Oh, Christian

Oh, Christian. You are too often a ministry of contradictions.

Why is it so easy for you to forget your purpose? You’re mired in a vain search for identity.

What truly worries you? You’re troubled deeply in your spirit by what comes to you, by what will come of you. It’s all vanity as Solomon observed; the desires of the heart.

Long to be more than just an American idol. Do not be the agent who breaks a bruised reed or snuffs out a smoldering wick. Be the message of healing and strength and a breath of life giving air.

Let God’s Holy Spirit win today. Surrender to his power and will to make you whole. Be at peace. Be kind. Do good. Live and work for God’s glory and not your own. The war is won yet the battle rages on in each person to choose a master and kingdom. Be an usher to the kingdom of God. Let your light be the character of God in Christ Jesus.

When to Admit You’re Wrong

We’re doing it wrong. The Corona thing. I’m not the first to point it out, but I have from the beginning seen something simultaneously with others who see something logically, pragmatically, and compassionately amiss about how we’re waging war against this virus. We’re being tossed about by waves of uncertainty with low visibility and our engines off.

It’s been notoriously difficult to get accurate information about the spread and impact of Covid19. This is in large part because we rely upon governments to provide us with what they want us to hear rather than what we need to know. Governments whose operational and ideological underpinnings are predicated on being all things to all their people are the worst. With them, it’s always about saving-face. The institution responsible for the administration of life’s needs cannot be seen – ever – as insufficient, or faulty, or nefarious. China, I’m looking at you; calling you out.

For our part, their Western counterparts have lied, cheated, and obfuscated their way toward panic, chaos, and confusion with the goal in mind of becoming just like China. Admiration for their central command and control success runs deep. The prevailing method of transformation being to ensure messaging and cooperative steps are taken to torpedo a 22 trillion dollar economy and reduce it to rubble so all that’s left is government. The “light” versions of this went through trial runs 80 years ago with the New Deal, 50 years ago with the The Great Society, 20 years ago with the Patriot Act, and now perfectly poised to finish the evolution with some version of a Global Sino-Pact.

It’s going to get ugly unless we change our strategy in this war. Continuing to shelter in place for another 2, 4, 6, 8 weeks or until Christmas will all but insure we cripple our chance of recovery and ensconce our collective mind to survive as long as it takes, by any means necessary, and at any expense. Ask any military mind, you don’t win wars that way. Cowering in our homes hoping the enemy will give up is no way to live and certainly no way to win. Shared sacrifice isn’t the same as the suicide pact we’re signing right now.

People are dying from Covid19. People were dying before Covid19 and people will die after. This crazy notion that we’re somehow going to magically prevent death is preposterous, humanist, poppycock. Some people are especially vulnerable to this virus (and others). They’re in a high risk mortality group. Those are the folks we should be isolating and protecting. We already are by having people in low risk groups staying away from them. There’s no reason for low risk groups to also be isolated. Sure, there’s a chance – albeit slim – of anyone dying from Covid19, but people die wearing their seatbelts too. We don’t shun driving because 365,000 people have lost their lives on the worlds’ highways (so far this year).

By identifying those at highest risk and then isolating them until it’s safe for them to come out, we do a few very civilized and noble things:

1. We affirm the value of these individuals as being precious and worthy of protection, and that we value their lives.

2. We enable our society to remain healthy and functional so we can take care of ourselves and those who need help the most.

3. We build community and awareness and self-examination of our core shared values – we define ourselves as Americans.

It’s all upside to change our tack in this storm; especially when the rocks we’re about to be dashed upon become clearer and closer every day. It’s going to take a huge set of stones to hoist up the sails in this media maelstrom. There’s great risk when half your crew thinks you’re nuts for going against conventional wisdom; it’s the stuff of great mutinies. However, here’s where legendary leaders are born or disgraced captains are buried at sea.

State of the Union

A union by any reasonable standard is characterized by unity. There needn’t be a whole lot of commonality besides that which defines it. Thus, agreement on even a singular defining characteristic is a basic requirement of a union. Unity is a fragile thing, and where unifying principles are compromised by fundamental disagreement, an insurmountable force may threaten to strike a fatal blow to a union. The revolutionary ripples of such developments have historically been epic.

