A Law of Medes and Persians?

Senator Robert Taft was a unique politician. Although a Republican—and a formidable political opponent of President Harry S. Truman—he wasn’t a cookie-cutter party clone; indeed, he had some serious disagreements with some of his own party members. If his principles were at stake, he chose principle over party.

In Profiles of Courage, John F. Kennedy said of Taft,

“Those who were shocked at these apparent departures from his traditional position did not comprehend that Taft’s conservatism contained a strong strain of pragmatism, which caused him to support intensive Federal activity in those areas that he believed not adequately served by the private enterprise system. Taft did not believe that this was inconsistent with the conservative doctrine; conservatism in his opinion was not irresponsibility. Thus he gave new dimensions to the conservative philosophy: he stuck to that faith when it reached its lowest depth of prestige and power and led it back to the level of responsibility and respectability.”[1]

What a concept! A politician whose principles embraced human need. I suspect he believed the oft-quoted axiom, “That government is best that governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”[2] In the simple eloquence of the sentence, I agree; however, I suspect few people recall, if they ever acknowledged, that last part: “because its people discipline themselves.”

Henry David Thoreau took the phrase further in “Civil Disobedience:”
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, – ‘That government is best which governs not at all.’” However, Thoreau didn’t advocate his dictum as a rigid “law of Medes and Persians.” He qualified it thus: “…and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.”[3] (Italics mine)

In my lifetime the Medes and Persians have infiltrated America’s political right and are gaining increasing influence, plowing ahead without any semblance of Senator Robert Taft’s pragmatism. Today’s right would jerk the rug out from all who are dependent upon government relief, without regard to circumstance or to the validity of need. Indeed, the hell-bent drive to remove government pays scarce attention to any human vulnerability—or even worse, dismisses it carte blanche as the result of laziness and poor decisions, and thus unworthy of assistance. (“Let ‘em eat cake.”) To say the political right has prioritized principle over human need would be a gross understatement.

It seems obvious to me that the primary focus of the current Republican party is to remove all boundaries and limitations from the corporate world and to allow American economy to free-fall into abject oligarchy. In doing so, they totally disregard the second part of their beloved maxim, namely, “…because its people discipline themselves.” There is no indication that corporate American has any interest, intention, or ability to discipline itself. But, the political right expects the poor to discipline themselves.

I appreciate the few Republican Senators and Representatives who have refused to accept the ring through their nose, and who demonstrate some degree of free-thinking ability; but, alas, they are a shrinking breed.

What bothers me most about the sell-out to oligarchy is that some of its most visible and verbal spokespersons are Bible-thumping self-proclaimed evangelicals. I emphasize the term, “self-proclaimed,” because their behavior doesn’t align with the “evangel” (good news) from which the term originates.

Where does their evangelical oligarchy reflect, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me”? (Matthew 25:35-36 NRSV)

Where does it reflect, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21 NRSV)

Where does it reflect,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
        to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
    and recovery of sight to the blind,
        to let the oppressed go free,
¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

The cliché cop-out is “But Jesus was addressing individuals, not the government. Let the individual philanthropists and the churches and the non-profits take care of that. Leave the government out of it.” (Meanwhile, let the government bail out the largest and wealthiest corporations in the world. You see, they want to be very selective about what areas the government should “govern least.”)

The cop-out misses a very important reality: philanthropists, churches and non-profits already are operating pretty much at full capacity, and their efforts and resources don’t begin to touch the enormity of need. Indeed, churches are in serious decline.

Which brings me back to John F. Kennedy’s comment about Senator Robert Taft, namely, that he believed in “intensive Federal activity in those areas that he believed not adequately served by the private enterprise system.”

I agree: “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.” I agree: the current system of government assistance tends to foster dependence and parasitic abuse (although such examples are relatively rare). So, change the system to foster growth toward independence! It’s been done before—briefly! THEN let the government “govern least.” Such a radical suggestion is beyond the capacity of today’s blog. But stay tuned. There’ll be more.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: HARPERPERENNIAL MODERNCLASSICS,1956) p. 195.

[2] The quote is most frequently credited to Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience; however, it appears earlier in “United States Magazine and Democratic Review,” founded in 1837 by John O’Sullivan.

[3] Who Said "The Best Government Is That Which Governs Least"? - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

A Cult of Denial

 

Beyond COVID-19 (as if that weren’t bad enough!), we’re enduring a pandemic of denial. I have no corroborating data, and my sources are limited to social media, personal conversations, online or radio/TV sources, and the op-ed pages of a few printed sources. Nevertheless, within that limited scope, the denial pandemic is contained almost exclusively to the right of socio/political/economic center, and the farther right one goes, the more widespread is the pandemic.

