16:10-13 The Message) Stupitegrity.

Abraham's Promises = Solomon's Rules

As I was reading Ecclesiastes this morning it occurred to me that Solomon’s advice to those “under the sun” applies to people today who want the promises of Abraham in their lives. Maybe I should back fill that: I have always contended that the “prosperity gospel” preached by modern charismatics (mostly) is an attempt to apply the promises made to Abraham to Christians.  Prosperity preachers love to cite the blessings of obedience from Deuteronomy as their basis for claiming material wealth. What this position ignores is the fact that Christians are under a new covenant, one described by the writer of Hebrews as a “better covenant with better promises.”

The old covenant was an earthly covenant: land, progeny, prosperity in the physical realm. The entire account of God’s dealing with a physical people, from Abraham through the eventual nation of his descendants, was intended as a picture, an illustration of God’s principles of interaction with His creation. Paul says as much to the Corinthians. We are supposed to take lessons from the Israelites specifically so that we will not make the same mistakes they did. Yet here we are, focusing on the material things God can do rather than on the condition of the heart.

To understand what is better about the Christians’ promises, one need only look at Solomon’s view of life “under the sun.” He declared that all his wisdom and wealth amounted to vanity or fruitlessness because there was nothing gained beyond this world “under the sun.” No matter what you amass here, Solomon learned, it all passes on to someone else when you die. All men, rich or poor, wise or foolish meet the same fate: Sheol. As far as Solomon knew, that meant annihilation: cessation of existence. He knew nothing of a New Heaven, a New Earth or new anything after life; his concept was pretty much Old Testament dogma: when you die, it’s over.

Enter Jesus Christ who emphasized the Resurrection and the resurrection. It is interesting to note that one subject that repeatedly got Paul into trouble with the Jews and Greeks alike was the resurrection. Life after life is a controversial subject. But the issue I am talking about is life before the afterlife. It is my contention that Jesus’ whole point was that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples wanted to know when He would usher in His kingdom (They were picturing lands and thrones.); He told them to go to Jerusalem and wait.

What came of their wait was the Holy Spirit initiation of the church on Pentecost: the kingdom come. If the original twelve Apostles are any measure, material prosperity was not in the plans; tradition says they all died martyr’s deaths (except John) in material poverty. Many, if not most, of the early Christians were from the “lower classes” of society. James asks, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom?” When Jesus told Pilate His kingdom was not “of this world,” He pretty much excluded getting rich as one of His priorities. Riches, as Solomon rightly noted, are “of this world.”

So as I said, Christians looking for material prosperity today are looking for Abraham’s promises; those who seek Abraham’s promises are bound by Solomon’s rules. I believe those promises would fall under the “vanity” description of Solomon, which means they should be meaningless to true believers, a “striving after the wind.” Jesus framed Solomon’s conclusion like this: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Solomon for all his wisdom did not understand that; he promised nothing beyond this world “under the sun.”

I prefer Jesus’ promise: “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” Abraham will be there too, and Solomon, and they will be joined by the surprised prosperity preachers when they finally recognize the “better promises” really are better after all.

The New Downey Version

I joined 9.5 million viewers watching A.D. The Bible Continues last week and again last night. Producers Roma Downey and Mark Burnett have crafted a passable story line that draws on Scripture, but it has a few features that bother me slightly. It is not surprising that the story would be juiced up a bit, given Burnett’s filmography. The creator of such big reality shows as Survivor and Apprentice can’t be expected to simply stage what really happened according to the Bible. No one believes his other shows are not somewhat inventive when it comes to the “reality” part of reality TV.

In principle I have no quarrel with adding imaginative features to a Bible record to make it come alive. I did exactly that in my novel, Wings of Mentridar (out of print but available digitally on Amazon). The difference between my inventions and Burnett’s may be minor, but I find them significant. I took what little we know about the biblical account of Noah and added details that seemed plausible without contradicting the Scriptural facts. Even though I invented an entire angelic universe to go along with Noah, I strove to keep it aligned with what we know from Scripture.

Downey and Burnett have taken a half a step away from that position, in my opinion. There are three features of A.D. that bother me. First is making Pilate and Caiaphas central to the story. I did not put a stopwatch on it, but I would estimate that the political interplay of those two leaders filled far more screen time than the acts of the Apostles. I understand the need to fill a back story, but if screen time is money, too much was spent on fictional background and too much left out of the true story. Some vitally important biblical facts were omitted: for example, one would assume that Jesus only appeared after his resurrection twice briefly to the Apostles in the upper room. No mention is made of his dozens of appearances to a total of hundreds of people.

