Misunderestimated Consequences

It is not unusual for a person to say something that he will one day regret. We have cute ways of referring to the phenomenon. We talk about putting a foot in the mouth; we call it a slip of the tongue; we say the mouth started running before the brain was in gear. Politicians seem especially prone to this behavior. Supporters groan and detractors laugh at Joe Biden's frequent gaffes. It is hard to forget W's "misunderestimate," or Dan Quayle's trouble with potatoes (or is it potatos.)

There are times though, when a misspoken word seems to have been the product of wrong thinking. Sometimes entire strategies are built upon sands of shifting thought. George H. W. Bush could have saved himself much embarrassment had he done more thinking before promising, "No new taxes; read my lips." It doesn't take political genius to realize that absolutes are very difficult to deliver. Some politicians get so carried away by their own rhetoric that they promise to do the supernatural, such as lowering the sea level. Apparently there has been a decline of one quarter inch since Obama took over, but I doubt we can credit this to his presidency.

In the last couple weeks, candidates Perry and Gingrich have blasted Romney for his activities at Bain Capital, a private equity firm at which he worked. This line of attack seems ill advised to say the least. One of the most fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats these days is their policy position vis a vis the free market capitalist system of economics. Conservatives have historically favored less government control over markets and increased freedom for individuals and corporations to make their own way. By contrast, today's progressive politicians are leaning toward a European style socialist model of a state controlled economy. In short, conservatives favor equal opportunity for individuals, while progressives prefer government enforced equal outcomes.

I know too well how easy it is to get caught up in the moment and say something without properly thinking of the consequences. Some years ago I made a judgmental remark to my son about his behavior (poorly choosing some crude language to boot,) and our relationship has never been the same since. My wife, whose memory is better than mine, could detail a regrettably long list of things I have said in haste or at least without thought. We are probably all guilty of this to some degree.

The difference with public figures is the scope of the consequences of ill-advised remarks. Now is not the time for Republicans to be siding with the Occupy movement and the Democrat party by feeding the fires of class envy. James says the tongue is a fire which sets our whole lives aflame. During this nomination process, candidates must be careful not to set the ship afire while vying for a chance to take control of the helm. If the result of that tactic ruins our chances of regaining the White House in November, I fear none of us will be laughing at the mistake.

Feeling Bad About Feeling Good

In his World Magazine column this week Cal Thomas referenced a quote by Margaret Thatcher, one of the premier political figures of her generation. She said, "One of the great problems of our age is that we're governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas." Thomas was criticizing the Obama administration's handling of Iran specifically, and the spread of radical Islam in general. The mood in DC is not surprising; candidate Obama pledged to talk with Iran in hopes of reaching some compromise.

Some people cling to the idea that one can compromise with a regime that has sworn to anihilate anyone who opposes their radical brand of Islam. The idea seems to be that we can make them like us just enough to stop threatening to kill us all and destroy our culture. Whether from naivete or ignorance, these appeasers think that generating positive feelings among world powers will bring peace. Because they discount the influence of religion in their own lives, they are blinded to the elemental role it plays in Islamic politics.

The plaintive cry of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along," echoes through the halls of our society. It is evident in the current administration's policies toward Islamic regimes. The so-called political correctness movement seeks to remove any sort of critical appraisal from public discourse. The feel-good strategies endorsed by progressive educators have engendered the dumbing down of school curricula to the ridiculous point where some high school graduates are functionally illiterate. And yes, it has even infected our churches where immensely popular preachers like Rob Bell peddle a gospel without thorns, a feel-good (per)version of the good news that really is too good to be true. But it doesn't offend people, and that seems to be the prime directive in society today.

Margaret Thatcher's insight brings a biblical perspective to this issue. Jesus was highly incorrect politically speaking; his message did not seek the lowest common denominator, but challenged listeners to strive for perfection. His message was all about thoughts and ideas.  We can only accomplish those things which are asked of us when we follow Jesus' recommendation: "If you remain in me and my words remain in you," that is to say, when we concentrate on the correct thoughts and ideas.

The Christian faith is not blind adherence to incomprehensible principles; true biblical faith is founded on the Word, the thoughts and ideas presented by the teachings of Scripture and demonstrated by the Living Word, Jesus Christ. Credit must be given to the radical Islamic commitment to their holy scriptures. They are more than willing to die for their beliefs. Would that more Christians were willing to simply live for their beliefs. Pardon me if that makes you feel bad.

Farewell Rob Bell

Local news reported this week the departure of Rob Bell from the Mars Hill church he started in Grandville twelve years ago. According to the report, many of the congregants wept as they heard the announcement. This is not unusual as popular pastors often elicit emotional responses upon such tidings. The Apostle Paul is said to have had the same response when he told the Ephesian church which he founded that he was going to Jerusalem.

The news article I read identified Bell as the author of Love Wins, "a controversial book about hell." (For my analysis of the book, see the archives of this blog.) His website lists four other books he has penned, but undoubtedly, Love Wins created the biggest stir among evangelicals, so it is natural that the secular press would focus on it. I was interested to note that Bell's future plans involve a move to Los Angeles where he plans to "work on a TV drama based loosely on his life," as well as continuing to write and speak around the country.

