Discriminating Taste

I’m glad I don’t have “discriminating taste.” I am able to enjoy a very broad variety of culinary experiences. I even prefer McDonald’s Columbian coffee, and their Sausage McMuffin is one of my favorite breakfasts.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy the high-end restaurants, too, when we can save up enough discretionary cash. And my wife and I love working together to create gourmet extravaganzas. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we throw it in the trash and go out.

She and I enjoy traveling together, and one of the best parts is exploring new restaurants away from home. One rule to which we adhere pretty closely when we travel is not to eat in a chain restaurant that has a location near us. We like to find little hole-in-the-wall, out of the way diners and cafes. Just in case, we carry a supply of antacid in the glove compartment.

We have a favorite restaurant in San Diego. Island Prime sits on the banks of San Diego Bay, and from its patio we can see the Coronado Bridge and the Navy yard and the skyline of the city. There always are sailboats, and once we watched an aircraft carrier coming into the harbor after being out to sea. Gratefully, Jo Lynn’s sister and brother-in-law also like the restaurant, and so a trip there is always on the agenda when we visit.

I have a favorite restaurant on the east coast, too. It’s The Crab Shack (not Joe’s)—and I’m talking shack—on stilts out over one of the inland waterways between Savannah, Georgia and Tybee Island.

When we go to Galveston, at least one trip to Guido’s is mandatory. 

In Branson, Missouri it’s Chateau on the Lake or (my most favorite, both for the cuisine and the ambiance) Top of the Rock.

Back home it’s Mike’s Place or Pasta Grill. But, if Jo Lynn is at book club, I can be content with a ham and cheese or peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

I have preferences and favorites; but, I don’t have discriminating taste.

I understand “picky.” I remember disliking some foods as a child; and I resented being forced to eat it or sit at the table until it was gone (I almost always won that battle of wills, because my parents had to get the kitchen cleaned up and wouldn’t leave a dirty plate on the table.) But, I remember. I get it. And I get having preferences. I have preferences.

What I don’t get is culinary snobbery. While I hate doing it, and am embarrassed doing so, I will send food back if it’s not prepared right. On a recent special night out with our San Diego family, at a restaurant that usually is very “top shelf,” they were having a bad night, and almost nothing came out as ordered—or even what was ordered. More than one plate was returned to the kitchen and dessert was comp’d. We still like the restaurant, and probably will go back; but, that was a night we’d rather forget.

But, some folk relish the opportunity to send food back, and seem to look for reasons to complain about the food or the drinks. I remember a late friend (may he rest in peace) who once said, as we walked into a restaurant, “I expect to be treated like a king.” The restaurant we were entering was not a place familiar with royalty!

I eat because I’m hungry; and the food before me rarely is so bad that I can’t eat it. If I’m hungry, I want to eat, and I don’t get any satisfaction from declaring “I didn’t care for it,” and pushing it aside. My philosophy is simple; it came from my parents: “Don’t waste food.” Regrettably, if I stick too rigidly to that philosophy, food that doesn’t go to waste goes to waist.

Some people get a sense of identity from their culinary preferences. I just get a sense of huffing and puffing when I bend down to tie my shoes.

Maybe I should be a bit more discriminating, if not in my taste, at least in my portion control?

So much for what I hope comes across as a bit of Andy Rooney-ish (may he rest in peace) diversion from my usual dark writing. I’ve had enough heaviness for this week (double entendre intended).

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

The Whole Creation is Watching

I had a conversation with our grandson last night. He’s a church nerd, like his grandfather and his father (our middle son, who is an elder and the choir director in his church, and who also is an effective lay preacher.) Our grandson is a responsible young adult with a blossoming career in Intelligence Technology. His faith runs deep, and he’s brilliant, like you’d expect one of my grandsons to be.

Last night, he expressed concern about the lack of direction and focus in his church. Understand: he’s a millennial, and millennials don’t have much time or interest for meaningless head religion or emotionalism. Millennials want to know how to follow Jesus and become more like him; and that quest usually leads to a spirituality expressed through relationships and tangible actions of love and compassion. They're not seeing that in the church.

Since the 1990s, surveys have been consistent: 95%, plus or minus two or three percent, of North Americans believe in God. Since the 1980s, Millennials have been asking, “OK; I believe. Now what?” “What’s next?” And the church has been caught off guard—distracted—busy with infighting and denominational self-justification.

