Thanks, But No Thanks

Four Navy Seals are facing courts martial for assaulting a terrorist. Please re-read that first sentence again. Does anyone else find the cognitive dissonance I see? Aren't Seals supposed to assault people? Shouldn't the terrorist feel lucky he is alive instead of complaining of a cut lip? After all, he is believed to be the Al Queda mastermind of the brutal murder of four American contractors; I suspect the Seals showed great restraint by bringing him in alive.

Alongside this story is the news that the man responsible for the 911 attacks is being brought to New York for a civilian trial. This man and his colleagues already confessed guilt, and they did so proudly. The attorney for the defense of this admitted mass murderer told a reporter he wants his client to have the right to speak his views absent the "propaganda" of the American press. According to Webster propaganda is a "systematic dissemination of ideas to further one's own cause." The third entry adds, "now often used disparagingly to connote deception or distortion."

Okay, we know the terrorist's view, so the "propaganda" he would like to counter is the majority of American citizens' opinion that what happened on 911 was an unprovoked attack resulting in thousands of innocent deaths. Can the reporter possibly mean that the majority opinion in this country is intended to distort or deceive? Maybe not; maybe he just means that we are attempting to further our cause -- like the cause of freedom -- like the cause of the right to life of innocent occupants of the twin towers.

Allow me to present one more conundrum. President Obama is bent on passing a health care "reform" measure that will by all accounts increase our indebtedness by unfathomable dollars, mortgaging our children and grand children's future. At the same time, he dithers over what to do about the request for increased troops in Afghanistan, claiming to be concerned over the cost. Admittedly, our health care system could use some attention, but it will not fail tomorrow or even next month or next year if nothing is done immediately. On the other hand, brave men and women are dying in Afghanistan daily, and the Taliban grows stronger by the minute.

I could multiply examples like these ad nauseum. So to my point. The Apostle Paul admonishes us to give thanks in all things. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day. I will give thanks that we have Navy Seals (and others) who are willing to risk their lives and be long absent from their families to protect my freedom. I will give thanks that we have a free press that allows all sides of any story to be presented. I will give thanks that we have the privilege to elect a representative government. But, I'm sorry, Paul, I can not give thanks for the systematic disassembly of our constitutional forms. Then again, maybe I will be thankful if enough people recognize the rape of our Constitution and do something about it. Do you suppose Jeremiah was thankful for the Babylonian conquest?

Character Versus Personality

I recently finished a book by David F. Wells, The Courage to be Protestant. He calls this work an attempt at getting at the essence of his fifteen year project (and four previous books) to analyze the evangelical movement. Wells does a good job tracing the social trends which are pressuring the church to modernize its message. His thesis is that the direction in which evangelicals are moving, particularly the seeker sensitive and the emergent factions, is away from Biblical orthodoxy. He believes a return to historical reformation/protestant ways is the cure for this misdirection.

I was impressed by his analysis of the change in modern thinking away from what we used to call character, which is based on the virtues of a moral world, to a cult of personality which is driven by popularity or attractiveness without regard to morality. Wells notes that we used to speak of a person's morals, manners or reputation. Now we hear that they are fascinating, masterful or charismatic. One has only to remember how the media treated Bill Clinton during the Lewinski scandal to see how true this is.

The national infatuation with Barak Obama presents another example of personality trumping character. During the late stages of the presidential campaign a reporter opined that we didn't really know who Barak Obama was. If that reporter was ignorant, it was by choice or dereliction of his duty. Anyone who cared to look into the candidate's past could form a pretty solid picture of the real Barak Obama. His own writings and his life long relationships revealed a man who had consistently gravitated to men and ideas which were easily characterized. He had read and consorted with anarchists and socialists for most of his adult life. Yet in spite of this his good looks and soaring rhetoric carried half the country into his camp.

By contrast, as soon as Sarah Palin entered the presidential race, the main stream media fell all over themselves mocking her and finding fault in everything she said or did. What was her weakness? She was genuine, honest, simple and transparent. She displayed qualities that bemused or befuddled the political elite: love of country, commitment to family, concern for the weak and helpless, a determination to swim up the political stream. These attributes were so foreign to most liberal observers that they instantly declared her unfit for public office. How could anyone so provincial, so everyday American Mom be right for America?

Coincidentally, Sarah Palin is also attractive and well spoken in a down home, simple way. It was her character (in the old fashioned sense) and her support of traditional values that made her anathema to the liberal elite. I fear that Pete Hoekstra will face the same challenges as he runs for governor in Michigan. Here is a man of character who staunchly supports traditional values and conservative principles. He has worked tirelessly in Washington to provide decent, thoughtful representation for his constituents. He has always been a voice of common sense and restraint in a Beltway culture which seems to have lost its mind.

As Christians we are called to seek out leaders with strong moral character. Although the Bible does not specifically speak to our democratic processes and elective choices in the public sector, it is obvious that the qualities required of church leaders are equally important in secular positions. Our founding fathers recognized the importance of sound moral character, recommending that these qualities be sought in all who would lead. Pray that we all take a hint from David Wells and avoid the lure of personality and seek character in our elected leaders.