Within my limited field of observation, the infecting virus seems to be “thuh guv-uh-mint.” If any manifestation of government is related in any way to any issue, there will be opposition and denial from the right of center. It makes no difference whether the issue is beneficial or destructive. If government is involved, it will be rejected.

I seriously wonder, had the government issued a prohibition against wearing masks, would we have seen . . . Oh, never mind.

An article in a recent edition of the Washington Post began,

“Americans heard the pleas to stay home. They were told what would happen if they didn’t. Still, millions traveled and gathered during the Thanksgiving holiday, either doubting the warnings or deciding they would take their chances. Now, like any partygoer waking from a raucous weekend — feeling a bit hung over and perhaps a tinge of regret — the nation is about to face the consequences of its behavior and will need to quickly apply the lessons before heading into the doubleheader of Christmas and New Year’s.”[1]

Denial. It’s too early to determine the article’s accuracy; however, evidence from the overwhelming majority of leading medical scientists has been confirmed many times over since the pandemic began. Still, the cult of denial asserts its doctrine of liberal conspiracies, saying “leftists” are using the pandemic to seize power and to pad the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.

Denial. Then there’s right-wing denial of the recent election’s validity. A question occurs to me: If the Democrats were going to “rig” the election, don’t you think they’d want to rig the senatorial votes, too?

The Post article concludes:

“Public health messaging needs to be retooled, as whole swaths of the country are simply tuning out the warnings from officials and experts.

“We have to rethink how we’re communicating. Blaming people, yelling at them, stigmatizing them — clearly it’s not working,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “We have to show compassion and empathy. Understand where people are coming from and persuade them to do otherwise.”[2]

Improved communication always is a valid goal; moreover, I like the way the quoted virologist takes responsibility for trying to resolve the obvious impasse, rather than simply blaming the denying public. It's a good model for all of us! Still, if communication is to be dialogical, both sides must decide to listen—LISTEN—as well as to articulate their points. When minds are made up, …you know the rejoinder: “don’t confuse me with facts.”

And already, before a vaccine is ready to be dispensed, the deniers are up in arms. The anti-vaxxer cult published a recent meme on Facebook saying, “We have the flu vaccine; but we still have flu.” The implication is clear: it’s the antivaxxer theme song.

Yes, we still have flu. It’s a viral infection that needs annual vaccination because it mutates. The same likely will be true regarding the coronavirus. Moreover, only 40% of Americans utilize the influenza vaccine on a yearly basis,[3] thus diluting the vaccine’s overall effectiveness.

Furthermore, antivaxxer logic loses credibility totally when one considers vaccines for smallpox, diphtheria, polio, and other historic pandemics.

Moving on: consider the rampant denial of racism. Within my small circle of acquaintances, those who deny racism seem to take every comment about racism as a direct accusation that they, personally, are racist.

Hand-in-hand with the denial of racism is the denial of “white privilege.” White privilege does not imply that whites don’t encounter difficulties; but white people’s difficulties do not result directly from their skin color. It simply is not enough to be non-racist. We need to move toward a cultural climate of anti-racism.

The cult of denial is just one of many clearly identifiable characteristics of the deeply entrenched tribalism that divides our nation into antagonistic factions. The hostilities are accelerating, and I fear armed confrontation is inevitable unless the trend can be reversed.

The reversal of national antagonism depends upon the willingness of all parties to accept their human limitations, including the possibility that their ideologies are not infallible. At best, human ideologies represent partial truth. I repeat here my belief in absolute truth, although I believe it is humanly impossible to comprehend truth absolutely. Truth always is strained through the filters of human perception and circumstance. I refer to St. Paul: “…For now we see in a mirror, dimly…” (I Corinthians 13:12 NRSV). At best, our comprehension of truth is incomplete.

Every position along the left/right socio/political spectrum represents a relative imbalance vis-à-vis the greatest good to the greatest number of people, and about the needs of society versus the needs of the individual.

The Church is in the season of Advent, and I am struck by the parallels of human brokenness addressed by the Hebrew prophets eight centuries before Christ compared to the latest headline of any current newspaper. The words of the ancient trumpets of God remain as valid today as they were 2,800 years ago. The cynical Preacher was right: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NRSV)

I see reality through the lens of a Christian pastor; nevertheless, virtually every major religious faith upholds similar ideals, and the truth, as I see it, is that human brokenness has not yet been surrendered to those universal truths that call us to peace and justice and love.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Why health officials are terrified of a pandemic Christmas (msn.com)

[2] Ibid.

[3] How many Americans get flu shots? - USAFacts [42.2% in 2016. My figure above is rounded off.]

