What's Glorious

The other day I had to undertake the bittersweet task of removing the last few items from the sailboat we have enjoyed so much for five summers. It was sweet because being aboard, even in the frozen yard, brings back fond memories and bitter because we have had to give her up against our will. While there is a “new” boat across town, there will be long days of waiting and preparation before she will take us sailing.

Winter is always hard on a Michigan sailor. The cheery wavelets that bounce warm sunlight into laughing eyes are replaced by a flat, featureless surface of snow-swept ice that mocks a sailor’s desire. The warm winds that caress the summer sails have become cold shrieks in the icy rigging. Shakespeare was right to speak of “our winter of discontent.”

In his book, Desire, John Eldridge reminds me that perhaps I should not waste seasonal sadness, but use it instead to bank the fires of hope for the future. He reminds me that after each pale Michigan winter there is a glorious green spring. And this, Eldridge says, is the perfect metaphor for what we hope for if we believe in something called Heaven. Sometimes Christians seem underwhelmed by the thought of Heaven – all that floating on clouds, playing harps and singing hymns or whatever. Even though Heaven is called “glorious,” we seldom get really excited about it. I don’t think we have a clue what glorious is.

A sailor can picture a perfect seventy degree July afternoon on Lake Michigan with a 10-12 knot southwesterly breeze filling the sails and the boat heeling just enough to get that ideal magical mystery canvas miracle going. The hull slices through the waves, rolling the bow wake into a burbling song of peaceful contentment. That is glorious.

Most people can remember a beautiful sunset. The sky gets painted in hues of yellow, gold, lavender and pink with such artistry that it takes your breath away. Just as the last glow fades in the west, the moon rises above the eastern horizon while the first star punctuates the blue-black sky. That is glorious.

Parents may have experienced the wonder of a child laid on her mother’s breast after long hours of labor and tears. But then they look at the tiny pink bundle that is the dearest thing on earth and can’t believe they have been a party to such a miracle. That is glorious.

Music lovers might have been to a concert where they marveled as a gifted pianist skillfully coaxed a Beethoven sonata out of a Steinway. They may have found that the music was played with such artistry and passion that it made tears come to their eyes. That is glorious.

Or there was that little Italian restaurant in downtown Columbus, Indiana, of all places. As an appetizer they served a butternut squash soup that had a sweet, creamy taste that makes my mouth water to think of it. The main course was chicken Marsala that was so rich and savory that my taste buds could barely register the full delight. That was glorious.

The Bible calls us to taste and see that the Lord is good. It is not wrong to make comparisons between the earthly pleasures we know and the eternal pleasures that await. We just need to maintain the correct perspective. Hear anew the words of the Apostle when he says that you have neither seen nor heard anything like, nor have your wildest imaginings begun to prepare you for what God has waiting for us in Eternity. That will be glorious.

Come, Spring.

Peace On Earth?

I made the mistake of watching some news while I ate breakfast the other day. Floods and mudslides in the West, stranded travelers in Europe, increased terror threat everywhere; thanks for the live report and Merry Christmas. I pictured the family getting ready to move into their just completed home watching it float down the wash turned raging river. I pictured the thousands trapped for days in airports, sleeping on benches, eating snack food instead of enjoying home-cooked meals with distant family. I pictured the churning anxiety of millions who live in daily dread of violent religious zealots.

Then I imagined what it was like for a woman far into her third trimester travelling to an unfamiliar town with her new husband so the government could get a better handle on their purse strings. Travel was difficult: risks from robbers, spring floods and general discomfort and inconvenience in her advanced pregnancy. Unease multiplies as the contractions begin and no suitable lodgings can be found when they reach their destination. I wonder how she felt learning that they would have to share a rude shelter with the local livestock.

I suspect the delivery was normal, though in much less than normal surroundings. But then I picture the young family’s amazement at the visit by the shepherds. Here come the least of Judean society with a report of angelic announcements and grand proclamations. Did they feel special, I wonder. It might have been better had the shepherds kept quiet, since their news reached the king’s ear and prompted a vicious attack which forced the young couple to flee with their baby to a foreign country.

The trouble did not stop there. Although his early years may have been ordinary, his last few were anything but. The story is well known. The political and religious powers conspired to end his short life in a most cruel and demeaning way. But he saw it coming; he told his followers to expect it and nothing less for their own destinies. And here lies one of the most strange paradoxes of the Christian faith. The shepherds heard proclamations of peace on Earth; the baby grew to become the long awaited Prince of Peace. Yet trial, tribulation and yearning for ultimate rest are the promised product of his life.

If you think life is supposed to be a bed of roses, watch out for the inevitable thorns. The Rose of Sharon promised peace only to men of good will (a better translation than good will to men.) Who are these men? They are those who do the will of the only god who offers true peace. And what is his will? That we who see neighbors in trouble come alongside to offer what we can. People with perfect lives seldom see the need for help, but when discomfort comes, the Comforter who is Peace looks pretty inviting. If you know Him, show Him to someone who really needs a merry Christmas.

Be There. Now.

Are we there yet? When our kids were little, this question often rose from the back seat; with family scattered across state lines, trips of several hundred miles were not uncommon. Since children live almost exclusively in the present tense, I know it seemed to them as if they had spent their entire existence in the car. As they grew out of childhood, they gained perspective and soon realized that a six hour ride will not be over in the first fifteen minutes, or the next, or the next.

I sometimes think this aspect of maturity (if that is what it is) does not serve us well. There is something to be said for living in the moment: carpe diem and all that. I once taught a college orientation class that encouraged students to “Be there. Now.” When in class, focus on the instruction and participate. When studying, limit distractions and make good use of the time. When relaxing, let go and totally be in the moment. Be there. Now. I like the emphasis; we can all benefit from the advice to invest our whole selves in whatever we are presently doing.

There might be a lesson for us in the Greek of the New Testament. There are two words which can be translated “time” in koine Greek: chronos and kairos. Chronos we can readily understand as we take our words chronograph and chronology from it. It imagines the linear nature of what we call time; it places events in order; chronological order we call it. This happened first, then that. I am typing now; soon I will be sleeping; in the morning I will wake up to face another day’s worth of time. Chronos. (See my blog on time if you want an exploration of the concept of time.)

Kairos, on the other hand, requires that we disregard the linear aspect of time and consider the quality of aptness or suitability. We say the moment is ripe for romance or remark that, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” If we are not sensitive to the “kairosity” of a situation, we may miss its import altogether. We contemplate the Jews waiting centuries for Messiah (chronosity,) then completely missing their place in the dispensation of God’s larger plan (kairosity) when Messiah appeared.

The Old Testament is full of men who spent time in God’s waiting room. Noah waited one hundred years while building the ark. Abram waited twenty-five years for the promised son. Moses waited forty years in the desert – twice. David waited fifteen years between his anointing and crowning as king. Hebrews eleventh chapter lists a pantheon of saints and closes with the haunting reminder that they did not receive the promise for which they waited.

Too often I am guilty of fretting (faithlessly) over chronology because I don’t get the “kairos” of my situation. John Eldridge (Ransomed Heart Ministries) speaks of seeing with the heart, which I think involves recognizing the “kairos.” Setting our minds on things above (Colossians 3) entails seeing beyond the folds of time (think Madeline L’Engle) and getting as much of a God perspective as our finite minds can bear. Dwelling on the past is pointless; worrying about the future is useless; living in the present is priceless. Our task is to discover what is each moment best suited for. Then we need to show up: be there, now.

American Exceptionalism, Please

Europe is burning. Again. This time it is not some power hungry dictator or a zealous religious fanaticism stoking the fire. The news that blazes across our TV screens almost nightly pictures lines of police in fluorescent green holding Lexan shields against surging waves of young people throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks. First Greece, then France and now Great Britain have erupted with violent discontent. The rioters are not the radical fringe; they are students and workers unremarkable in their everyday-ness.

What has caused these otherwise docile citizens to engage in such outlandish behavior? Have they been beaten without cause, dragged from their homes at night, tortured by evil inquisitors? No. They have been told that there will be no seconds at the dinner table. Oliver has stood in the workhouse mess to ask, "Please Sir, I want some more," and those who run the orphanage have said no. We have apparently jumped the next chapter in which Oliver rises up and beats his tormentor, or in this case, his provider.