Since reading that report I have tried to imagine the Apostle Paul jetting off to do anything autobiographical. Other than a few verses in an epistle, Paul said almost nothing about himself in any of his writings we have record of. The Apostle went to Jerusalem with a benevolent offering for hungry Christians there. Because the temple was still operating and the Jews still persecuted followers of Jesus, Paul knew he might be in danger; a prophet had said as much. Paul went because he knew the call of God directed him there.

I cannot say that Rob Bell is not being similarly called to Los Angeles. Perhaps the news report was unfair to make it sound as if Bell's call was to propagate more about Bell. Perhaps it is coincidence that the same week I read of Bell's new ministry I also read Francis Chan's relevant comment in his book,  Crazy Love. Chan remarked that someone once complimented him on his excellent presentation. After basking briefly in the glow of the praise, Chan realized that the compliment was for him, not God. He asked himself if that was really the sort of result he wanted; was that the result God wanted.

Is it just me, or does it seem that the church puts too much emphasis on the messenger and too little on the message these days. Whether it's Schuler or Bell or Hybels or even Graham or Moody, I wonder if we are not prone to give too much glory to the man and not nearly enough to the Man they represent. Paul said he had died and Christ lived through him. I hope that is the intended message of the upcoming TV drama about Rob Bell. I hope that is what people say about me.

Friends of Earth

Mark Pillsbury, Editor Cruising World Magazine,

I applaud your efforts to encourage conservation with your new feature "Green Wakes." However I would like to take issue with your introduction of this new effort on two fronts.

First, you bemoan the lack of agreement on whether we have a problem. I assume by this you mean to imply that humans bear responsibility for the increase in global temperatures. There is no scientific consensus supporting that theory. Careful, open-minded investigation reveals that only a tiny minority of the scientists involved in United Nations IPCC climate research believed that human activity is responsible for rising temperatures. Many hundreds of the scientists who participated in the broader research refused to sign the summary report because it indicted human behavior inappropriately.

An elementary historical look at temperature trends in your "endangered" Greenland should make my point. When the Vikings settled there thousands of years ago, they named it Green Land because of its lush vegetation. I seriously doubt that their carbon footprint was responsible for the warm climate. Honest climatologists will report that the earth has been going through cycles of significant temperature change spanning many thousands of years as far back as we can measure. The only people lobbying for drastic changes in human behavior are those duped by disingenuous presentations by the likes of Al Gore, or those who stand to profit from the bandwagon effect such misinformation fosters.

Second, your reference to Mother Earth will be offensive to many of your readers. If you are a follower of the Gaia Hypothesis or some other pagan religion, that is your privilege; you are still free to practice whatever religion you prefer in this country. However, if it is the editorial policy of Cruising World to promote a pagan religion, you will bruise the hearts of many of your readers who remain faithful to the traditional view that earth was created by a Heavenly Father, not evolved by a Mother Earth and ruled by some pagan goddess.

A more inclusive view on your part would be appreciated. Those of us who hold to Biblical truth understand that we humans bear responsibility for maintaining the ecosystems our Father has provided. I am sure that a large percentage of your readers have been taught since childhood that, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," and as such we are called to treat it with respect. Your casual reference to Mother Earth degrades your journalistic integrity by resigning earth's care to pagan sensibilities. If you intend to continue as a secular publication, you should refrain from making religious statements which will alienate a large portion of your readership.

Finally, you are correct to conclude that we must all do our part to conserve and maintain our precious resources. The handle on the ecological system of which climate is a part lies far beyond the reach of any one person or group. Thank you for encouraging your readers to take what initiative they can. Please refrain in future from injecting your misguided scientific opinions and pagan religious views into an otherwise laudable effort.

A Resolution Worth Keeping

For my first entry this year I am going to borrow heavily from Cornelius Plantinga Jr. As I began reading The Way It's NOT Supposed to Be, I found the first five chapters unremarkable. Then with the chapter titled "Sin and Folly" I saw the genius of Dr. Plantinga once more revealed as his survey tackles the concept of folly. He correctly assumes that to understand what folly is we must understand its opposite: wisdom.

In Dr. Plantinga's words, "To be wise is to know and affirm reality, to discern it, and then to speak and act accordingly. The wise accommodate themselves to reality. [author's italics] They go with the flow. They tear along the dotted line. They attempt their harvests in season. Ordinary people proceed with such a program no matter whether they have derived their wisdom from Scripture or from more general revelation. From Proverbs or from their grandmother, the wise eventually learn and then accommodate themselves to such truths as the following:

• The more you talk the less people listen
• If your word is no good, people will not trust you, and it is then useless to protest this fact.
• Trying to cure distress with the same thing that caused it only makes matters worse.
• If you refuse to work hard and take pains, you are unlikely to do much of any consequence.
• Boasting of your accomplishments does not make people admire them. Boasting is vain in both senses of the word.
• Envy of fat cats does not make them slimmer and in the end will rot your bones.
• If you scratch certain itches, they just itch more.
• Many valuable things, including happiness and deep sleep, come to us only if we do not try hard for them."

If I could have one wish for the people I love, if I could suggest one resolution to take seriously to heart this year it would be this: resolve to live wisely in 2012. Plantinga admits that wisdom is both a gift from God and something that we are challenged to seek as precious treasure. My resolution is to take what measure I have been granted and use it to multiply my store. However, as I read the last item on Plantinga's list above, I discover another of the paradoxes of Christian living. Here is wisdom, "What do you have that you have not received?"