The state of our union today is threatened again by such a force capable of shattering the fragile peace of civility and thrusting our carefully tamed society into a feral tizzy. Is it on par with the obvious and fetid practice of human slavery which previously brought our young republic to its knees? It may prove to be, though we’re challenged to identify with sufficient clarity who are the enslaved, the masters, and the heroes of our current story. What is clear is that unity of public perception and private speculation surmise that political forces driven with righteous certitude are intent to harm us in perpetuity. Though we wildly disagree about who or what represents that force, the consensus of inevitability is profound. There is shared belief that government is both culprit and savior; losing hold of its levers will forever change life as we know and prefer it.

Like the Jesus narrative; people everywhere were oppressed by the sadistic and merciless tendrils of the Roman Empire. So much so, the Israelites were utterly convinced that relief from those chains would bring about peace to their tortured existence. Yet, the true existential threat, the Messiah taught, didn’t come from without, but from within. Here and now we’re immersed in the same trepidation expecting that somehow a change of government will provide the antidote to our angst and bring about deserved peace. It’s a tale as old as time that when faced with the harsh realities of life we’re not just inclined, but compelled to project our fears and vengeance onto unworthy chumps in order to grasp the illusion of freedom and justice. But, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even if the oppressed are freed and don’t become the new oppressors, removing the strong man only creates space for another to take his place.

As we march toward choosing leaders or governors to order our lives (or currently, to save them), we are wise to recognize the deepest and oldest of internal conflicts. We can  claim to decide “for the greater” this or that, but there’s enough self-interest in our nature to eclipse that principled ideal. This is perhaps the most certain union to which we all belong; that we are ruthlessly devoted to self. The unavoidable truths mount from there. One being that we are slaves to whatever masters us. It isn’t our lot in life to actually overcome this axiomatic condition, but to submit to it. No matter who holds the reins of power, you will serve them either in gleeful compliance, or in dutiful irritability.

If we’re wise enough to choose leaders who will leave us to govern ourselves and not some bevy of Machiavellian princes, we’ve ironically chosen tyrants and fools. At least when we become our own master there’s no running nor hiding from the real boogeyman. We may then find a worthy union in the antidotes of humility, honesty, and empathy. From there springs the necessary compassions of a gracious society worth preserving.

We’re Getting Jussied

My neighbor chatted me up last night about a high profile “hate-crime” in the news. She said, “I’m going to be so upset if this isn’t true.” I didn’t press her about what she meant exactly because, even though she’s a Liberal, she’s a person of integrity and wouldn’t be upset because it isn’t true. Our conversation went all over the map as there’s so much amiss about her world view that it’s hard to focus on any one thing for too long. It all blends together into this casserole of chaos and confusion.

I should have asked her, “What if this Jussie Smolett guy wasn’t an incompetent twit and he successfully pulled off a #magahoax? Where would we be right now?” We must be very intentional to plumb the depth of possibilities. When you think about the optics of the case, you can’t help but imagine what dark and sinister road we’d be traveling if people remained convinced he was attacked by MAGA-hat wearing racist thugs randomly (or intentionally) targeting poor, defenseless, inter-sectional poster-children. If Jussie Smollett had the means to convince us that this happened, we’d be one step closer to the insidious objective of affirming that President Donald Trump and his supporters need permanent dismissing, and one step away from making it happen. The modern Democrat treatment of their opposition doesn’t seek a biopsy to remove the cancerous cells, the organ must be removed – especially if it threatens to kill the host. The host is the cancer.

If you need help painting a more clear picture, the Mueller investigation is a prime example of how this works when you have the might of government to perpetrate a hoax and the collective support of the mainstream media to cover for you. Or, see the Covington school boys.