Europe has been undergoing an experiment in socialism since the reconstruction that began after the two World Wars. Wealth equalization through heavy taxation has provided such treats as universal health care, free or heavily subsidized university education, tenured employment for all, 36 hour work weeks, months of paid vacation, state funded retirement and much more. This all sounds so wonderful that many here in America are trying to catch up with Europe and their enlightened social structure. There is just one problem with the whole experiment: it has failed. Most of Europe has reached the point of bankruptcy; Oliver cannot have more because the pot is empty.

The governments are announcing cuts in programs, lay-offs of hundreds of thousands, increases in tuition (or reductions in aid,) and countless other measures to staunch the economic bleeding that will ultimately result in the patient's demise. So the people riot. They have become so accustomed to feeding at the government trough that they believe it is their right to continue the feast. The government now realizes that only a fast will save the system. The people are expressing their disinterest in fasting violently.

I don't watch Sean Hannity very often (he's become too whiney for me,) but last night around midnight I was waiting for my laptop to download a security update after getting attacked while browsing and the subject of his Great American Panel caught my attention. They were discussing the riots in Great Britain and elsewhere in socialist Europe. Hannity asked if that scenario might not be repeated here if our financial difficulties are not soon relieved. I was encouraged to hear the response of Peter J. Johnson, Jr., a Fox News legal analyst. He expressed the belief that "American exceptionalism" would keep our citizens from becoming violent.

Johnson's comment made me pause to consider just what is exceptional about America. I think I know at least part of it: it is our religious faith. No, I do not believe we are a "Christian nation." But I do believe there are millions of ordinary folks across the heartland who would not riot because they know that government is not their savior or even their provider. During the French revolution the people consciously jettisoned everything that sprang from faith. During the American revolution we clung to the principles that stem from a faith in something greater than ourselves, certainly greater than the government we created. If there are riots in America, I suspect they will be against government efforts to deny our God-given rights, not our desire for "More, please."

Obama a Socialist?

I have already admitted in this space that I am a semanticist; I am accused frequently of being too particular about word choice. Blame it on the poet in me (or on my Mother’s insistence on correct English.) I try to say what I mean and mean what I say; I expect the same of others. Needless to say, I am often disappointed.

Sometimes people purposely misuse a word or twist its meaning to fit their agenda. This tactic is so common in politics that it hardly needs an example, but I will share two that made headlines a few years ago. George W. Bush flew to an aircraft carrier returning from the Iraq war zone and stood in front of a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.” The men and women on board knew the banner signified that their “mission” had been accomplished.

The liberal press, eager to find any trace of egg on the face of their arch enemy, tried to paint President Bush the fool for suggesting that the war in Iraq had been won. The ploy was so disingenuous as to be mindless if only one remembered the words of the President when he initiated the war. He clearly said that the conflict would not be over in weeks or months or years, perhaps not for generations. He understood the nature of the Islamic extremists we are fighting. They have a very long view of history; their battle did not start in this generation, nor do they expect to win in this generation.

Perhaps more damning was the mantra, “Bush lied; people died,” which was heard incessantly from opponents to the war in Iraq referring to his claim that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even small children know what a lie is. President Bush, along with the leaders of several other countries, the intelligence community and half the world’s population (think Kurdish rebels) “knew” Sadam had WMD. Calling the President a liar in this instance was worse than disingenuous; it was malicious.

George W. Bush was too much of a gentleman to rebut every ridiculous thing his political enemies said. He was willing to let history be the judge of his actions. This was painful for some of us who watched him take flaming arrows from the press day after day, but in retrospect, I think I can see the ultimate wisdom in his behavior. Barak Obama, in contrast, spends a great deal of energy responding to criticism and has begun to sound like a whiney child.

President Obama has been labeled a socialist. Communism, a radicalized form of socialism, has been embraced by a significant number of the people with whom he chooses to surround himself. His main accomplishments (taking over commerce and the health care delivery system) are deemed socialistic by the right, though some Socialists disagree. Yet the President and his supporters in the press claim he is being unfairly painted with a negative stereotype.

Some ask why it is such a big deal to be called a socialist, why it is negative. Commenting on the current political situation, James Kennedy suggested that socialism is legalized plunder, as Frederic Bastiat called it in his famous treatise, The Law. It does organize, under government sanction, the redistribution of wealth (something which Obama has openly encouraged.) Kennedy comments that the situation in Washington DC is not comic, but tragic. He reminds us of George Washington’s warning that government can become a “fearful master” without a proper moral foundation.

As Christians, we are not wannabe communists, as some suggest from a misreading of Acts 2. The communal lifestyle chosen by some believers is voluntary; the Bible record makes this clear. Government mandated community, communism, is evil. We must not suppose that the government can impose a Christian-like ideal community. Only the Gospel, through the regeneration of lives, can accomplish that. In the meantime, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I will not be fooled into calling it the golden goose.

Quitcherbitchin

My wife sent me to the video store this week to pick up a movie for her students. She wanted Squanto or Pocahontas; neither was available. This prompted a search for another Pilgrim or Thanksgiving themed film, a task which proved more daunting than I would have imagined. One helpful employee and I looked for about half an hour to find only one purely Thanksgiving movie (Alvin and the Chipmunks – it was out.) Christmas movies abound; Halloween and even Easter were well represented, but not Thanksgiving. (Researching this article I did find a top ten list of Thanksgiving movies.)

I was reminded of something I heard on the radio a while ago: Thanksgiving is the one holiday that has not been commercialized to death. Granted, it is used as the launching pad for the largest, most tawdry commercialization of all: Christmas shopping. But the day itself has remained fairly well insulated from the marketers and still centers around home and family for most who recognize it at all. Contrary to popular myth, the tradition does not stem directly from the “First Thanksgiving” we see pictured with Pilgrims and Indians sharing their bounty. The idea of a day to give thanks was first mentioned in 1789 by President Washington, but not made an annual remembrance until President Lincoln in 1863, and not made permanent until 1941 when the US Congress made it official. (See ChristianAnswers.net)

I wonder if this one holiday has remained more or less pure because to be truly thankful requires a dose of humility. One must humble oneself to admit that a debt is owed to another. Humility’s wicked step sister, humiliation, is so ill considered that most people avoid humility as they would a coughing, red-eyed street person. It is awkward to embrace, after all; to claim to have it is to prove you do not. Imagine someone saying, “Humility is one of my greatest strengths.”

It seems to me that the three hundred million of us fortunate enough to live in America have quite a bit to be thankful for. Despite the clamor over illegal phone taps and invasive body scans, we have not had a major terrorist attack in this country since 2001. Ignore the hyperbole which denigrates our health system and you find some of the best care in the world (available even to the indigent, contrary to the reformer’s cries.) While unemployment is a serious matter and foreclosures are more frequent than usual, neither starvation nor homelessness stalk our citizens in massive numbers. People gripe about gasoline prices without realizing that much of the developed world pays many multiples more than we do. Then come the police, the firefighters, the school teachers, the highways, the water and sewer systems and more that people regularly complain about, without which life would be substantially poorer. These are all things to be thankful for.

This is not the end of the list of material blessings we enjoy, but more important than any of these to those who follow Christ is the spiritual inheritance which awaits the passing of this material frame. The Apostle Paul recommends that believers give thanks in everything to the God who is responsible for it all. Most encouraging is the knowledge that all of it, even the unpleasant parts, will ultimately redound to the good for those who love God. After the parades, the turkey and the football, remember to be grateful for the important things. Mostly, remember that the most important ones are not things at all.

Words Mean Something

It is likely that I ultimately became an English teacher because my mother (coincidentally born in England) consistently corrected her children's bad grammar. Even though she did not have any post-secondary education, she belonged to a generation which believed that good communication required proper grammar and deliberate word usage.