Post-Election Reflections

 

Living in a Post-Election World; Leading in a Country Divided

Reflections on an Online Seminar sponsored by Christian Theological Seminary[1]

The Gospel of Mark begins with John the Baptist in the wilderness “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (1:4 NRSV). What strikes me about John the Baptist—is that he was nowhere near a church. And those who insisted on staying inside the church never heard his message—they NEVER got it!

Why the wilderness? because, in the wilderness, there’s only God; there’s no political system, no government, no economic system, no military or police system, no education system, no science, no social security, no insurance, no pensions, no locked doors…

I suspect every one of us has some idea where our own wilderness lies—and we all have long lists of good reasons we should not go there. 

And then, a pandemic hits.

And suddenly—we didn’t choose this; we didn’t plan this—we all are in the wilderness. Our political life is in chaos, our nation is a house divided, and there’s a pandemic that has become politicized and, in some cases, weaponized.

And over the past two weeks our election process disrupted what little was left of “normal” for us. Antagonistic lines were drawn in the sand many years ago, and the animosity and belligerence exchanged across those lines has exploded across social media, increasing daily in intensity.

So, how do Americans respond? And, in particular, how do people of faith respond? I am a Christian, and although I have respect for many other faith communities, I will not attempt to speak for any but my own.

First, we grieve. Grief is not just sadness; although, sadness is an obvious part of grief. Grief is a process that moves through stages toward healing. There is no logical or “normal” order to the stages of grief, even though they are relatively well-defined and observable. They don’t even have the decency to come at us one-at-a-time. And there’s no guarantee that an apparently resolved stage won’t reoccur.

Anger is one of the most disruptive stages of grief. Combined with other stages, its impact is intensified. A sense of numbness reduces one’s capacity for clarity of thought, and shock and denial redirect (often misdirecting) one’s energy and motivation. Other typical stages of grief include loneliness and even clinical depression.

My point is that grief is a normal response to any sense of significant loss, including the loss of dignity, sense of direction, or hope, and that grief is not a good platform from which to make significant decisions or to take significant action. It’s a part of our wilderness.

Second, but related to grief is the anxiety we experience in face of our revealed vulnerability. A part of our culture denies vulnerability as anything other than the result of laziness or poor decisions. Others may recognize the reality of personal and/or social vulnerability, but never expect to experience it.

Even with infections and deaths spiraling out of control, many continue to deny the seriousness of the current pandemic, and their obstinate refusal to take precautions becomes a major factor in our growing vulnerability, as well as the anxiety concerning said vulnerability.

I confess to no small degree of anger at the insensitivity and the willingness of some to use the health and life of my family and loved ones as gambling stakes in betting that their anti-science dismissal of the corona virus is right, regardless of the preponderance of scientific and medical evidence to the contrary--including over 235,000 related deaths, many of which could have been prevented.

And so, here we are in the wilderness.

And yet, as God’s people—as people of faith—this is not a strange place. We’ve been here before; we’ve done this before. Turn to Scripture stories of how the people of God were strengthened and led by God. Realize we are children of God, and not only have we done this before—God has done this before.

God is still our refuge and our strength, and this is a time, and these are conditions for us to put our faith into action:

a.                   …to look to value a person, rather than to denounce his or her position,

b.                  …to redirect our energies intentionally away from division. and

c.                   …for religious leaders to model an ability to work together, even across our differences!

Faith communities cannot impact the division until they come together, themselves. In a community I served some years ago there was intense racial friction. Whites were a minority, but controlled everything. The city was zoned so that there were four white and four black city councilmen. The mayor always was white. Every vote was 4 – 4, with the mayor casting the deciding vote. Local chapters of three nationally prominent ethnic gangs engaged in their turf wars. The community was wired for conflict.

There was an incident that threatened to ignite the volatile environment, and a weekly lectionary study group (all white clergy) issued a call for all clergy in the city to gather.

About 75 ministers, equally divided by ethnicity, showed up. After about an hour of polite-but-tense (and virtually impotent) conversation, one of the black ministers stood and said, “In this room I see black ministers who represent the perspective of Dr. Martin Luther King, and ministers who represent the perspective of Malcom X, and ministers who represent the perspective of the Black Panthers. How can we hope to unite across ethnic lines when we in the black community can’t even unite, ourselves?”

So, I repeat: “Faith communities cannot impact the division until they come together, themselves.” One way we can consider that is by developing an ability to communicate faith concepts without using faith language. Instead of demanding that the public understand our faith jargon, we could develop, instead, the ability, through listening, to communicate our message in the public’s language.

