The Bushfish, Part 4: Why I Find the Bushfish So Objectionable (Third Objection)

God was meeting with Moses on Mount Sinai, giving Moses, the representative of God's chosen people His law. Meanwhile, those same people, the Hebrews, were encamped in the flatlands below. Like children at the beginning of a vacation, the people asked things like, "Are we there yet?" and "Why is it taking so long?"

The Biblical account of the Hebrews' restiveness and their ensuing actions begins this way:

When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron [Moses' brother and right-hand man], and said to him, ‘Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ [Exodus 32:1]

It's important to make note of several things about this passage:

1. When the Hebrews became upset with the seeming slowness of God's timetable, they decided to take matters into their own hands.

2. The first thing they did was go to someone in authority, Aaron, and appeal to him to take on more authority, whether it was faithful, authorized, or sensible or not. Aaron knew that he was to wait for Moses' return and that Moses had been placed in leadership by God. All the Hebrews had witnessed and benefited from their miraculous deliverance from bondage, yet they felt certain that they could push events forward positively if they took control of things themselves.

3. Most reputable Biblical scholars agree that the Hebrews' intent was not to create false alternative gods, but physical representations of the God of the universe. They didn't intend to engage in idolatry, placing their faith in something or someone other than the one true God of all. In spite of their intent however, the golden calf they created was an idol. Instead of praying to and relying on God, they were looking to this hunk of metal to help them.

Martin Luther once pointed out that whatever is most important to us is our god. That includes innocent things like our families, homes, lawns, cars, pensions, savings, investments, jobs, baseball card collections, heirlooms, antiques, computers, i-Pods, Palm Pilots, Blackberries, favorite TV shows, sports, reputations, spouses, children, parents, friends, vacation destinations, and any of a zillion other things we can give priority in our lives. None of them are intrinsically bad. But they become bad when we allow them to supplant God as our ultimate loyalty, ultimate concern, or ultimate ground of purpose, meaning, and significance in our lives.

It's even possible for us to turn God Himself into an idol. That's apparently what the Hebrews did as they caved into impatience in the wilderness. (It's certainly what some so-called Christians do when they treat Jesus like a sort of talisman, insisting that as long as a person believes in Jesus enough, they won't get sick. That's not faith; it's superstition. It's not faith; it's idolatry. The Jesus I know never promised our lives on earth would be trouble-free. But He did promise to be with us always!)

So, what's behind this jaw on idolatry? It's about my third objection to the Bushfish. The Bushfish, you know by now, is a car magnet. Employing the most ancient symbol of the Christian faith--the fish, it attempts to equate the policies and person of the President with Christianity. An attack on (i.e., a disagreement with) Mr. Bush or his policies is seen as an attack on Christian faith, as though the President were an authorized political embodiment of God's political preferences.

The Bushfish marketers make the connection between GOD and GOP explicit by emblazoning the President's last name on the fish. In previous posts, I've mentioned two major objections I have to the Bushfish:

First: It equates being American with being righteous people of God. More specifically, it equates the policies of a particular politician with the righteousness of God.

Second: It sends a signal that Christian faith is an attainment, a work, or a particular set of behaviors, in this case, a proscribed way of voting. It says, "If you vote this way, you're in the righteousness club and if you don't, your out of the club."

My third objection is my most serious one. It's this:

The Bushfish commends an idolatry, not perhaps of President Bush, but of his policies.

I doubt that's the intention of the creators of the Bushfish. Nor will it be the intention of those who may purchase it. But I believe that the creators of the Bushfish have unwittingly fashioned an idol, a competitor for people's ultimate allegiance as surely as the Hebrews unwittingly fashioned an altar with that golden calf. It commends what Canadian composer and Christian Bruce Cockburn calls the "idolatry of ideology."

Why do I say this?

1. All we Christians feel that we live in the wilderness, in a manner of speaking. The New Testament tells us that followers of Jesus are strangers and aliens and that our true home is in heaven.