I have been accused on more than one occasion of being a semanticist, and if I do tend to read more into words than the average Joe (or Josephine,) I do not consider it to be a character flaw. I am as guilty as anyone of tossing off an ill-considered word now and then. However, I generally try to say what I mean and mean what I say. The recent Fox News book tour interview of George W. Bush has reminded me of his unwavering commitment to do just that in spite of the consequences.

My tendency to be picky about words is what frustrates me so when I hear one of the current crop of Democrats talk about compromise in the context of working on a non-partisan footing with the Republicans. When the Dems accuse the Republicans of partisanship they mean that they won't compromise their principles. What the Dems are really looking for is submission, not compromise. I think it was Pelosi who tipped their hand soon after the 2008 elections when she said "We won; get over it."

Today I heard that Obama has signed an executive order which will, among other things, allow faith-based organizations to display their icons in public access areas. This is a compromise that has been a long time coming. I remember when the cross had to be covered for an Obama visit to a college chapel. I remember the flap over his speech at Notre Dame. Suddenly, our President sees the need to compromise his standards regarding this issue.

The word "disingenuous" is coming to mind frequently these days. It means, "lacking frankness or sincerity." Synonyms are artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful. Notice that I am one step away from saying the "L" word. Making a written accusation that a public figure has lied can elicit a charge of libel. I can say that it will be interesting to watch the Democrats deal with the loss of power in Washington; how much prevarication and back-pedalling will we see, I wonder.

Jesus counsels us to "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no, for whatever is more than these is from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37) It is evil to bend the truth to one's own ends; even telling the truth with the intent to deceive falls under judgment. I hope the new crop of elected representatives we are sending to Washington has learned this lesson. Cynicism leads me to doubt we can expect as much from the folks already entrenched there. It is often the truth behind the joke that makes it so poignant. Question: How can you tell a politician is lying? Answer: His mouth is moving.

Prepare to Come About

Tacking! the helmsman on a racing yacht shouts to inform the crew that he has begun to change course. As the bow passes through the wind, the sails must be reset on the opposite side of the boat. It is one of the more complex and sensitive operations undertaken during a race. It must be done smoothly and quickly to avoid losing precious momentum. The nautical term for bringing a sailboat onto a new tack is to come about.

I haven't heard the warning cry from the White House, but I'm pretty sure the Obama ship is preparing to come about. Many pundits referred to Bill Clinton's 1994 course change as "tacking to the center." It appears as if the Obama team has finally sensed the true direction of the political wind and is responding in similar fashion. There is not now (nor I suggest, never was) a vast majority who wanted the radical left course change Obama proposed. The hope and change mantra that swept Obama into office was heard by many as the answer to their frustration with the Washington establishment.

The early "successes"of the Obama agenda, economic stimulus and health care, were rammed down the throats of former supporters and opponents alike. The tide of "throw the bums out" which floated unprecedented one-party control for the Democrats turned to such a dramatic ebb that nearly all support has drained from under their keel. To keep his ship from running hard aground, the captain has discovered he must alter course; it's time to come about.

The thing that is most cloying about Obama's recent statements is how narcissistic and self-serving they are. He claims that he was so concerned about principle that he failed to pay attention to the political consequences of his policies. He apparently was not counting on the violent backlash his arrogance elicited. Many Washington watchers declare him to be more of an ideologue than any President in recent memory. Perhaps he does have such narrow vision that he can only imagine a future his fulfilled plans would presage. Perhaps his ecstatic arrival in the White House caused him to forget he is President of all the people, not just those (few) who agree with his radical agenda for change.

Whatever the reason for Obama's decision to tack, I cannot say I am disappointed. I wrote some time ago that I was praying for a tsunami of voter backlash; all signs appear to point to just that this November. The question now becomes whether the President and his progressive fellows can maintain enough clout to do any damage in his last two years. And I do mean his last two years. It seems unlikely that he will have any chance at a second term. Unless he executes such a stunning tack to the center politically that he rivals the political savvy of Bill Clinton, I think his ship will sail unceremoniously out of port (Washington) in 2012.

Reform School

If you have any interest in the US education system, whether as a parent, student, teacher, policymaker or innocent bystander, Valerie Strauss' September 27, 2010 blog article in the Washington Post is a must read. She correctly identifies student economic status as a significant factor in student achievement. Poverty has physical, sociological and psychological consequences in the classroom; to disregard this irrefutably documented fact is to ignore the elephant in the room, says Strauss. Sadly, this is precisely what most current education policy does.

This head-in-the-sand attitude was evident in the Bush era "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) legislation perpetrated on schools. NCLB was a creation of Ted Kennedy and the Democrats, pursuant to George W. Bush's effort to share the power, though it is generally credited to Bush. The centerpiece of NCLB was so-called "high stakes testing," a concept which sounds good on the surface. Testing student progress to determine achievement is a valid concept, however, the one-size-fits-all nature of the NCLB mandate falls prey to the popular habit of ignoring how elemental poverty is in elementary schools.

In Michigan, we use the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) to measure student achievement. The state standards and procedures are very strict, almost draconian. This year, for example, each school is allowed to exempt from taking the MEAP only a very small percentage of its population as special education students. The problem here is that in a high poverty area, such as many of our inner cities, a majority of students often qualify for the designation, although they may or may not be in special education programs. (In some schools, the word "majority" is an understatement.)

The result of this failure to exempt students who are not capable of performing anywhere near grade level is obvious. Schools in these areas chronically fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP.) The additional ramifications of this situation are serious. State funding can be jeopardized. Federal programs tied to AYP will be withdrawn. New initiatives like "Race to the Top" use test scores or AYP measures. Some pay-for-performance programs also use the scores from these standardized tests. As Strauss implies in her blog, the best teachers in the world can not always work miracles if large numbers of their students have learning difficulties which are endemic to their neighborhood.

We must devise a more sensible, caring approach to school reform. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, says more about our responsibility to the poor among us than just about any other subject. Education is a key element in the effort to reduce poverty; better educated people tend to make better money than those less well trained. The Chinese proverb says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." The "War on Poverty" has given away a ton of fish. It's about time we started focusing on more effective ways to train fisherman.

Plain and Simple

The other night my wife and I watched a movie called The 19th Wife, a tale based on events which occurred in a Mormon sect which still practices polygamy. It was broadcast on Lifetime (yes, I sometimes watch chic-flicks,) so the theme was the degrading of women trapped in polygamist societies. I was fascinated by the twisted theology, but really struck by the representation of the close-knit family structures (common among all Mormons) and the modest dress of the women.

Living in the Midwest, I am used to seeing the Amish in their buggies or on the streets, men in plain shirts with black trousers and women in pale blue or grey full-length dresses with long sleeves and high collars. These women stand out in modern western society, as do some Mormons, as fashion iconoclasts. More radically, Arab women, regulars on the nightly news these days, appear almost alien in their burkas. I am not a sartorial historian, but it seems that women in “civilized” societies have always appeared in public dressed in what I would call modest attire. ( I am consciously ignoring bare-breasted Polynesians and naked African bushwomen.)

The evolution of epidermal exposure in women took place quite rapidly. In less than one generation, roughly thirty years, they went from mostly covered to nearly naked. On the beaches and at poolside from the late 1960’s onward, women brazenly dress in small patches of cloth that would have brought about an arrest for indecent exposure scant decades ago. In modern media we get treated to displays of feminine flesh everywhere from the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders to the Victoria Secret runway exhibitions. The early TV censors must be rolling in their graves.

Having raised two daughters and lived with one wife through the worst of the feminist unleashing, I continue to be troubled by what we Christians accept in women’s attire. I am a typical male (I think) in that I admit to finding the female form a pleasure to look at. I also know enough phychopathology to understand that erotic exposure is like an addictive drug: what starts with a little peek must ultimately descend into leering at complete display. Frequently pornography leads to criminal acts against women by frustrated men. No, not every Playboy subscriber ends up a rapist, but nearly every rapist has a history of pornographic dalliance. Sadly, the “community standards” measure of what is obscene no longer works in my opinion. Community standards have sunk to obscene levels.