And finally, there is that stereotypical scapegoat: “the media.” There is a common, uncritical (let’s even say oblivious and irresponsible) diatribe that suggests “the media” is at the root of all our nation’s problems. The judgment is that “the media” forms our thoughts and opinions, as if we aren’t fully capable of considering evidence and coming to our own conclusions.

“The media” prints and broadcasts what its market will buy. Period. They reflect, rather than form, the values and ideologies of specific American markets. FOX publishes what a very conservative market will buy, while MSNBC (possible the ideological opposite of FOX) publishes what its market will buy. In all cases, the opinions, biases and ideologies of the market form the content of media publications, rather than the media forming the public’s ideology.

Of particular blameworthiness is social media: Facebook, Twitter, etc. These social media form a barometer—a dipstick—by which to measure to pulse and biases of America. And it’s all there in its raw ugliness. But it’s not the social media that is at fault! It is but the medium through which the American public vents its vile and hatred.

DON’T BLAME “THE MEDIA”!

But people of faith are called to a higher level of response. From the Christian perspective, the valid faith response to the allegation that social media (or “the media” in general) is forming our values is two-fold:

(1) we are totally responsible for our own response! Hatred and divisiveness happens only if we allow it. We are not obligated to respond in kind!

(2) self-knowledge is crucial. The issue is simple: who, or what, is the model by which we form our values and our character? Are we limited by the narrowly (and usually erroneously) defined categories that are flung around carelessly on social media? Or are we truly free to choose our own model? Are we responsible enough to study deeply into the roots and origins of the models we choose?

The voice of John the Baptist calls us to turn from uncritical acceptance of social values and character, and to choose responsibly. For me, my conscious choice is the life and teachings and sacrificial obedience of Jesus of Nazareth. My personal spiritual journey through these anxious and uncertain times is guided by this one vision:

“Day by day, Oh, dear Lord, these things I pray:

To see Thee more clearly,

Love Thee more dearly,

Follow Thee more nearly,

Day by day.”[2]

That’s the way it looks through the “Flawed Glass” that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] On November 5, Seminary President David Mellott moderated an online gathering of local faith leaders from different religious traditions. Recording available at https://www.cts.edu/cts-responds-to-anxious-and-uncertain-times/. These are my thoughts and reflections related to that event.  

[2] From the musical, “Godspell”, by Stephen Schwartz, book by John-Michael Tebelak. 1970.

And the World Will Be as One (John Lennon)

 Remember that Coca Cola commercial from a few years ago: “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony”? Remember the Beatles’ song, “Imagine all the people Livin' life in peace…”?

Do you find it a bit strange that the voices most frequently heard proclaiming that message of peace and unity come from the secular world: a TV commercial; a rock song?

Meanwhile, back at the church… Rather than uniting around our faith in Jesus, the entire history of the church is a referendum on division. There are more than 200 Christian denominations in the United States, not to mention all the independent and entrepreneurial Christian bodies—each pointing out the errors in all the others. And more and more of the spiritually hungry public is disillusioned and wants no part of it.

About 200 years ago, a father and son, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, both ordained ministers, also had had enough. It was never their intention to begin yet another Christian denomination. They dreamed of a society in which all Christians could unite around a common, simple faith in Jesus. Their dream never materialized; indeed, their movement now comprises three separate denominations manifesting the same dissensions and hostility as the whole of Christendom. We continue to crucify Christ.

And yet, the dream lives on. Sunday is World Communion Sunday. The tradition was begun in 1933 by Hugh Thomson Kerr who ministered in the Shadyside Presbyterian Church in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Its purpose was to reconcile dissenting congregations in that area.

Christian unity has been avoided, especially by the more conservative denominations, because it is perceived that unity means all churches will be coerced into affirming a single doctrine. But that’s not unity. That’s uniformity, and it doesn’t work any better than division, because a demand for uniformity disallows diversity. And religious faith—and especially Christianity—thrives on diversity.

When we understand that our differences enrich our relationships and our ministry—and our faith; and when we blend our diverse gifts[1] into a harmony of ministries, that’s when those spiritual fruits blossom: “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”[2] And when that’s what we produce—when the world sees those things emerging out of the harmony of our ministries—then the mystery of God’s will[3] is revealed, and God is glorified.

As we come to the Lord’s Table on this World Communion Sunday, may we come in the awareness that Christians express faith in diverse ways. Some disagree. Some are polar opposites of others. We don’t even agree on what happens at the Lord’s Table. But we are united there by our common need for God’s grace. We gather in the awareness that Christians all over this planet will gather at a table and confess, “Jesus is Lord.”