During the 1950s the American church began a decline that has not been reversed. Sadly, the decline has been related more to politics than to theology or biblical doctrine.

Post-WWII fear of the bomb and of the rise of Communism sparked a growing us-versus-them mentality which was fanned into a flaming paranoia called McCarthyism. The negative effects of McCarthyism are still present; indeed, they have worsened until, today, America is a house so severely divided that many are questioning whether our nation can survive.

Historically, the church always has been vulnerable to schism, and so it was sucked quickly into the political vortex of growing partisan belligerence. The denomination I serve was the fastest growing church in America; but, the issue that eventually divided us was purely political. A prime stimulus behind McCarthyism was Mao Zedong’s movement in China. In 1949, Mao’s People’s Republic of China forced Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China into exiled in Taiwan (Formosa).

Our United Christian Missionary Society had stations in China, and faced a dilemma: should our missionaries cooperate as guests of Mao’s government, should they remain neutral, or should they actively resist the Chinese government because it was Communist? The UCMS chose neutrality; nevertheless, some missionaries were forced to leave, and there were incidents of persecution.

Back home, our denomination was divided on the question, and it eventually became the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. In 1955, 800 delegates, who opposed neutrality and advocated resistance, walked out of our national convention in Cincinnati and formed what is now known as the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

The Restoration Movement[1] emerged as a venue for the reconciliation of the diverse denominations of Christendom. Ironically, it now is three distinct and often quarrelsome denominations—adding to the divisions of Christ’s Body, rather than reconciling them. The original split in 1905[2] was almost totally over doctrinal issues and biblical interpretations; however, while the same kinds of theological issues were present, it was political partisanism that provided the critical mass behind the 1955 split.

Other denominations have experienced similar divisions (more political than theological), and the differences between evangelical and mainline churches are more political than theological or biblical—conservatives and evangelicals generally siding with Republican ideology and mainline bodies more likely to align with Democrats.

And Millennials are calling bullshit. That’s not what church is called to be. Although we are blessed with some wonderful exceptions in the congregation I serve, Millennials typically are no-shows when it comes to organized religion. They call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” and in the process caricature all organized religion as rigid, judgmental, and generally unlike Jesus. It’s difficult to fault their conclusion.

Meanwhile, the declining church struggles to remember or to re-envision just what it is that Jesus called it to be and do. We fight over whether evangelism is more important than ministries of compassion. We debate when and how—or whether—Christ will return to rule a physical, geographical kingdom on earth. We fight and divide over who should be included and who should be excluded—and how we should treat the excluded. We argue whether to feed the hungry unless they deserve it. Highly visible church leaders square off in defense of political figures whose ethics and morality are indefensible.

And Millennials are calling bullshit. Just stop!

“The whole creation is on tiptoe to see the wonderful sight of the (children) of God coming into their own!” (Romans 8:19 ~ J. B. Phillips)

The whole creation is standing on tiptoe, watching! (And at this point I’m going to adapt a part of my favorite blogger’s post from July 26):

“(It sees) us pointing fingers and declaring who is right and who is wrong.

“(It sees) us choosing party over country.

“(It sees) us judging one another for the color of our skin.

“(It sees) us shooting one another.

“(It sees) us not doing a damn thing, really, to stop the influx of opioids into every community in this country.

“(It sees) us calling each other names and throwing jeers and crafting insults and using whatever supposed hot take we’ve come up with for the day to exact our rage on the world.

“(It sees) us refusing to work together.

“(It sees) us choosing power over love and profit over people.

“(It sees) us hiding behind our social media accounts so that we can be snarky without any accountability for it.

“(The whole creation sees us.)

“And we should be ashamed of what we’re showing (it).”[3] 

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Led by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, Walter Scott, and others in the early 19^th century.

[2] The 1905 split gave rise to today’s non-instrumental Church of Christ.

[3] https://someonestolemycoffee.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/hey-america-our-kids-are-watching/

When Winning Is Losing

A growing number of people are having exceptional difficulty accepting any information that does not match what they choose to believe. “Fake news” and “alternative facts” have become throwaway terms used by people even at the highest levels of public service.