That’s not to say there isn’t some kernel of truth at the root of a hoax. That’s what makes them believable. To those people who live in a narrative reality built on some outlier or fading historical paradigm, any story that substantiates their perceptions and expectations is one to be taken seriously. The seriousness of the charge (or the plot) outweighs the nature of the evidence (the truth) in all things consistent with what you believe to be reality and wish were true. All one needs is a seed with the DNA of possibility sprinkled with the water of cooperating narrative to grow a monstrous, believable lie.

Hoaxing is reality schadenfreude. Those who play on the fears of others by abusing public institutions and inalienable rights aren’t punished enough and perhaps can’t be. It’s hard enough to know something with certitude without the complication of an intentional breach of trust. The fallout is division and tribalism, suffocating cynicism, and cultural death.

As for my neighbor; her desperate need for the Jussie Story to be true as affirmation of her world view is the canary in the coal mine.

Trump Evil

A radio host used an analogy to describe just how insidious it is when a government has the power and the will to surveil its citizens. It wasn’t really an analogy but more of an apt description. It goes like this:

“Imagine you’re being followed by a police car every time you get in your car. Everywhere you go, it’s there – no lights on – just following you waiting for you to make a misstep; go a little over the speed limit, wheels touch the double yellow line, etc.”

He went on, but this is the gist of it. Imagine even further that they’re listening in on your phone calls and monitoring your email and text activity, hacking your apps or even listening in through your smartphone. This is today’s government. A government to be feared in the hands of those bent on gaining and maintaining power. If you’re not one of them, you’re a potential target for destruction. Now imagine again that the media is on their side cooperating with them.

This is the Meuller investigation. This is James Comey’s FBI (Obama’s, actually). This is China. Is it you too?

Fight back now, or forever lose your ability to do so.

What Became of Anything Goes?

For years I’ve been alternately watching and battling back against the creep of post-modern thinking into our American culture. I’d always assumed that the effort to undermine the literal meaning of words and the solid foundation of Judaeo-Christian morality was driven by hedonism and the rejection of standards that press cultural forces to constrain depraved behavior by the individual – or at least push it to the margins. The marginalized aren’t hated or lauded but pitied for choosing their appetites over sacrifice.

A decent argument used by the post-modernist is that the majority, the “normal” shouldn’t be allowed to use the power of government or politics to deprive them of their so-called depravity. And so, I embraced a libertarian view in response to their cries of “live and let live”. As long as their proclivities don’t pick my pocket or break my leg then so be it. This is a Biblical edict of personal choice; a person’s God given right to choose rightly or wrongly. As odd as it sounds, it’s the right thing to do; to let someone destroy themselves.

Yet, I haven’t been able to shake this nagging sense that I’ve always been right about the devil in this. Giving ground and being more permissive is a slippery-slope of redefining good and evil. In my effort to be conciliatory, I allowed myself to be deceived.

An axiom I’m fond of using is “societies don’t become more tolerant; they only change targets”.

I was wrong about post-modernism. It’s isn’t a state of being or even a condition to be maintained. It’s utterly unsustainable. It’s so absurd it’s distracting. The folly of it never escaped me, but it’s function had eluded until today. Post-modernism with it’s fluid definitions and spinning moral compass has first drowned objectivity and then sawed an irreparable divide in our societal fabric. It isn’t an “ism” to be believed or flown as a banner; it’s a weapon of war.

This weapon was forged in the very beginning; in the garden it grew. Its profile is deceit and its power is pride. Those who wield it aren’t champions for the weapon, but for the cause. That cause is hatred and lust and self-aggrandizement. Its generals and foot soldiers alike never intended to worship the weapon, but to destroy this kingdom’s character, dispirit its soldiers, and leave it an empty shell. Sadly, I missed years of opportunity to believe and act upon the adage. How could I have known that the post-modern goal was not to break the chalice. All along it was to empty it’s goodness and replace it with bile.

Immigration Suffering

I’m a bit of a Facebook junkie. Though I know this isn’t good for mind or soul health, still I find it the best place to engage friend or foe. It’s a far from perfect format in which to carry on a debate as the threads are linear and tiered at the same time. Your comments often don’t appear where they should in the conversation. While you’re writing, multiple (usually vapid) contributions interrupt the flow.