Thank a Veteran

I am an old softy, despite my curmudgeon looks and sometimes stern demeanor. I tear up at parades when the bands march by, especially if Old Glory is flying. I get a lump in my throat when somebody forwards one of those touching emails about our military forces. I am in awe every time I see images of Arlington National Cemetery or one of the many fields in Europe where brave men and women from past wars rest. All those crosses...

I am the son of a WWII Army Air Corps Lieutenant and the father of a Gulf War Airman. I missed out on military service during the Vietnam era because my number was not called. (For those too young to know, the draft was run as a lottery by birthday; my number was 323 and my year of eligibility ended with the draw around 319.) My eighteen-year-old self didn't like the way Washington was running the war; I thought we should fight to win or get out. When the draft lottery started closing in on my number, I briefly considered conscientious objector status or flight to Canada. Okay, my thoughts about Canada lasted about fifteen minutes, but I did investigate the CO thing. I would not have qualified.

In the end I resigned myself to go if called, as if there was ever any real doubt; I loved my Dad too much to disappoint him, if nothing else. Besides, even back then my typical self-interested teen eyes watered at the sight of the flag. That was 1969; the fallout from the Tet offensive and the Mei Lei massacre were like open wounds on our national psyche. Even though I disagreed with the prosecution of the war, I was wholeheartedly in favor of letting people everywhere make their own choices about their form of government. I believed then, as now, that if people wanted communist rule, they should be allowed to make that decision freely, not be driven to it by force of arms or fear of famine.

There was something else that fortified my will to go to war if asked: Jane Fonda hadn't yet posed on the NVA anti-aircraft gun; the four Kent State protesters had not been martyred, but the anti-war sentiment was everywhere, especially on college campuses (my world.) I detested the anarchy most anti-war protests advocated. Sit-ins were one thing, but destruction and mayhem were not to my liking. Worst of all, our national embarrassment over the war left the returning veterans out in the cold or subject to too much heat. Never in our history had those who risked their lives under our flag been so badly treated when they stepped back into civilian life. Part of me wanted to stand with them or die beside them out of pure sympathy for how they were being maligned.

Forty years later I sometimes wish I had gone. When my son enlisted in the Air Force, I actually felt jealous of him. Had I not been too old, I might have joined him in uniform. I did investigate civilian service; I was one click of the mouse away from applying for a job as a tanker driver (if I had had my tanker certification I might have clicked.) The real thing that stopped me was the thought of my wife soldiering on alone at home. She worried constantly about my driving the U.S. highways; I can't imagine her fear had I been trucking fuel in Iraq.

So much for the secret life of Clair Verway. If you are still reading (you have too much time on your hands) let me suggest an active response to this vent of mine. Thank a veteran. Literally, physically thank someone who is or was wearing this county's uniform. Naturally, I try to send a little something to my son on Veteran's Day, but I usually make eye contact or actually speak to any uniformed passers-by and give them a thumbs up or a word of gratitude. Paul admonishes us to give honor to whom honor is due. I can think of no class of persons who is more deserving of honor than those who have served in our military. Write it down; make a plan; show someone how much you honor them. Do it!

Onward Christian Soldiers

The shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas this week raises so many questions and ironies it is hard to know where to begin. It is too soon to speculate about anything specific because the facts are still muddled. Some things are clear, though, and they are puzzling to me.

Major Nidal Hasan, the shooter, is a Muslim, an American citizen born in Virginia to Jordanian parents. One report says he is a life-long Muslim, another says he is a recent convert. In either case, the obvious question is how militant is his belief. At his mosque in Maryland, he listed his nationality as Palestinian. A retired colonel who worked with Hasan says he has been making anti-American remarks for several months, at least. Hasan was openly opposed to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He likened suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save their fellows.

Should there have been some inquiry into the major's beliefs given the strong correlation between terrorist ideology and Muslim religion? Not all Muslims are terrorists to be sure, but 99.99% of terrorists are Muslim. I wonder if there is a way our P.C. distracted military can asses this factor in its estimate of a person's worthiness to wear the country's uniform. Major Hasan was investigated because of his radical statements, but nothing rose to the level necessary to sanction him or relieve him of duty.

A glaring irony in this situation is that Major Hasan was trained as a psychiatrist. His responsibilities included counseling soldiers who were having difficulty coping with the inevitable stress that is the military life. Apparently the doctor needed a good dose of "physician heal thyself." It may be that he became so troubled by the dissonance in his own mind that he snapped. We don't know and may never learn the deep struggles the major endured, but at least we can say that he, of all people, should have been equipped to deal with them.

Then there is the public reaction to analyze. I am as stricken as anyone by the sad irony that soldiers in our own country, supposedly safe at an Army base, were gunned down mercilessly. The families of the victims deserve our prayers and sympathy. Yet many days there is a similar number of military personnel killed in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. These brave men and women who fall in service to their country do not receive non-stop pre-emptive coverage on the news channels. The Congress does not pause for a moment of silence at each casualty report from the battle theater. Why is more attention paid to the casualties of a mental break than to the deaths caused by the cultural break that is radical Islam?