It’s not a new thing. In the 90s we talked about people living in information cocoons. The newer terminology is information bubble. Same thing, as far as I can tell.

Along with the cry, “Fake News!” is a refusal to accept any fact-checker that disagrees. Evidence is irrelevant; just another part of the fake news conspiracy. “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts!”

The phenomenon is an expression of a reality I’ve discussed in several previous blogs, viz., the “I’m right!” syndrome. I’d rather risk my grandchildren’s safety and health than be proven wrong. It really is not about ideology or philosophy or creed. It’s all about me.

Several recent conferences held in major universities and research institutions in the USA and Europe have examined the current glut of fake news and propaganda. They report that, even though all citizens are sometimes vulnerable to fake news, misinformation is predominantly “a pathology of the right.” Due to vicious attacks on mainstream media, conservatives are even suspicious of fact-checking sites.[1]

The reports conclude that fake news and hateful propaganda appear at both extremes of the political continuum but is significantly more heavily concentrated toward the right. The uncritical re-posting of such misinformation on social media is of particular concern. The consensus is that, regardless of the intention of persons who re-post it on social media, “it operates to harden ‘us-vs-them’ stances, to normalize prejudices, to create scapegoats, and to mock and discredit truth-seeking endeavors of universities, religious institutions and faith leaders, non-partisan policy research centers, journalists, and other concerned citizens.”

A colleague shared that an acquaintance refused to accept data even from Pew Research Center, a world-renowned and respected, trustworthy source of social scientific research.

My colleague followed up by scrolling through several months of Facebook postings by her acquaintance, and used Media Bias/Fact Check[2] to see how the acquaintance’s preferred media sources are rated in terms of factual reporting and bias. Of 43 posts, 16 were unrated, 26 were rated from “far right” to “extreme questionable”, one was listed as “right center”. None were listed as “Least Biased” or to the Left.

Obviously, the acquaintance got all her information from sources, I’m guessing, that reinforced her already existing biases. In my observation, that is the norm.

What may not be as obvious is my colleague’s evaluation that Media Bias/Fact Check is “the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet.” While my own bias leans toward agreeing with her evaluation, the question comes to mind: who set up the categories of media bias in the first place? Conservatives will cry, “Foul!” and automatically assume the study is biased and invalid. The problem boils down to an unwillingness on both sides of the aisle to accept the standards of evaluation favored by those on the other side.

Conservatives deny sources that refute their beliefs, and liberals reject sources that support conservative biases.

We’re all biased.

We’re all biased.

Until all of us—ALL OF US—accept and deal with our own biases and prejudices—until all of us accept and deal the reality that we are fallible creatures and we know nothing—we will continue to be a divided, adversarial culture sliding out-of-control toward self-destruction.

We know nothing. The most universally accepted scientific principles are but conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence. We can, and do, believe in these principles and accept both the evidence and the conclusions. We live our lives in the faith that these principles are valid. We even take them for granted. But, we don’t know. Anything. Even the preponderance of evidence fails us occasionally, as in the virtual guarantees by the poll-takers that Hillary Clinton would be elected President in 2016.

My statement is not new. It’s straight from Plato’s allegory of the cave. It’s reflected in St. Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth (13:12): “Now I know in part.”

The danger is that when we assume or presume that our partial knowledge is absolute, or even when we accept our knowledge as incomplete but judge it superior to others’ partial knowledge, we do two things: (1) we erect divisive barriers and create antagonistic factions, and (2) we deny ourselves and our culture the natural growth and advancement that comes from exploring the unknown and examining unfamiliar ideas and principles.

Humanity always has advanced on the shoulders of those who have been willing to venture into the unknown, from sailing beyond the “falling-off” place in a flat world to walking on the moon, from testing and trying new combinations to create light bulbs to virtually eliminating smallpox and polio from the planet.

Political experimentation has seen humanity ebb and flow from tribalism to monarchy, from Pax Romana to feudalism to the Magna Carta to Democracy. There have been spin-offs and rebellions and aberrations, and always there have been those whose obsession with power and wealth have led societies down destructive paths, from Hitler to Jim Jones and David Koresh.