The second feature of the film with which I take issue is the prominent place given to women in every relationship. Outside of the biblical record, history teaches that women were not regularly involved in the political and religious decisions of the day, Cleopatra and a few others excepted. Pilate and Caiaphas are both badgered by intrusive wives. Given either Jewish or Roman culture of the day, this seems unlikely. Even Peter is strongly influenced by an imagined daughter, his wife having died, according to the script of A.D. There is nothing wrong with thinking women were players in a patriarchal society on some level, but the prominence given by Downey/Burnett smacks of feminist revisionism.

Another interesting bit of possible revisioning is making the Apostle John a black man. It is not impossible that Jesus could have found dark skinned men in Palestine to form part of his original twelve. There are specific instances of black men mentioned in Acts, most notably in 13:1 where a disciple named Simeon was “called Niger” which is Latin slang for black man. Also, the regions from which people gathered for the Passover as listed in Acts 2 include areas that could well have had blacks among the population. My difficulty with a black Apostle is only that I believe for theological reasons Jesus would have specifically called sons of Abraham and not sons of Ishmael (assume if you like that Hagar was a black woman). There is really no need to “color” the players in the Bible; truth be told, they would all be people of color by today’s standards, Jesus included.

There are those who will say I am picking at nits. They may be right. If Downey and Burnett were not cutting out so much we know is true and replacing it with things that are pure speculation, I would be less uncomfortable. The teller of any story presumes to share only that which supports the theme; the Bible itself is like that. The apostle John admits that endless books could have been written about Jesus; he made editorial choices to limit his tome. My beef with A.D. is that it left too much meat on the bone and served up too much fluff.

Outdoor Education Appeal

Full disclosure: this is a fund raising appeal. I belong to an organization called the Muskegon Environmental Research and Education Society (MERES). We operate the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve on the east end of the lake. MERES has been working on the Preserve for almost twenty years, and we now want to sharpen our focus and broaden our appeal.

First some history: anyone who has been around Muskegon for long remembers when the Port City Princess used to dock on Lake Ave in North Muskegon. There was a boat launch ramp and a bait shop there for quite a few years. Just east of there was a piece of lakeshore where road crews, foundries and unidentified citizens dumped their rubbish. In 1996 the effort to reclaim the dump was begun by a group of dedicated visionaries. The beautiful Preserve people enjoy today is the result of years of committed volunteer work and generous financial support by individuals and groups who caught the vision of the early pioneers.

Those men and women who built the Preserve understood the value of an outdoor experience. I was fortunate to have a father who built us a family cottage on a lake where we could enjoy the Michigan water wonderland. He took me salmon fishing and deer hunting and sailing and passed on his love of the outdoors. I also had the pleasure of roaming the fields and woods around our suburban home. There are many young people right here in Muskegon who are not as lucky as I was. My wife taught in a local school district where many of her sixth graders had never seen Lake Michigan, let alone gone sailing or fishing.

The latest research shows that children who regularly experience the outdoors in a meaningful way are healthier and happier. It is not uncommon after a day in the outdoor classroom at the Preserve to hear young students remark that it was the best day of their life. Environmental education is not just enjoyable, it is essential to maintain a force for conservation and preservation in the next generation. A day at the Preserve sparked an interest in one young lady that carried through to a career in environmental education. Many others simply learn that peace and tranquility can be found by stepping into a small bit of nature preserved for their benefit.

This is our cause; this is why MERES exists. We have been able to do this for thousands of people, young and old, every year for two decades. Now we want to do more. Many people who enjoy the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve think it is a public park funded by public dollars. Only a few of those who experience the Preserve and the River Walk realize that it is completely funded by donations.

To move to the next level of service to the community, we need to build an endowment fund that will allow us to maintain what we have and broaden our outreach. Our goal is to have sufficient funds to keep the outdoor education programs at the Preserve and the River Walk functioning and to construct an education center which will help us bring more programs to the people of Muskegon County. We want to see the realization of the vision of one of the early supporters who said the project could be, “a jewel in West Michigan.”  We have the stone in the setting; now we just need your help to polish it to gleaming brilliance.

To make a donation, visit the MERES website.

  http://www.muskegonlakenaturepreserve.org/

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.