So, for my friends with whom I try to engage and develop a topic, I apologize that I usually leave the conversation early. There are often too many others (not my friends) trying to establish a new premise. It’s not a good way to have a conversation at all, really.

The Issue

About immigration and the zealous reactions to president Trump. Yes, I didn’t say “Trump’s actions” because this kerfuffle over separating children from their law breaking parents at the southern border is not about child welfare, but overwhelmingly, and solely about Trump. Everybody I know who’s having a cow about detaining children separately from their adult chaperone(s) while proper vetting occurs are firmly established Trump haters, or at least “never Trumpers”. (Some even have those cheeky lawn signs that say “hate has no home here”. Yeah, right.)

My beef with you is this:  your refusal to ask and answer the right questions in the proper order because your identity as a butt-hurt sore loser, and mission to restore your electoral dignity is what drives you.

The first question is, “do we have an immigration problem?” If your answer is “no”, then I’m assuming you have no issue with open borders where people from anywhere in the world should have unlimited, unfettered access to the US landscape and all its citizenship benefits. You’re invited to leave so no more of your precious caterwauling time is wasted. What I’m about to say won’t even make sense to you.

If “yes”, we can proceed to talk about sovereignty, law and order, compassion, and accountability.

Sovereignty:  because a country without borders is just an area of land without common culture or values or language.

Law and order:  because law is the foundation of treating people with equality and dignity; lack of either breeds chaos.

Compassion:  because it’s not only a virtue; it’s delicate and is measured in results and not just good intentions.

Accountability:  because it’s the other side of the responsibility coin; and, it cuts both ways in any relationship.

The World Has a Lot of Shit-holes

If this were not true, folks would be content to stay where they are. On a planet where 9k children per day die of starvation, and wars and interpersonal violence take a huge toll on life, health, and liberty, we’re hard pressed to pick a cause worthy of our attention. Humans are a pretty shitty lot. Would that we could take in those 3.1 million kids and countless other millions in harms way or abject poverty.

There’s little disagreement that the steady stream of people from Central and South America trying to traverse our southern border are looking to remedy their personal suffering caused by any number of societal ills in their homeland; economic strife and violence being high on the list. I really don’t blame them for trying. I’d probably do the same. And then there’s Haiti, and Africa, and Asia, and the Middle East; places where there is no land bridge to a promised land. I didn’t find where anyone polled the world to see how many people would like to come to the US, but it’s fair to say it’s a bit more than the 1.3 million we invite legally every year.

So how many is enough? How many is too many? How do we properly manage the right number? What’s a good enough reason to let somebody in, and then to stay permanently?

The conversation starts there, not with issues of detaining illegal entries or with temporary separation of adults and children.

Protecting Children

I’ve got no issue with protecting children. There’s a special place in hell for those who wantonly abuse or exploit kids. But, it’s not so easy to ensure a child’s safety and welfare while balancing the rights of parents. Here in MA, the DCF has but to petition a judge with little more than hearsay to seize a child. The assumption of parental guilt is an awfully difficult legal stigma to overcome – especially when your kid is remanded to the custody of some random stranger and you haven’t even been arrested and charged with a crime. So let’s not pretend that the government isn’t going about its business every day tearing apart families. If you are arrested, your kids don’t come with you to jail. They go to that roulette prison of the foster care system.

Let’s also not forget that our welfare system has been bribing single moms now for over 40 years, incentivizing unwed mothers to kick out their deadbeat baby-daddies. And abortion, good Lord how many millions of babies have been separated permanently from mother and shuffled off this mortal coil?

So how are the children accompanied by illegally entering adults abused at the border? Other than the natural fear and uncertainty when this occurs, they’re not. Just because a child cries doesn’t mean it’s being abused. When my kids cried, you’d swear someone had cut off their arms. I’d be willing to bet that our detention facilities are a mite better than from where most of these folks hail.