But, with all the advancement in human technology and ideology, no one can say our species has yet produced a political system that effectively actualizes “liberty and justice for all.” And our species will not produce such an ideal as long as belligerent factions choose to hurl insulting names and epithets at each other, rather than to enter with integrity into open, honest dialogue. Remember: dialogue is, by definition, two-way. It involves at least as much listening as speaking.

I believe in the human ability to resolve conflicts, to discover common ground and to build upon that common ground to make life better and better for everyone. I believe in that ability; but I see very little human willingness to exercise that ability.

What I see is, “I just want to win the fight.”

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] https://shorensteincenter.org/combating-fake-news-agenda-for-research/

[2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Naming the Demon

I just read a post on Facebook, supposedly (and I have no reason to doubt it) written by a young Latino woman whose mother was a legal immigrant, but her father was not. She made it clear that her father wasn’t a burden on society, but rather was a hard worker and contributor. Well and good. It’s a point we can and should applaud.

Then she launched into another strain that I think may cut to the core of the undeniable divisiveness in America [“A house divided cannot stand.” ~ Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 12:25; Mark 3:5; Luke 11:17 ~ also, Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858, in a speech accepting the Illinois Republican Party's nomination as that state's US senator (a campaign which he lost)]. She wrote:

“I was raised in Oregon, and started learning about politics in my private middle school. I remember that we were encouraged to write about America’s problems and that I was brainwashed to think that America was some unfair country. When I started high school, more and more people started hating America because it was the cool and hip thing to do. Then I thought to myself, “why do I hate America?” And I couldn’t find a reason to hate it.” (italics mine)

The implication is clear, and I have no reason to doubt that she validly perceives some effort to “brainwash” her. I have no doubt that there are schools, churches, clubs, and other social groups that indoctrinate their constituents in virtually any kind of ideology from religious doctrine to socio/economic castes to politics to issues of science vs. creationism ad infinitum.

While her implication is clear, and quite possible accurate, she continues to generalize from her statement that she was brainwashed, and the implication grows into an indictment that all liberals hate America and believe America is bad and unfair.

I’m sorry she had a bad experience while growing up—an experience that skewed her thinking into a divisive us vs. them (us =  good/them = bad) mentality. 

There is a world of difference between hating (or loving) America and demonstrating an integrity of honest self-evaluation. The patriotic hymn, “America the Beautiful” has these words in its second refrain: “God mend thine every flaw.” To deny or ignore our flaws and to make no effort to correct them is, in my opinion, an unpatriotic act of abuse and neglect. On the other hand, the effort to correct our flaws is an expression of patriotic love.

In my limited observation, I see conservatives (Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, Alt-Right, et al) finding fault with America every bit as much as I see liberals doing so. The two polarities simply point to different faults, based upon their different ideologies. 

The partisan antagonism that divides America is a self-feeding demon that has become an end in itself. It focuses on symptoms, while ignoring (or denying) causes. And it justifies a growing refusal to consider any possibility that the “other party” may have something of value to offer.

Divisiveness is not the result of our different ideologies. It is the creator and sustainer of them. 

And we continue to feed the demon.

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

America the Beautiful

We sang “America the Beautiful” in church last Sunday. 

I know the danger of mixing patriotism and religion: "civil religion", it's been called. And yet, there are those who expect at least a nod toward the flag on Sundays related to patriotic holidays. Some of my clergy colleagues really bow their necks and rigidly oppose what, admittedly, can be a deadly cocktail. Oh, they may condescend to mention it in a prayer or something. And, quite frankly, I don’t disagree with their theological reasoning.

For me, I find it more constructive to go ahead and include some patriotic expressions in the worship service, and to use my pastoral role as teacher to set what I consider an acceptable context for such inclusion. For example, last Sunday, here was my invitation to the Table (as Disciples of Christ, we observe communion weekly).

“As a minister, I struggle with patriotic holidays: Independence Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day… Not that I struggle with patriotism. I’m a combat veteran; I served under fire—served under the flag that stands to my right when I’m in the pulpit.

“I participate, when the pledge of allegiance is recited. Sometimes I tear up when I hear the national anthem—or the Marine Corps Hymn. I vote. I’ve held public office. I write my Congressional representatives on a regular basis. On national holidays we fly the flag at our house.[1] 

“I’m just not at peace bringing all that into this room. Oh, I have absolutely no problem displaying the flag or singing patriotic hymns. I’m just concerned about misplaced priorities. I’ve seen church fights over whether the American flag is on the wrong side of the platform. Patriotism and religious faith never have been a beneficial mixture. 