Our terrorist enemies are despicable in their tactics, but not so far off in their opinion that modern society has fallen prey to the greater enemy of our souls. I am not lobbying for a return to Amish style dress or burkas for all women. I respect the Amish and Mormons (if not the Arabs) for holding the line on modesty. The Amish and their nineteenth century ways are not going to catch on anytime soon (unless our economy fails completely.) But those of us who hold more traditional beliefs could learn something from the radical fringes of our religions. The Apostle Paul cautioned against using freedom as license. How did we so casually cross that line?

Can’t We All Just Get Along

As Obama, Netanyahu and Abbas meet in Washington to forge the outlines of yet another Middle East peace process, I marvel at the strength of hope within the human spirit. Even if I could forget the fact that the roots of their feud trace back to the time of Ishmael, some four thousand years ago, I can’t ignore the reality that for the last sixty years or so they have been fighting for control of a certain piece of real estate.
When the Jews were given the opportunity to settle in Palestine in 1948, they were overjoyed not because of its sandy beaches and warm Mediterranean breezes. There were no lush valleys bursting forth with generous produce to lure them. Unlike the surrounding deserts, there was no black gold bubbling just below the surface, waiting to be sold to an oil-hungry world. The one thing that drew them back like moths to a flame was a (then) modest little city on a hill called Jerusalem.
To the victors go the spoils, history teaches, so those who won the conflagration known as WWII decided among themselves to grant the Jews their fondest desire in reparation for the atrocities visited upon them by those who lost the war. The Palestinians didn’t exactly lose the war, but they were occupying territory controlled by the losers, so they lost by default, apparently. The indigenous Arab population, largely Muslim, fractionally Christian, had been minding their own business, doing whatever it is people do who live in mostly barren desert since the time of the last Crusade.

The Arabs probably would still be doing their own thing, unnoticed by the rest of the world, except that the Allied powers (the victors,) started shipping boatloads of displaced Jews to the Palestinian beaches. Those Jews had been saying for centuries at their annual Seder feast, “Next year in Jerusalem.” Suddenly, it was “next year.” So, led by men with biblical names like Sharon, Ben-Gurion and Mayer, they stormed the little city on a hill and made it their own – almost. Like their biblical predecessors in Joshua’s day, they never quite took complete control, and like that earlier time in history, the seeds were planted for ongoing conflict. The Jews long to rebuild their one and only temple on the second most sacred spot in the Islamic faith, a spot they have yet to wrest from Arab hands.
Hence the magnitude of the problem Obama faces. Since he can’t fix the economy, end the war, or convince the country that nationalized health care is a good thing, he’s decided to join the fraternity of Presidents who want Middle East peace recorded as their legacy. If he succeeds at all, the result will doubtless resemble his health care reform: forcefully imposed and generally unsatisfying. The little mountain where Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac and where the Judeo-Roman conspiracy thought they solved their problem with one Jesus of Nazareth remains a focal point of historic significance. On a personal level in dusty Palestine or dirty Dearborn, Muslims and Christians can get along. But to bring these two peoples together as nations, as religions is a Gordian knot which outmatches even Barak Obama’s considerable cleverness.

And Freedom for All

At the risk of offending some of my friends and conservative followers, I am going to ask what seems to be an obvious question: what legal basis exists for opposing the Muslim construction plans in New York City? If you have been on vacation from the news for the last few weeks, you may not be aware that plans are underway to build a mosque and cultural center around the corner from "ground zero," as the former World Trade Center site is called. The sentimental motivation to oppose such a thing is crystal clear; New Yorkers have a justifiably raw nerve regarding the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Many of us who live far from the fallen towers are nearly as sensitive as those who felt the vibrations on that horrific day.

Sentiment aside, how does one justify opposition to a religious building in the land of the free. It seems to me the First Amendment freedom of religion clause must apply to Muslims. I am aware that the spiritual leader at the forefront of this fracas, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf made some incendiary remarks soon after 9/11. Yet are not even these protected speech under our Constitution? I understand that Sharif El-Gamal, the developer, has a mysterious source of capital, allowing him to pay millions in cash for the building. Again, this is not illegal, as Soho Properties, is not a publicly traded company. The financials are no one's business until tax time; then the IRS will have a private audience. If I remember correctly, the Japanese used to own a good share of Manhattan (now I think it has transferred to the UAE,) and the Chinese were recently making offers on a large chunk of California real estate.

My point is that it is not illegal for foreign concerns to openly invest in US properties. If we oppose the development of this particular site for religious reasons only, the charge of discrimination seems appropriate. On the other hand, if the forces behind this project are proven to be enemies of the US, another door opens. National security concerns would dictate that we not knowingly allow North Korea or Iran, for example, to construct an airbase or bio-chemical facility on our soil. Our own citizens (think Michigan Militia, for example) can not plot murder and mayhem without incurring the wrath of the government they oppose. The problem with the NYC mosque is that to date no state sponsored terrorist organization has surfaced as a contributor (unless you count the rumors about Saudi Arabia.)

What appears to me to be happening among pundits of every persuasion is naked religious discrimination. Commentators I generally admire have made virulent statements denouncing the project for no other reason than its affront to Americans' sensibilities. "I don't like your kind, so you can't live here," sounds like the reasoning of bigot. Yet isn't this so sadly American. First the "Indians," then the blacks, Irish, Poles, Vietnamese, and countless others have had the door slammed in their faces. Our track record ain't so great.

Lest my true sentiments be misconstrued, I must say that I think the construction of an Islamic center near ground zero is about the dumbest move I can imagine. My advice to whoever is pushing this thing is to drop back and punt. Worse than thumbing their nose at the opposition, these people are tweaking the New Yorkers' noses. From what I have gathered about those hearty islanders, it doesn't take much to start a fight. While I am not recommending nor condoning violence, I predict that there will be hell to pay if this project gets much farther off the ground. And it is not only New Yorkers who have been itching for a fight since 9/11. Toby Keith echoed the feelings of a large part of America when he suggested that it is unwise to mess with the US of A. People are still looking for a target for that boot in the a** Toby sang about.

Bottom line, Christians can't afford to let religious bigots stop the mosque, any mosque from being built. Martin Niemoller is credited with saying that when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something--but then it was too late. We must protect the religious freedom of everyone, or there will be freedom for no one.

The Loyal Opposition

After the widely popular US Representative Pete Hoekstra lost his primary bid for governor, Danielle Leek of Grand Valley State University suggested that one of the explanations for Snyder's victory over Hoekstra might be the "crossover effect." She postulated that a number of Democrats might be certain enough of a Republican gubernatorial win in November that they would cross over to vote in the Republican primary for the candidate they would most like to see win. This is not a positive endorsement for Rick Snyder. Hey, I'm the guy most Democrats would like to see running Michigan (if a Republican has to do it.) That is the downside of an open primary.

This apparently less than ideal situation may have its advantages in other areas. What if it resulted in officials being elected who best represented the middle of the road? What if it eliminated the pressure from the fringes which presently warp many politicians? What if it brought about the coalition building like that required in a parliamentary system such as that of Great Britain? Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. Which leads me to another radical idea. Why not have all the issues decided on the basis of what the "other side" has to say?

Gore's scientific "consensus" on the human role in global warming is widely reported in the media as fact. The truth is that while approximately 2,500 scientists worked on the United Nations report on global warming, only about 25 wrote the consensus paper which expresses certainty about the human causation of climate change. Many of the remaining scientists asked to have their names removed from the summary when they read it. They adamantly disagreed with the summary committee's position. Let's give them a "vote" when considering whether to spend trillions of dollars to fight what just may be a chimera.

Or what about Obama's economists believing we can spend our way to prosperity (aka the stimulus package.) Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and many historians agree that his policies did not end the Depression, rather they turned a serious recession into the longest economic downtime in our history. In other words, the opposition which might have stopped FDR may have been right and decade long economic disaster might have been averted. Perhaps our thrill ride to insolvency could be stopped by such thinking today.

Or what about the wisdom of raising taxes to increase government revenue versus lowering them and encouraging growth which then builds the tax base. Confiscatory tax rates simply cause people to hide their money or move it out of the reach of the IRS. There is no proof from history that higher taxes increase revenue. On the other hand, lowering the tax burden, allowing people and corporations to keep more of their own money has always caused a spurt in economic growth and a resulting boom in tax collections. It worked for JFK; it worked for Reagan; it should work again.