If we truly are Christian soldiers, we should expect casualties. Certainly the early church experienced deadly persecution. We Americans are only since September 11, 2001, finding out what religious persecution is. Make no mistake, this is a religious struggle we are fighting. If we fail to see the war on terrorism as a holy war, we will never understand it. We don't know if Major Hasan murdered because of his religion, but we know thousands have died around the globe at the hands of people who share his faith.

If there is such a thing as a just war, as Augustine proposed, this is surely one. Christians everywhere are being murdered daily because radical Muslims see it as their holy duty to kill them. As Christians we must stand behind our valiant troops who are attempting to hold the line against a vicious threat. We should mourn every fallen soldier, sailor and marine who has given the ultimate sacrifice so that we can remain free from terror. The Fort Hood incident shows that terror may strike closer to home than we would like. Our "luck" at being free from deadly persecution may be running out.

Happy Birthday, Freedom

The Internet was forty years old last week. For most of us the net didn't enter our everyday lives until the nineties, but in truth its beginning goes back farther. On October 29, 1969, Leonard Kleinrock, a professor of computer science at UCLA, connected the school's host computer to one at Stanford University and the Internet spoke its first word. The joke is that the attempt to transmit crashed the system after only two letters: l and o. So, "lo" and behold, the Internet was born.

Kleinrock was working on a project initiated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA.) The idea was to create a way for military and scientific personnel to relay information securely and efficiently. Kleinrock admitted in recent interviews that he and his colleagues had no idea that their creation would become such a life-changing phenomenon. Nor could they foresee the almost universal exposure their invention would achieve. From big city high rises to thatched roof villages people can surf the web as long as they have charged batteries and a cell signal.

The philosopher in me ponders whether this wonder is a net plus or minus (pun intended.) My novel sits with thousands of others on bookstore shelves unbought, unread. Newspapers are folding across the country due to lack of readership. Diaries, journals and personal letters have been almost completely replaced by emails, text messages and blogs. (Oops, is that finger pointing at me?) Thoughtful, well written prose (forget poetry) is as rare as ink wells on school desks. How many people do you know who read anything that is not digitally created and quickly deleted after a brief scan?

I am concerned that the brevity of our words' lifespan teases us to care less about their truthfulness or rightness. An ill-thought letter can be crumpled before it gets to the mailbox, a process few undertake anymore. An email or text is sped on its way with a flick of a digit. And if spelling and grammar was troublesome before e-writing, what does language like, "C U 2moro," do for our collective consciousness of grammatical correctness. (Okay, only an English teacher cares about that one.) Seriously, we write things or forward things that no one has vetted for accuracy or suitability. I fear that instant communication has become mindless communication.

Who can you believe anymore? Example: Recently, Rush Limbaugh was crucified in the world press for supposed racist remarks. After several days of "news reports" in every type of media, it surfaced that the source for the racist remarks was a blog article with no basis in fact. Rush Limbaugh was slandered, actually libeled, mercilessly by a community of professional journalists who forgot their first duty: check out the source. I know there is a political component to anything concerning Limbaugh's lightening rod stature, but even the silliest ideas get traction on the Internet where patently ridiculous notions get forwarded by gullible dupes.

Maybe this is just the convergence of the post-modern disaffection for truth with the techno culture's desire for newer better quicker slicker info processing. My wife prefers her potatoes baked in the oven rather than microwaved. (Yes, there is a difference.) Some writers feel more productive/creative using pen and paper instead of word processing equipment. These may only be preferences, but I wonder about our proclivity toward sound bites and flash reports over thoughtful, well-researched investigations. If truth matters, quicker isn't always better; the proof is, as was once said, in the pudding (not instant, but stove top cooked, I presume.)

Truth is the issue. Jesus told Pilate centuries ago that He was the embodiment of Truth. The Apostle John said that the Word (who is truth) became flesh and lived among us. God's written Word survives centuries of attacks to prevail as the message which claims to be absolute truth. Going from the Internet to baked potatoes to the Bible may have left some readers spinning. But I believe there is a reason why God's Word is contained in ink and paper documents. (Now available digitally, I know.) The words spoken to Moses and passed down from one generation to the next carry historical validation; they reverberate with the ring of truth. It's hard to imagine that happening with a text message or even a blog. (Gasp!)

Sitting down and reading the Scripture is like savoring that oven-baked potato; scanning an email blast with the thought for the day is instant mashed potatoes by comparison. If we still believe truth exists as objective reality (and true Christians must,) then we must demand it in all we consume. The freedom afforded by the Internet comes with the risk that we will become willing to believe anything. I am free to say whatever I wish in this venue; you are responsible to take the necessary thought to determine if my words are true.

Paul counsels us to think about those things which are true, noble, right, pure, lovely and so on. This advice implies a process of discernment. Seek the truth, no matter the medium. Make your life completely unbalanced in this regard: fill it with truth and empty it of all that is false. You learn how to do this, again from the Apostle Paul, by renewing your mind with God's Word. Then, he promises, you will know what is true and what is not.