“In this room, this table is central. And at this table I hope we remember the words of that late addition to the pledge of allegiance: “under God.” And there are two ways to read that: (1) “One nation under God.” And I’d have difficulty affirming today that we are, indeed, a nation under God. (2) “One nation; under God indivisible…” And few would deny that, today, we are a nation divided.

“And so, in this room, I bring my love of country to this table, where I celebrate the God under whom rests the only hope I know for this nation to be, truly, indivisible. You are invited to share the loaf and the cup, and to remember the one whose sacrifice can truly unite us.”

But, I digress. We sang “America the Beautiful” in church last Sunday, and I felt tears beginning to sting my eyes. It wasn’t just the hymn, although it can be a source of emotion. What brought me to the verge of tears was a new insight into Katharine Lee Bates’ words[2], especially in the refrain. Each refrain is a prayer:

America! America! 

God shed his grace on thee 

And crown thy good with brotherhood 

From sea to shining sea!

America! America!

God mend thine every flaw

Confirm thy soul in self-control

Thy liberty in law!

America! America!

May God thy gold refine

Till all success be nobleness

And every gain divine!

America! America! 

God shed his grace on thee 

And crown thy good with brotherhood 

From sea to shining sea!

As we sang on Sunday, I realized that each of these refrains was a prayer of humility, asking that God guide our nation through and away from the human temptations motivated by greed or lust for power. And, given the depraved condition of our nation’s public life, it occurred to me that, on the eve of our nation’s birthday celebration, nothing was more appropriate for worship.

Postscript: Originally, I wrote in the paragraph above, “…the depraved condition of our nation’s public life today…” But, upon only a brief reflection, while America has authored eras of great and noble altruism, scientific and technical achievement, and charitable embracing of the down-trodden (both domestically and globally), our nation, from the beginning, has endured, sometimes just below the surface and sometimes out in broad daylight, a disgraceful flaunting of jingoistic, chauvinistic greed and lust for power. Indeed, it is precisely those decadent qualities that our founders sought to avoid by the creation of the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as well as in much that has been legislated since our founding.

And, while there is no political or economic system that is immune to the impact of such corruption, the work of our founders, with its self-correcting checks and balances, is thus far the single most effective human effort both to avoid and also to correct its damage.

America! America!

God mend thine every flaw!

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Except for this year. I recently reorganized our garage, and the flag somehow is still in hiding!)

[2] Actually, the words we sing are “third generation”—a second edit (1911)—of Bates’ original poem, which was written in 1893.

Fingers That Point to the Moon

We had a dog—a Cocker mix—named “Ginger”. She didn’t know she was a dog. She thought she was a people. She was dumb as the proverbial board; but, she was gentle and loving, and she lived a long and pampered dog’s life.

I tried to teach her to fetch. I’d throw a ball; but she wouldn’t chase it (our eldest son said she was smart: she knew if she went after it, I’d just throw it again.) But, I persisted. I’d throw the ball, and she’d jump around and watch it, and wag her tail (actually, she wagged the hind half of her body!).

I’d point to the ball, and yell, “Fetch!” And she’d get all excited and jump around and wag away; and the more animated I became, the more excited she became. I’d point my finger and yell, “Fetch!” and she’d jump around and wag herself and look… at my finger.

There is some question as to the authenticity and origin of the statement, but I recall what came to me as a quote from a Buddhist teacher: “I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t look at me; look at the moon.”

Our American flag, the “Stars and Stripes,” under which I served in Vietnam, and to which I have pledged my allegiance for over 70 years, has become an end in itself, and a growing segment of our population is becoming distracted from the reality toward which it points: “one nation, under God[1], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” [italics added]

Imagine: we are fighting over the flag, while trampling all over the “liberty and justice for all” to which it is pointing. Which is the greater disrespect: to disrespect the flag, or to disrespect that for which it stands?