Of course, I realize this strategy of letting the naysayers have more say could backfire on me. Not long ago there were many who were opposed to the surge in troops to Iraq which President George W. Bush hoped would end the war. It did. If Sen. Harry Reid, then Sen. Barak Obama and the rest of the opposition had kept Bush from executing his strategy, we might not have had the result we see today in that country. If we had followed the opposition's lead, we would have left the country to the insurgents instead of pulling out as we are now with some hope that the freedom our presence (and blood) bought will survive.

Maybe what I am really hungry for is a return to the good old days when issues were honestly debated. US politics today seems to be a winner take all kind of game where the loyal opposition is regarded as not just different, but wrong, even unpatriotic. This is unfortunate, because as Baron Acton observed correctly in the nineteenth century, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bible also commends the practice accepting "many counselors" to reach wise decisions. What I pine for is what used to be called civility. I don't imagine that we'll ever agree on everything, but I dare to hope that we might learn how to disagree less disagreeably, and more honestly.

Election Night Ruminations

It is well after midnight on Primary Tuesday. Neither of "my guys" looks to be in the running anymore, so what can I say. I did not hear Pete Hoekstra's concession speech, but I'll wager it was gracious and grateful -- that's the kind of man he is. I did speak to Bill Cooper a few hours ago (when things were not looking too pretty for his bid.) I can only paraphrase, but I think he said he could handle the emotions if he loses better than if he wins. His reasoning was that everything he has ever achieved has been by his own sweat and tears; a political win would rest on the efforts of others than himself (I assume he meant staffers, volunteers, voters, etc.)

This seems to me to be a refreshing dash of humility in a field where such is seldom present. I missed my chance to tell Bill that in effect, a victory would still have been based on his own personality, policy choices and preferences, in other words, on who he is. He went on to say that he was glad he could do all the politicking the race required without having to become something he was not. Again, a win would have represented a personal accomplishment, in the sense that Bill Cooper (the real Bill Cooper) would have won the day.

It may be ironic that the man who appears to have taken the Republican primary for the 2nd District US House of Representatives seat is so much like Bill Cooper that a wolverine hair might stick if dragged between their positions. The only thing Bill Huizenga can say to differentiate himself is that he has political experience. I was in Cooper's camp precisely because he doesn't have political experience. This is not just throw-the-bums-out vitriol; I hate that both Huizenga and Kuipers voted for the Michigan Business Tax when in the legislature. Granted, Huizenga voted against the second version of the MBT (the only one that saw the light of day,) and he was stalwartly in favor of demolishing the Small Business Tax. Still, I would have preferred a man who could have said no to any business tax in the environment we currently suffer under.

Now if Riemersma slips past Huizenga in the wee hours, I will wonder what happened to common sense among West Michigan Republicans. Again, the same wolverine hair test would prove sticky; all three candidates make pretty much the same claims. I can support everything the man says he stands for, and I appreciate the professional way he promotes his cause, but Jay Riemersma was a football player and a non-profit runner, neither of which is exactly a resume rocket booster. A victory for Jay might just prove that you can still buy an election in this district.

So what do "my guys" do tomorrow? Pete can probably retire, although I suspect he still has too much energy and political inertia to slip completely off the grid. Bill Cooper will just go back to being Bill Cooper which is not a bad thing for anybody, as far as I know. The other losers will have stacks of receipts (and maybe bills) for ad space and yard signs, whereas Cooper, since a large share of the campaign time and energy went to Thanks a Million food distribution, will have thousands of people in the 2nd who can be truly grateful that he made the effort. That's not such a bad way to lose.

Good Time Charlie

The good times may be nearing the end of the roll for Charlie Rangel, unless he can wrangle himself some kind of deal with the House Ethics Committee. Call me a cynic, but if the Dems are seriously looking into the affairs of one of their own, he’s toast. Many of my apolitical friends say there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In some ways that is true; there seems to be only one species of political animal in Washington these days (with rare, refreshing exceptions.) But when it comes to ethics, the two parties’ behavior is poles apart (pun intended.)

Slap the stink of scandal on a Democrat and his buddies rally round in defense, usually blaming the right wing smear machine (aka those-who-tell-the-truth.) Just picture the way Bill Clinton soldiered on through Travelgate, Whitewater, Lewinski and etc. Or you can recall William (Cold cash) Jefferson, the Louisiana congressman who is still representing, at last notice. One can barely recall all the tax cheats and social misfits President Obama nominated to fill his administration. The scandal du jour is Rangel, whose alleged misdeeds have been public knowledge for almost two years. If he leaves office, I predict it will be by force of law, not of free will.

On the Republican side there may be no fewer allegations, but there is a decidedly different reaction. There was that Senator, a Governor, a Speaker, and that Florida candidate all of whom did less than moral things, although none could hold a candle to Charlie and the gang when it comes to gravity. Yet I struggle to remember their names (do you?) I think it is because they slipped away quietly into the night. Granted, Senator Bridge-to-Nowhere hung around to be ousted by his Alaskan constituency. And poor, hapless Congressman Wide-stance tried to wriggle out of his embarrassing situation in the airport. But by and large, Republicans just resign, perhaps in shame or just out of better political judgment.

I really wish we had more elected officials who could keep their noses clean (and to the grindstone) so that the scandal machine would just run out of steam. I think Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are the type I mean. I want guys like Norm Coleman and Tom Tancredo not to disappoint me. I really hope that Bill Cooper and Pete Hoekstra will fulfill the promise. And did you vote today? The primaries are such slow news that the predictions are for a twenty percent turnout. This is the beginning of the process to put better people in office. If you didn’t vote today, don’t complain if there is nobody worth electing in November. A participatory democratic government is only as good as the participants. If you want less of Charlie Rangel and more of somebody else, it’s your duty to make it happen. We the people is you and me. Period.

The More Things Change

Last night I spent a few hours with a hundred of my closest friends. Okay, so they weren’t all that close. They were all from my high school graduating class, and with only the rare exception I had to peer at their name tags (which incorporated a senior photo) to put names to faces. It struck me that there were only a few of us (me included, I am told) who look enough like our forty year-old photo to be recognizable. And yet, once the identity of a person was established, it was uncanny how many of us still bore the remnants of our former selves. The hippies still had that 60’s love child look; the geeks still had the pocket protector look; the jocks and the cheerleaders still seemed to float together on the balls of their feet; the wallflowers were probably still there, although I didn’t notice.

I think the Catholics used to say, “Give us a child until he is five, and we have him for life.” Child psychologist pretty much agree that basic character is formed by then, if not soon after. That being the case, at seventeen or eighteen in our I-don’t-want-to-grow-up society we are all little more than larger versions of what we were in knickers. At that point we head into the “real world” of college or the workplace and forge our identities relative to what’s out there. Free spirits wander more freely and pencil pushers decide who they want to provide them with pencils. Then somewhere around the mid to late twenties our brains stop maturing, so say the psychologists. From that point on, it’s more or less like Mad Max wisely opined, “Wherever you go, there you are.”

I always used to chuckle at how all the “old people” had hair styles and fashions from the 1940’s or 50’s. Looking around the room last night, I realized that, by and large, we all sported coiffures very similar to the photos on our name badges. It causes me to wonder if the class of 2010 will gather in 2050 with the men in spiky dishevelment and the ladies in meticulously messy “beach hair.” Will the guys still be wearing their pants halfway to their knees displaying their boxers for all to see? Will the girls have on skinny little too-short tees with just enough skirt or short to keep you guessing about their underwear? Fashions come and go, but don’t we all snicker at the forty-something moms who dress like their daughters, a who’s she kidding smugness in our attitude?

If there is a message in this it would be for parents of young children: shape your kids carefully; you are molding them for life. It reminds me of that verse from Proverbs, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The music at our reunion was provided by a reunited garage band, not assembled as such in forty years, doing a remarkably good job bashing out “Wild Thing” and “G-L-O-R-I-A” and tearing me up with “Don’t Let the Sun Catch You Crying.” My high school sweetheart and I even got onto the dance floor and gyrated with the rest of the “kids” from our class. Which made me realize that I spent the night the same way I spent most of my high school years, hanging out with the girl I love, pretty much oblivious to what’s going on around me. The more things change…

Responsibillity: Take It!