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

 

---

[1] A broad variety of spiritual gifts is mentioned in several New Testament passages, including Romans 12:6-8; I Corinthians 12:8-10; ICorinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11; I Peter 4:11, et. al. In I Corinthians 12:4-7 Paul refers specifically to the variety of gifts, services, activities, and other manifestations of the Spirit that are given by the “same Spirit”, the “same Lord,” and the “same God” (note the early trinitarian formula.)

[2] Galatians 5:22-23

[3] Ephesians 1:9-10

COVID-19: Pespective

In response to those who would discount the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, or who would reduce the human death toll to a statistic or a percentage of the population, and then dismiss them as insignificant, it may be noteworthy to compare coronavirus deaths with deaths from the worst pandemics/epidemics in the United States since the early 20^th century:

Date	Pandemic	# Deaths	Length of Pandemic
1918	H1N1 Spanish Flue	675000	One Year
1921-25	Diphtheria	14000	Average annual deaths over 5 years
1916-55	Polio	1225	Average annual deaths over 40 years
1957	H2N2  Bird Flu	116000	One Year
2009	H1N1 Swine Flu	12469	One Year
1985-2013	HIV/AIDS*	24000	Average annual deaths over 28 years
2020	COVID-19** (Mar-Aug)	182818	six months

 I have no criteria by which to qualify the advance of medical science in the 102 years between 1918 and 2020; nevertheless, whatever evaluative criteria one may find, medical science today has advanced beyond that of any of the previous pandemic or epidemic eras. Yet, even with that advantage, aside from The Spanish Flu in 1918, The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed—in six months—more American lives than the total annual deaths (averaging the annual deaths from pandemics that lasted more than one year) from all the previous epidemics and pandemics combined!

Perspective.

I also am aware that America’s population today is larger than previous eras considered. Still, I am at a total loss to understand the blasé, casual approach of so many conservative Americans to a pandemic whose death toll in six months significantly outstrips the total combined annual deaths of previous major pandemics over the past 100 years! How is that insignificant?

While the research is yet too young to be conclusive, the evidence of long-term impact of the coronavirus increases with every study: heart and lung damage, neurological symptoms, and serious questions about immunity for those who survive. And the virus appears already to have gone through one or more mutations, making it even more difficult to pin down and treat. How is that insignificant?

The most difficult aspect for me to understand is how so many Americans dismiss out of had the recommendations of the leading medical authorities on the planet! [I know: liberal conspiracy. Right?]

Natural medicine has its value. I practice it, but not exclusively. It’s been my observation that not much of life comes to us in singular, neatly wrapped packages; nor does much of life present itself in a binary, right/wrong, black/white, good/evil format. Almost all of life is lived in relation to a balance of factors lived out on an ideological continuum. Life is comprised of the decisions each person makes in relation to the challenges and opportunities presented by that continuum. For the Christian, those decisions are informed by the way a person understands and follows Jesus of Nazareth.

To a significant degree, human problems begin when fallible persons or groups settle at one position along life’s spectrum and declare that position to be absolute and infallible.

“A 5% death rate is acceptable.” REALLY!?!?! There’s absolutely no way of discerning how many of those deaths could have been prevented had Bubba not been so pig-headed about wearing a mask and keeping his distance and avoiding social gatherings. Preventable deaths are not acceptable!

“But my rights…!!!” Baloney! Your rights stop where my nose begins; and you do not have the right to gamble with my health or my family’s health—or maybe even our lives, just to make your statement. And, of course, Bubba seems incapable of considering the possibility that he may be wrong. [see comments above about making one’s position on life’s continuum absolute and infallible.]

Neither 882,818 deaths, nor any percent thereof, can be dismissed flippantly —especially by any who claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and especially when the overwhelming majority of respected medical science has indicated that some of those deaths could have been avoided by compliance to some simple precautions (acknowledging that the precautions can be somewhat incongruent with our comfort zones.)

How many rallies, sporting events, church re-openings, face-to-face on-site school re-openings (including major universities), parties, and concerts have been followed by spikes in the incidence of infection? How is that insignificant?

From Bubba to the White House, a major subset of the American population has never taken the pandemic seriously, and continues to refuse to follow the simple guidelines established by medical science, in effect dismissing medical science’s virtual elimination of smallpox, polio, and other pandemics as a liberal conspiracy.

And as a result, America once again is #1! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

That’s the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

____________________

*The HIV/AIDS pandemic involved primarily a specific sub-culture, as compared to the general population included in the other pandemic deaths in this study.

**I found four different figures, with a variance of almost 3,500 deaths from the lowest to the highest. The difference in each case was the starting date, which varied from January 1 to January 21 of this year.