What to Do About Illegal Border Crossing

There are basically 3 options:

1. Detain them
2. Turn them away
3. Turn them loose to the interior

The problem is how to manage detention. If we’re going to insist that the families stay together during the vetting process, we’d better be prepared for the cost and consequences. The first thing we should be asking when an adult and a child are together is, “where’s the proof this is a family?”

Many foreigners crossing illegally don’t have identification. If they do, the kids don’t. Talk about a child safety issue. This alone is reason enough to make damn sure a kid isn’t already in the frying pan before we release them to the fire. Separating the child from the adult makes some sense here.

We could always just put them directly on buses or trains or planes and transport them to the interior from whence they came. Provide a stern warning that the next attempt will be a felony, and this will trigger a lengthy criminal process likely ending in deportation and legit child separation.

And then there’s the 25 year old solution: willfully look through our fingers at immigration law, charge them with a misdemeanor and release them to the interior of the US on their own recognizance with a court date there’s no way in hell they’re appearing for. Bang! Just like that. 13 million or so illegal immigrants walking around the general population; no clue who they are, where they are, what they’re doing. Some killing, some raping, some stealing, many populating already overcrowded jails, still more suckling off the public teat. They’re now a subculture within our culture; not fully citizen, not fully alien, living in a constant state of chaos.

An inhuman, untenable, dangerous chaos that needs to change.

The biggest reason Trump was elected in the first place.

As i See it Today

Hopefully, the universe of our thinking and understanding is always evolving. That’s not to say that we should never believe in anything nor should we consider all things subject to uncertainty. But concerning how we apply the principles we conserve, we ought to keep an open mind.

As a Christian, I’ve experienced (mostly in the last 5 years) considerable changes to my understanding of Jesus and culture. Jesus hasn’t really changed much. Culture changes all the time. Where those two meet must also remain flexible and open to change. I used to think that because i’ve experienced the transforming grace of Christ that somehow I’m a better person than those who haven’t or have rejected the offer. I also believe that is the crux of what annoys non-believers; that Christians in America in particular have for a long time tried to use the power of government to lord over their lesser heathen neighbors. And this, not solely because they believe it pleases God or will somehow make their fellow citizens better but, because they feel it’s their perogative as better people.

I no longer embrace that hubris.

This morning I noticed something disturbing. The very thing that non-Christians have found irksome about Christians is on display prominently yet subtly on the cover of Newsweek. It’s time that we all take a step back and recognize when our stongly held beliefs, creeds and opinions cause us to conclude that those who oppose us are to be judged and condemned. It is the literal definition of bigotry and lays the foundation for perpetuating our cultural misery and perhaps demise as we live out the warning of this saying:

“Societies don’t become more tolerant; they just change targets.”

AS I SEE IT

What with the passage of a ban on same sex marriage in NC there seems to be renewed – yet misplaced – attention to the debate. In debating, the true art is to frame the topic by asserting a premise that suits your argument thereby putting your opponent at a disadvantage. In the debate over same-sex marriage i’m saddened that the popular and predominant premise is a contradictory one which may produce a win for one side, but will undoubtedly result in serious cultural defeat for both.

“Fairness” has become a pretty popular buzz-word these days. At the heart of the pro-same-sex marriage position is that it’s fundamentally fair to allow gays to marry. If that were all there was to the issue the debate might be over. But what’s at the heart what that actually means is that there are inherent benefits for the married recognized by the government that heteros receive to which homos want access. Again, that is fundamentally a natural and Constitutionally sound premise. But what can and should we say about the fairness of a government that is in the practice of handing out perks and offering assumed legal advantages to one type of citizen at the expense of another?

The third way – if you will – is a premise not thoroughly enjoying the light of day in this murky cultural fray. If the government were truly treating its citizens equally under the law there wouldn’t be value judgements placed on their personal, relational, vocational, social, ontological, or economic status. The presence of policy that places “progressive” expectations on its citizens is innately prejudicial and not impartial. If i were single or childless i would resent that the government treats me with less value as a person and more as a fungible financial asset. If i were a person with strong religious, moral convictions i would resent that the government is forcing me to adopt a standard in keeping with its own tiered and capricious values. Most of us share a deep empathy with gays in this regard: that our government is giving benefits to some folks and not to us… often, and literally, at our expense.