I heard it again over breakfast just last week. It’s the question on so many minds: what’s happening to my country? Where is the America we used to know? The discussion generally turns to another question: who is responsible for the radical changes taking place in the fabric of our republic? The easy answer is to point to Mr. Change B. Obama and his merry band. However, I think this is too simplistic, and perhaps it even approaches the banks of denial.

I am of the opinion that the true cause of our devolution lies closer to home. For at least a couple decades I have been watching the mindset of the baby boomers work its way through our culture and in their offspring. Uber-boomer, Bill Clinton, provides a perfect example. His claim not to have had you-know-what with you-know-whom and then parsing the meaning of “is” when his bogus declamation was discovered is classic. The response of his supporters was purely sycophantic. His behavior formerly would have been called irresponsible; now it is no one’s business but his own.

Whence responsibility for one’s actions? As I write this I am enjoying some vacation time on my boat in a marina. Examples of irresponsibility abound. Loud parties continue past midnight a few feet from the berth where I am trying to sleep. Drunken sailors bounce off boats and docks as they try to return to their slips. The baseball game blares from a set of cockpit speakers blanketing the basin with the play-by-play. Boaters “exercise” their pooches in the grass next to the sign prohibiting dogs. US flags fly unattended through rain, sleet, hail or dark of night.

That last one may have flown over some heads. I feel almost alone in my efforts to show proper respect for the flag of our country. Maybe it is my Boy Scout training or my son and father of a veteran status that makes me more sensitive. Most people respond with a blank stare when asked about flag etiquette. I say if you are going to fly the flag, you are responsible to learn how to show the honor due the colors.

But why am I surprised when Presidents don’t honor their marriage vows; revelers don’t respect the rights of their neighbors; no one seems to care about the stewardship of public places. The lack of knowledge about our founding principles is abysmal. No one should be surprised that our country is slowly slouching towards Gomorrah. We’ve given up caring about so many little things (that really do matter,) it’s no wonder the big things are falling apart at the seams.

I'm Not What I'm Not

Victor Davis Hanson observes in a recent blog that Obama’s, “Bush did it” declaration does not constitute a foreign policy. It is consistent, however, with his I'm not Bush response to the troubled economy. It also remains true to his entire presidential campaign theme: Change (from those dreadful Bush policies.) I think history will record his handling of the Gulf oil disaster as very un-Bushlike as well: the Bush response to Katrina, though clumsy at times, was operational within seventy-two hours; Obama took fifty-two days to get rolling on the spill (in equally clumsy fashion, it seems.)

One third of the way through his first term as President, Obama is still defined largely by what he is not. He is not, for example, patriotic. He chose to spend Memorial Day vacationing in hometown, Chicago, rather than appearing at the ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery (another sad story sits there.) While he did bend to pressure to wear a US flag pin occasionally, he still displays the “crotch salute” while others around him either salute or place their hands over their hearts honoring the flag in public ceremonies. He continues to apologize for American exceptionalism like a lonely schoolboy craving acceptance whenever he speaks abroad.

Nor is Obama demonstrably Christian by biblical standards, despite his assertions to the contrary (see his 2008 interview in Christianity Today.) Again, he is certainly not Bush. Whatever one thought about Bush policies, there was no doubt as to the role his faith played in his governing. Obama seems to consciously avoid linking faith to actions. This may be due to the nature of his faith; though he denies affinity with Reverend Wright, he did spend twenty years listening to militant black liberation theology. Perhaps he shields the public from his faith because it would alienate about ninety-seven percent of the population. Or perhaps we should pay more attention to his statements that Islam and Christianity are equally worthy of respect. Perhaps he cannot act on faith because he does not have one.

This defining by negation is quite normal. People used to define Christians as those who “don’t smoke; don’t chew; don’t run with girls who do.” More recently Christians seem to be defined in our culture as those who are not tolerant, not politically correct, not modern, and not open-minded. I wonder if we took pains to be more proactive to define ourselves by actions if we could change that perception. What if we were gracious, forgiving, kind, loyal, hardworking, and truly loving in the I-did-this-just-for-you Jesus kind of way? What if the fruit of the Spirit was the taste we left in our wake? What if we elected people who stood FOR something instead of embracing change for change’s sake? “Throw the bums out,” is a popular sentiment these days. I agree that we need to clean house; let’s just be careful about whom we put in their place.

Think or Swim

The current trouble in Arizona raises the question, "Is there a Christian view of illegal immigration?" I believe there is, but it is not simple. The most obvious starting point is the word “illegal.” The Bible teaches us to be subject to the powers that rule us. We are a nation of laws, without which our society could not exist. Therefore, Christians should not support law breakers unless the laws they break would force the law keeper to violate a higher law, namely, the teaching of Scripture. After the founding fathers, Martin Luther King is our country’s most renowned civil disobedient; his campaign to remove segregationist laws stands of firm biblical ground in my opinion.

But one must ask what higher law is violated by requiring immigrants to follow a prescribed method to enter the United States. Proponents of relaxed immigration laws play on public sympathy by detailing the sad plight of many people in Mexico. They need the financial opportunities provided by the US economy to support their families, so the argument goes. Christians have two options in response: charitable giving, a core principle, can be directed to truly needy people, and informed debate can be held regarding current immigration policies to see if allowing more immigrants or shortening the wait to emigrate would be beneficial to all parties concerned. Neither of these choices condones or supports law breaking.

There is a deeper issue implicit in this discussion. All societies have defining characteristics, primary among them are borders, language and culture. Borders define the extent to which societal expectations govern; language is the vehicle by which expectations are transmitted; culture is the text which describes the society. Our current problem at the Mexican border tramples all three of these. Illegal immigrants ignore the border crossing rules, speak primarily Spanish, and form culturally segregated barrios when they settle here. If you listen to the most radical among their number, they do not desire to assimilate; they have invented the term “reconquista” to imply not a friendly melting pot, but a forceful take-over.

The only nation that ever belonged to God was ancient Israel. God no longer chooses nations; he chooses individuals. Yet as His people in this nation, we have every right to order our society by standards which reflect biblical values if we have the votes to accomplish that. Set aside the fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law simply by coming here; they are taxing an already overburdened system to the breaking point. Schools, hospitals and the courtrooms are being overrun by illegal immigrants in many parts of this country. This is costing legal citizens billions of dollars, a sum which we do not willingly pay. This is robbery. This is not something we need to condone, no matter how destitute the immigrants might be.

Christian charity does not require that we relinquish all rights to private property. Yet the move to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants into our country or to forgive those already here illegally effectively does this. The debate over Arizona's effort to curb the cost of illegals in their state suggests some people believe only the illegals have rights. Although we are a rich country, we do not have unlimited resources. If we don't limit the number of people we invite in to eat at our table, soon there will not be enough food for anyone to make a meal.

When the Titanic went down, there were not enough lifeboats for all the passengers who were cast into the sea. The people who did have seats in the lifeboats had to make a terrible choice. Either limit the number of people in the boat or keep adding swimmers until they swamped the boat and everyone ended up back in the water. The world economy hit the iceberg some time ago; if we don't start making some hard choices, we may learn the answer to the old question, "How long can you tread water?"

A Bomber Too Far

James Carville must be a brilliant man. I say this because so many politically powerful people have called upon him for counsel. His brilliance is exhibited by his rise to such lofty status in spite of remarkably unpleasant vocal characteristics and a face made for radio. He has also shown outstanding cleverness, or perhaps just dumb luck, in his choice of a spouse, Mary Matalin. Clearly his equal or better intellectually, she brings to the marriage a kind of insurance no one can buy. If Carville’s policy suggestions are implemented to ill effect (as I believe they must be) Mary’s position on the opposite side of the political boat will prevent a family capsize.