And, by the way, how does one disrespect the flag? According to the Flag Code, established June 14, 1923, some of the ways to disrespect the flag include: 

·         Wearing the flag, or its representation, “as clothing, or using it as drapery or bedding”; 

·         Printing or otherwise impressing it, or its representation, “on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard”;

·         Using it “for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever”;

·         Embroidering it “on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like…”;

·         Using it “as a costume or athletic uniform”; [I presume “Uncle Sam” is excepted, grandfathered into the Flag Code, since he pre-dates the Code by some 110 years.][2]

Having just celebrated Memorial Day along with the rest of America, I’ve been thinking a lot about how we express our patriotism, and it seems to me that working for the “liberty and justice for all” to which the flag points, would be an excellent way to demonstrate our love for our flag and, more importantly, for what it represents.

And for those who would presume to establish their own demonstrations of patriotism as the standard for everyone else, and who stand in judgment over those who don’t measure up to their standards, I would ask:

·         Have you served in the military?

·         Have you served under fire?

·         Have you thanked someone who has served under fire?

·         Have you held public office?

·         Have you been a candidate for public office?

·         Have you contributed or otherwise helped in a campaign for public office?

·         Have you voted in every election?

·         Have you communicated with the public officials who represent you? 

·         Have you worked in some concrete, tangible way to bring about “liberty and justice for all?”

·         Have you listened to, and tried to understand, the views of someone who represents a different perspective that you, but who, nevertheless, loves this country, too?

Those are some of my own standards of patriotism. I don’t claim the list is complete; but, it’s where I start. And, at the risk of sounding boastful, yes, I have done all the above. And I invite your contributions to my list.

And in a related perspective, I remember one who said, “Take the log out of your own eye before removing the speck from someone else’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5) 

I hope I’m looking at the moon, and not just the fingers that are pointing to it.

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm:  The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.

[2] http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

Original Sin?

It has bothered me for years, and I have spoken and written about it many times; so, for those who know me at all, this may seem redundant. Hopefully, there will be a new angle today: some new insight you or I (or, even better, we) may understand for the first time.

I’ve been reading John Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage, in which the late president quotes from John Quincy Adams’ diary:

“I have already had occasion to experience, which I had before the fullest reason to expect, the dangers of adhering to my own principles. The country is so totally given up to the spirit of party that not to follow blindfolded the one or the other is an expiable offence. … Between both, I see the impossibility of pursuing the dictates of my own conscience without sacrificing every prospect, not merely of advancement, but even of retaining that character and reputation I have enjoyed. Yet my choice is made, and, if I cannot hope to give satisfaction to my country, I am at least determined to have the approbation of my own reflections.”[1]

John Quincy felt he was uniquely and solely qualified and duly compelled by God alone to enact and promote specific policies and principles. His adamancy (many called it blatant stubbornness) did not help him win friends and influence people. As Kennedy put it, “He was, after all, ‘an Adams … cold, tactless and rigidly conscientious.’”[2]

And yet, what most severely alienated him from even his own Federalist Party was that he prioritized the good of the country over the platform of his, or any other, party. After serving as sixth President of the United States, he was elected to serve in the legislature of his home state of Massachusetts. When first asked to serve in that capacity, he agreed, but declared that he would not actively seek or campaign for the office, and, if elected, he would serve on the basis of his own sense of what was right, “completely independent of my party or the ones who elect me.” Adams remains one of few American statesmen who served from a non-partisan position.

It’s been around since Cain and Able, and has manifested itself at the social level at least since Abraham’s son, Ishmael, viz., a hateful, antagonistic division, defined by diverse ideology or competing self-interest. We humans simply cannot tolerate any divergence from our own individual and/or group ideology or goals. It makes virtually no difference how large a group may be, or how the group is constituted and designed. It can be a couple or a family, a sports team, a civic or fraternal organization, a religious community, town, state, tribe or nation; but, it is most visible in the political partisanism that has raged in virtually every culture since humanity manifested a social nature.

If there is an original sin that has cursed humanity, it’s not the eating of an apple. It’s our failure to accept each other on the same basis God accepts us, viz., grace. Indeed, we don’t even accept the grace God extends to us (which may well explain our human tendencies toward adversarialism).

In theological terms, we speak of “realized grace” as a category distinct from grace, itself. Though grace is extended to all, without merit, we humans have great difficulty realizing and accepting “something for nothing” (which is precisely what grace is!) In the experience of unworthiness regarding offered grace, we humans attempt to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves with others: “I’m not as bad as she!” (a practice Jesus compared to taking the speck out of a brother’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own eye).