A federal government constrained by a Constitution such as ours ought not be in the marriage business. Nor should it be in the practice of endorsing or condoning lifestyle choices. And, most importantly, should not be in the practice of separating its owners into classes of worth.

Mikey and Me

It isn’t a secret nor should it be a surprise that i am not a fan of Michael Moore. As a Documentary artist… i find him to be more of a skilled propagandist. His deft approach to issues being so blatantly one-sided that nobody would ever suggested his work be considered fair and balanced. But i don’t begrudge anyone their biases.

Agendas on the other hand…

A friend encouraged me to watch Piers Morgan interview Mike regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Aside from the 45 minutes of my life i’ll never get back, i must confess it wasn’t a total waste of time. Mike was very casual yet passionate, affable and engaging – very hard to dislike. But very easy to disagree with.

It’s been almost a week since i watched but i remember one thing i found objectionable, and one thing indicative of our broader problem of being narrow minded and incurious:

Piers asked Mike who he blamed for our current financial crisis and predictably he answered, “Corporations”. i suppose it would first be  helpful to define what one means by “corporations”. A simple search of the word reveals that there is far more corporate activity than most would be willing to admit. It has become vogue to assault the “big corporation” (BC) these days as a greedy, deeply flawed, self-interested, zealot bent on getting ahead at the expense of all those outside its family. On some level that describes every group or legal gathering of humans under the sun. We gather for a cause usually recognized as bigger than ourself, more important than ourself, and requiring more membership than ourself to accomplish goals. But at the heart of every corporation is self-interest.

Piers probed a little by asking Mike if he blamed at the government or the individual for any of our problems and he emphatically said, “no”. This was my biggest point of disagreement with Mike. His agenda – whatever it is – is as shifting and muddled as OWS save for this one ax to grind with BC. One can only assume Mike’s goal, given his penchant to espouse the glorious egalitarian impulses of Communist Dictatorships, is to remedy our current woes by growing and empowering the biggest BC in the western hemisphere. It would be terribly inconvenient to cast any blame on his savior of choice or on the populist machinery he masterfully manipulates. So the government and the individual are out-of-bounds categorically regardless of their obvious complicity.

It would have been sweet if Piers had the acumen to push this issue, you know, like ask a follow-up by injecting some information into the conversation. People make up the groups and corporations and they usually get what they ask for either directly or through the law of unintended consequences. Since it is people – in the U.S. – who have the power and the prerogative to elect government representatives to set the boundaries of commerce, it is we through our own ignorance or misguided self-interest who are mostly to blame for our present predicament. If you have a 401k or are using the stock market in any way to pad your retirement years, to possibly bring them sooner, you’ve taken the bait of entitlement, envy, and the kind of greed that when multiplied produces money-making juggernauts and Wall Street money changers.

My second issue is that a person in the audience brought up a great point that went by the way-side – again – because of its utter logic and disutility. We are victims of our own advancement. Remember when we used to dream of an age when life would be simpler and a lot less sweaty? The prospect of robots and devices to free us from toil was laughably distant. Yet here we are. We are there.

Industry that has benefitted so much from information processing and delivery has been able to shrink so much, so rapidly that its ripple is producing a wave of discontent. It has freed us from half our work effectively making only one man productive and the other… unnecessary.  This isn’t like the automobile; when the horse-and-buggy industry went caput people moved to the assembly line. There was a time when folks lived on less and weren’t so close to the guilded sidewalks of Easy Street. Today we are fat and lazy and view what was once a priviledge as a right. No matter what action is taken to right the listing ship there will be winners and losers and you don’t have a right to be either.

But that second point is secondary to the broader, more salient aforementioned one. Mike wants to be able to pick winners and losers by rigging the game. We are suffering now because that is the status quo and more of it will cause greater and perhaps permanent ruin. He sounds like he’s advocating a different path, but he’s really just suggesting we dismount our limping steed and saddle up a bull. i expect nothing less from him.

Appropriate.