I further respect James Carville for his present willingness to address the goose as he has the gander. Carville was quick to cast blame on George W. Bush for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yesterday, in true bi-partisan spirit, Carville screamed at George Stephanopoulos that Obama needs to, “Git down h’yah. We are dyin’ down h’yah.” He insisted that the unfolding tragedy of the Gulf oil spill demands nothing less than direct Presidential intervention. He went on to predict political disaster if the oil reaches Florida’s beaches. We all remember how important Florida can be in Presidential politics: hanging chads and all that.

I see a WWII B-17 bomber, flames enveloping both wings, smoke trailing ominously behind as it arcs relentlessly down into the war torn landscape. Carville sees it too. An increasing number of Democrats see it as well. The independents who fueled its maiden flight averted their eyes weeks or months ago. The irony in this failed bomber mission is that enemy fire did not bring it down; perhaps it was the effort to climb too high too fast or the refusal to throttle back the engines after take-off that brought disaster. Whatever it was that doomed this flight, it happened because of the actions of those on board.

I wrote some months ago of rats deserting a sinking ship. I like the bomber analogy better. In the 1970s there was a war movie called A Bridge Too Far. The movie I am imagining might be called A Bomber Too Far. This seems to be the opinion of many decent, well-meaning folks who voted for Barak Obama. He has gone too far. But lest we Christians get too smug, we should recall the Jimmy Carter fiasco. Many believers thought it was going to be wonderful to have a Sunday School teacher in the White House. That turned out not so well.

I would rather have a wise atheist running our government than a foolish Christian. The President of the United States is not a ministry position. The man in the White House is the CEO of the world's largest operation. Would I prefer someone there who shares my values? Of course. But let us not be foolish this November. From the Oval Office to the Drain Commissioner, let us elect men and women who hold to the uniquely American expression of a democratic republic and have experience suitable for the job. Certainly, we can assess their understanding of the divine nature of their appointment. But we must not again stumble into electing an incompetent. If we leave men like Barak Obama at the controls much longer, we may not pull out of this dive in time.

I Don't Believe in God

Shocked? A former chaplain at Harvard reportedly responded to students who said they did not believe in God in this manner: tell me about the god you don't believe in; it may be that I don't believe in such a god either. He then proceeds to describe the God in whom he does believe, the God of the Bible as represented by the God-man, Jesus. This prompted me to think about the "gods" today's atheists don't believe in.

The kindly grandfather god. Picture a white-bearded old gentleman with a warm smile rocking on some heavenly porch. He looks down on us with unconditional approval, perhaps shaking his head forlornly when we mess things up badly.

The angry stepfather god. This stern visage glares at our every move. He waits for the moment he can whip us mercilessly for any misdeed he chooses. He lives to whip us; he enjoys whipping us. Nothing is ever good enough for this perfectionist.

The absent landlord god. There is no clear picture of this deity, for he is not around. He put the universe together quite some time ago and took off for parts unknown. He may have left some rules behind, but one need not be too concerned about them in his absence.

The capricious mythological god. Imagine Zeus casting thunderbolts from high on Mount Olympus. If he doesn't like your hair style today, he will drive the humidity into triple digits to destroy it. If you aren't prepared for a quiz, this will be the day he prompts your teacher to pop one on you.

The eastern mystic god-is-everything god. This unknowable universal life force mysteriously influences everything and everyone, assigning consequences to the actions of all creatures. No personal attributes can be described because there is no person.

The vending machine god. This is the god of the gift. Make the correct prayer, say the proper chant, complete the required task and this cosmic Santa will slide everything you need down your chimney. Need to know the future; drop your token and wait for your own personal palm reading.

I don't believe in these gods either. The God I believe in is the God-with-skin-on, Jesus of Nazareth. This God forswore his divine prerogatives for one lifetime in order to walk about dusty Palestine and demonstrate who God really is. This God, in true iconoclastic fashion, demolished the misguided notions and practices of the religious leaders of his day. (Read any one of the Gospels for a blow by blow report; start with John if you are unfamiliar.) For three years he said if you would see the Father, look at me. Then, after the religio-political institutions put him to death, he was brought back to life to validate all he had spoken. Scores of once atheists have set out to prove this God false, their conversions bearing witness to the power of the One who is Truth. I too believe in this God.

Testing the Tests

Someone has said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting to get different results. If that's true, then the folks in Washington's education meddling department must be insane. The No Child Left Behind act (NCLB, pronounced Nickelby) was a dismal failure by the estimate of every teacher I know. Yet now, according to the Washington Post, Arne Duncan, Obama's hand-picked education guru, is retreading NCLB and pushing it on schools as the Race to the Top.

Elements of the new program certainly have merit, but then so did NCLB on paper. An effort to help students across the USA master basic academic skills is laudable. Making schools and teachers accountable for the scholastic performance of their young charges sounds like a good idea. The problem with both NCLB and Race to the Top is the instrument used to measure skills and rate performance. Just as it is true that he who makes the rules controls the game, so also he who designs the evaluation describes success.

Neither Kennedy's NCLB nor Duncan's Race to the Top recognize the wide cultural diversity present in today's public schools. Each of these programs uses testing procedures and materials which discriminate against large portions of the population. One need not be an expert in Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory to understand that people have different learning styles and strengths. Add to this the differences between a child from the inner city, a farm, a native American reservation, a metropolitan street and a suburban neighborhood and you may begin to understand why no one test can measure all children accurately.

Two examples of this cultural disconnect will illustrate my point. Inner city children from a background of poverty were asked to write whether they would rather stay at an ice hotel or a regular hotel. Even I had to have the concept of an ice hotel explained (it refers to a hotel constructed entirely of ice.) Few of these children have been to any hotel, let alone something as esoteric as an ice hotel. The same test asked for the ten year olds' opinion of Michigan's beverage container law. Many were unsure what a beverage is; few had an opinion of the law since they didn't understand it was about the return for deposit concept. Under the testing rules, questions from students cannot be answered, so if they don't understand the question, they are not likely to provide a worthy answer.

Another aspect of the testing regime which teachers dislike is the pressure to "teach for the test." Because the test scores effect the amount of funding available to the school, administrators are draconian in their demands of teachers. In the weeks preceding the test, no deviation from preparation is allowed. Teachers feel corralled into dry, unimaginative lessons; the students likewise become quickly bored. One imagines the level of true, worthwhile learning is quite low.

Jay Matthews suggests a solution in his April 25 blog. Matthews notes that the ground shaking book by Doug Lemov is having seismic effects on young teachers. It may sound simplistic, but getting back to the basics may be the best solution to our education woes. As Matthews points out, many young teachers are frustrated by the tried and failed theories of the entrenched leadership. If you haven't seen the movie, Freedom Writers, watch it for an entertaining and enlightening example of this phenomenon. Erin Gruwell, the teacher on whom the movie is based, has continued to inspire students at Wilson High. Her shocking method: treating the students as responsible individuals and providing them with basic skills to cope with a world gone berserk.

What can we do? How about bringing the control of our schools back to the most directly affected people, the parents and local educators who have the greatest stake in the success of the enterprise? How about we send people to Washington who will dismantle the misguided department of meddleducation? We have that choice in the 2nd District in Michigan: Bill Cooper. As concerned parents, we can also become more involved in our childrens' education: attend parent-teacher meetings, PTO, board of education sessions and, most important, teach our own what it means to be responsible, literate citizens in a free republic. After teaching them about God, there is no higher calling.

Yancey on the Two Kingdoms

I will not often cede this space almost entirely to another voice, but the observations by Philip Yancey I share today so closely mirror my own thoughts and experience, that I could not say it better (despite the whispers of Narcissus in my ear.) The following excerpt is from the last chapter of The Jesus I Never Knew.

"Clearly, the kingdom of God operates by a set of rules different from any earthly kingdom's. God's kingdom has no geographical borders, no capital city, no parliament building, no royal trappings that you can see. Its followers live right among their enemies, not separated from them by a border fence or wall. It lives, and grows, on the inside of human beings.

"Those of us who follow Jesus thus possess a kind of dual citizenship. We live in an external kingdom of family and cities and nationhood, while at the same time belonging to the kingdom of God.... We have seen vivid demonstrations of the clash of kingdoms in our own time-- Albania, the U.S.S.R., China.... Yet despite this government oppression, a spiritual revival broke out [in China] that could well be the largest in the history of the church.