Yet, when we put conditions on grace, we thereby totally erase any vestige of its qualities. The moment it is made conditional in any way, it ceases to be grace, and we all are condemned, “for all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). Thus, in our condition of “unrealized grace,” our struggle for justification takes on the aforementioned adversarial nature.

It is significant that Jesus’ parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35) immediately follows his response to Peter’s question, “Lord, if (a brother) sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.”[3]

Perhaps the first step in overcoming our partisan divisions is to surrender our obsession with self-justification, and to open ourselves to the possibility of grace. German-American pastor, teacher, and theologian, Paul Tillich, put it this way in one of his most frequently read sermons:

“There is too often a graceless acceptance of Christian doctrines and a graceless battle against the structures of evil in our personalities. Such a graceless relation to God may lead us by necessity either to arrogance or to despair. 

It would be better to refuse God and the Christ and the Bible than to accept them without grace. For if we accept without grace, we do so in the state of separation, and can only succeed in deepening the separation. [Italics mine.]

We cannot transform our lives, unless we allow them to be transformed by that stroke of grace. It happens; or it does not happen. And certainly, it does not happen if we try to force it upon ourselves, just as it shall not happen so long as we think, in our self-complacency, that we have no need of it.

Grace strikes us when we are in great pain and restlessness. It strikes us when we walk through the dark valley of a meaningless and empty life. It strikes us when we feel that our separation is deeper than usual, because we have violated another life, a life which we loved, or from which we were estranged.

It strikes us when our disgust for our own being, our indifference, our weakness, our hostility, and our lack of direction and composure have become intolerable to us. It strikes us when, year after year, the longed-for perfection of life does not appear, when the old compulsions reign within us as they have for decades, when despair destroys all joy and courage.

Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: "You are accepted. You are accepted, accepted by that which is greater than you, and the name of which you do not know. Do not ask for the name now; perhaps you will find it later. Do not try to do anything now; perhaps later you will do much. Do not seek for anything; do not perform anything; do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted!"

If that happens to us, we experience grace. After such an experience we may not be better than before, and we may not believe more than before. But everything is transformed. In that moment, grace conquers sin, and reconciliation bridges the gulf of estrangement. And nothing is demanded of this experience, no religious or moral or intellectual presupposition, nothing but acceptance. 

In the light of this grace we perceive the power of grace in our relation to others and to ourselves. We experience the grace of being able to look frankly into the eyes of another, the miraculous grace of reunion of life with life. We experience the grace of understanding each other's words. We understand not merely the literal meaning of the words, but also that which lies behind them, even when they are harsh or angry. For even then there is a longing to break through the walls of separation.

We experience the grace of being able to accept the life of another, even if it be hostile and harmful to us, for, through grace, we know that it belongs to the same Ground to which we belong, and by which we have been accepted. We experience the grace which is able to overcome the tragic separation of the sexes, of the generations, of the nations, of the races, and even the utter strangeness between man and nature. Sometimes grace appears in all these separations to reunite us with those to whom we belong. For life belong to life. [Italics mine. This is the key to my thoughts today.]

And in the light of this grace we perceive the power of grace in our relation to ourselves. We experience moments in which we accept ourselves, because we feel that we have been accepted by that which is greater than we. If only more such moments were given to us! For it is such moments that make us love our life, that make us accept ourselves, not in our goodness and self- complacency, but in our certainty of the eternal meaning of our life. We cannot force ourselves to accept ourselves. We cannot compel anyone to accept himself. But sometimes it happens that we receive the power to say "yes" to ourselves, that peace enters into us and makes us whole, that self-hate and self-contempt disappear, and that our self is reunited with itself. Then we can say that grace has come upon us.[4]

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956) page 38-39 (italics mine).

[2] Ibid, page 39.

[3] The saying is rendered, “seventy times seven times” in some translations. In either case, the number seven signified completion or perfection, and to pair it with itself—or to multiply it times itself—was to make it infinite. The intention here is that one’s forgiveness should be without limits or conditions.

[4] Paul Tillich, “You are Accepted”, Chapter 19 in The Shaking of the. Foundations (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948).