"In fact, problems seem to arise when the church becomes too external, and gets too cozy with government... I grew up in a church that proudly displayed the "Christian flag" next to the Stars and Stripes, and we would pledge allegiance to both. People would apply to the United States passages from the Old Testament that were obviously intended for a time when God worked through a visible kingdom on earth, the nation of Israel. For example, I often heard this verse quoted as a formula for national revival: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' The principle may apply in a general way, of course, but the specific promise was given as part of God's covenant relationship with the ancient Hebrews... Have we any reason to assume God has a similar covenant with the U.S.?

"Indeed, have we any indication that God now judges the U.S. or any other country as a national entity? [Italics Yancey's] As I now reflect on Jesus' stories of the kingdom, I sense that much uneasiness among Christians today stems from a confusion of the two kingdoms, visible and invisible. Each time an election rolls around, Christians debate whether this or that candidate is 'God's man for the White House....' Nowadays, as the U.S. grows increasingly secularized, it appears that church and state are heading in different directions. The more I understand Jesus' message of the kingdom of God, the less alarm I feel over that trend.

"Ironically, if the United States is truly sliding down a slippery moral slope, that may better allow the church... to 'set up a new sign... which is full of promise' [quoting Karl Barth.] I would prefer, I must admit, to live in a country where the majority of people follow the Ten Commandments, act with civility toward each other, and bow their heads once a day for a bland, nonpartisan prayer. I feel a certain nostalgia for the social climate of the 1950's in which I grew up. But if that environment does not return, I will not lose any sleep. As America slides, I will work and pray for the kingdom of God to advance. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church, the contemporary political scene hardly offers much threat."

None As Blind As

I used to think, as many teach, that one of the strongest arguments for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the dramatic change and conviction in the early disciples. It made sense to me that no one would stake his or her life on a known lie. Had those early disciples thought that Jesus was still in the grave, they would have faded into history like so many other followers of false messiahs. It only recently occurred to me that this opinion must ignore the fact that Mohammed's followers have down through the centuries made the same costly commitment. As have the disciples of Joseph Smith, Jim Jones or David Koresh and many others.

Today, Barak Obama seems to be ignoring the implications of this radical type of faith. It is not surprising since he shows no signs of having any such faith personally. Neither he nor his supporters apparently acknowledge the existence and the power of life-altering political views. Obama's recent declaration that we won't use nuclear weapons against an enemy if they attack us with other than nuclear weapons reveals this weakness. This parallels earlier statements regarding the use of certain types of interrogation techniques. He seems to operate under the assumption that if we are nice to them, our enemies will be nice to us. Similarly, the New York Times and other media outlets have divulged information critical to our national security which they seem to think demonstrates a spirit of journalistic fairness.

Now, I am not a warmonger. I do not wish to see Muslims dead because they follow Mohamed. I firmly believe that in this country, citizens must be free to practice whatever religion does not restrict the rights of other citizens. This is the only path I know that will ensure that I may hold my Christian faith freely. Yet as all rights are limited by the coexistent rights of other citizens, no religion which denies "unbelievers" equal rights can be tolerated. This is what Obama and his administration have forgotten. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, were radically unconcerned that they were depriving thousands of Americans the right to live as they chose.

In the same way that the appeasers of the 1930's allowed Adolf Hitler to annex more and more of Europe, Obama and the liberals across the globe are now ceding ever larger physical and moral territory to the radical Muslim agenda. These are not people with whom we can coexist. They seek our destruction unless we convert to their way of thinking and believing. While the economic policies of the Obama administration are obaminable [sic,] his foreign policy is so naive as to be dangerous. He doesn't realize that the people he is trying to be nice to will murder him at the first opportunity. He has no real concept of the power of religious belief that is radical.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non of Christianity: without it, there is no religion to believe in. But this reality rests on a mundane, elementary, level. As Paul says, our faith is empty without confidence in the resurrection (1Corinthians 15:14.) This intellectual basis for faith is less exciting than the experiential, feeling based commitment; in the end though, it is far more substantial. The Muslim homicide bomber believes he is earning himself a heavenly harem based on the words of a long dead prophet. I believe when I die, I will be welcomed into paradise by the living Lord who purchased my entry with his own life, then rose from the grave to seal the deal. Both paths require faith and commitment; the difference is the person in whom we each place our faith. The object of my faith is alive; no one has ever claimed that for the prophet Mohamed.

The Curtain, Please

I sometimes wonder if I am becoming paranoid in my old age. Then a voice says, "It's not paranoia if you really are being targeted." Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just cynicism. The point is that I am starting to look for ulterior motives in everything. It's possible that I have begun to see my own heart clearly, and I realize that there are no truly pure motives there either. But enough psychobabble; here is the topic for today. When something doesn't make sense, look for hidden reasons.

Case number one: the group formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) was loudly championing Obama's health care reform efforts. This made no sense to me since there was so much for senior citizens not to like about the Democrats' plan. Reduced services, increased premium costs, death panels (so-called,) and more elements made the reform bill onerous to most savvy seniors. I know that AARP lobbying usually tracks with the Democrat issues and candidates, but this one seemed too contrary to the stated purpose of the organization.

In a World Net Daily article , Chelsea Schilling pulls back the curtain and reveals the wizard behind all the smoke and mirrors. According to Schilling's investigation, AARP collected $249 million in membership dues last year (2008.) In that same period, the organization received $773 million from royalties and advertising associated with the "Medigap" insurance policies it recommends to its members. In other words, over seventy percent of their 2008 revenue came from insurance companies. Confused? Aren't insurance companies at odds with Obama over health care reform? Maybe, but when the dust settles, insurance companies will be charging even more for their "Medigap" products because of the way the reform bill is structured. Higher premiums means more royalty dollars to AARP. Make sense now?

(Time out for a brief testimonial: I have discovered an alternative to AARP which seems to be more to my liking. Check it out at www.amac.us if you are interested.)

The way the Democrats abandoned the democratic process to push health care down the throats of their constituents also puzzles me. I used to think, in a mildly cynical way, that all any politician cared about was getting re-elected. One of the most amazing aspects of the health care reform debacle we just witnessed was the way Nance Pelosi strong-armed reluctant members of her party to vote for the bill even though it was political suicide. An LA Times article details the incredible position shifts that were forced upon the Speaker's own principles (if that word applies) and those of her colleagues. No constituency, no cause was safe from "Mean Machine 1," as her late night battle jersey named her.

Unfortunately I can not take you to the Emerald City and pull back the curtain on this one. I have a suspicion about what forces pull the levers in Washington these days, but no real proof. Either through naivete or giant hubris, Barak Obama has chosen to step out from behind the curtain just enough to expose at least the tip of the ideological iceberg that is floating down the Potomac. I must quickly admit that the impending disaster didn't begin when Obama took office. Sadly, George W. Bush was letting some bergy bits bang into the hull of the ship of state before he left (think bailouts and stimulus.)

So in my metaphor, Obama and his merry crew of socialists are sailing purposely into the path of the enormous growler. (Yes, Virginia, they are socialists -- and communists; read the resumes of those the president has gathered to himself.) They have taken over the US auto industry and health care. Steel, coal and petroleum were long ago hobbled by government meddling; a quick survey of recent history reveals several overt statements by Democrat leaders indicating a desire to "nationalize" these industries. Even agribusiness is becoming a government run sideshow with all the ill conceived subsidies and ridiculous mandates (ie. ethanol.)

I may be too trusting, too optimistic, but I hope that Michigan candidates like Bill Cooper and Pete Hoekstra can get elected and become a counterbalance to the leftward swing we are seeing. I hear hopeful honesty in national voices like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Tom Tancredo and many others. I hope there are enough people dissatisfied with the wizard who has been revealed to vote him back to Kansas (or Illinois.) I trust my Oz metaphor is near to the truth. I sometimes think, however, that this is more like Alice's tumble down a rabbit hole. If we have descended into absurdity, there is no hope.