Christians have the promise of Christ's continual presence with them. But the world, with its violent, selfish ways can sometimes seem menacing, intent on forcing us to do things that run contrary to God's desire for human beings. Christians become frightened, anxious to see differences in their own lives and in the world in which we live.

This can lead to the sort of impatience that I discussed in my last installment. Rather than submitting to the often arduous process of transformation that Jesus says we must undertake--gently wooing others to follow Christ, rather than beating people with Bibles, laws, or political power plays--they try other methods. They take matters into their own hands, when what they should be doing is patiently employing the methods God has given to us: prayer, service, love, compassion, witnessing, and such.

The Hebrews made a golden calf. Some enterprising businessperson, reflecting the impatience he sees in some constituencies, has made the Bushfish.

2. The Hebrews appealed to Aaron to "get off the dime" and advance their interests in accordance with their understanding of them. They were tired of waiting for Moses, God, and God's timetable.

The Bushfish represents the sentiments of some evangelical Christians who believe that US politics ought to be steered in a particular direction. During the waning days of Terri Schaivo's life, some members of the pro-life community conveyed threatening messages to President Bush and to his brother, Governor Jeb Bush. The Bush brothers were told that if they didn't usurp power that they were not authorized to wield, there would be political hell for them to pay down the road. What good does it do, Randall Terry, one of these people, asked, if pro-life people are elected to office and they don't abuse their power to do our bidding?

This isn't that different from what the Hebrews said to Aaron. "Moses is gone, Aaron. We don't care about things being done properly. You take over," they told Moses' weak-willed brother. Aaron acquiesced because he had more regard for the people than he did for God.

The not-so-subtle assumption which underlay the Hebrews' request of Aaron was that God wasn't big enough or powerful enough or shrewd enough to take care of the Hebrews. They saw God as a puny being who needed to be defended, prodded, prompted, and helped. They even thought that God was a lousy marketer. That's why they made the cow. That's why some will likely buy the Bushfish magnet.

3. Many contemporary Christians, whether conservative or liberal, are holding God hostage to their own policy preferences. As such, they violate one of the commands that God gave to Moses to present to the Hebrews. In my tradition, we call it the First Commandment:

You shall have no other gods.

In his book, The Small Catechism, Martin Luther explains the meaning of this commandment:

We are to fear, love, and trust God above anything else.

Luther also says, and I think rightly, that violating every other one of God's commands entails violating the first. When we steal, gossip, or kill, we really are telling God, "To hell with Your authority."

In a very real sense, every time we worship an idol, it's really ourselves that we worship. Whether it's a cow or a magnet we think represents God in some way or any of the other things we can give primacy in our lives, our elevation of them is a subtle or overt way of saying, "I'm in control. I know what's best. I am God."

The Bushfish is an alarming act of ungodly hubris and I hope that its manufacturer will think better of it and cut off production.

Althouse on Mailer's Huffington Post Conspiracy Rant...and My Comments There

Ann Althouse disses Norman Mailer's "theory" that the Newsweek Koran-desecration story was created by functionaries in the Bush Pentagon. I join her in that, pointing out a few features of Mailer's "journalism," in the Comments.

Great Series on Forgiveness from Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts is writing a fabulous series, When Someone Sins Against You, on his blog right now. I recommend it highly!

More Tragic Upshots of Newsweek Story

This report from MSNBC demonstrates the likely impact of the now-retracted Newsweek story which had alleged abuse of the Koran by US interrogators at Guantanamo.

Consider this paragraph:

"The damage cannot be controlled by the belated retraction from Newsweek under U.S. government pressure," said Qazi Hussain Ahmad, leader of the major Islamic party alliance in Pakistan, interviewed by telephone from Islamabad. "The desecration of the Holy Koran by U.S. soldiers shows that the United States is on a path of clashing with Islam."

Irrespective of the actual facts, millions of people who were previously convinced of US hostility toward Islam see the retracted tale of Koran-desecration as a fact confirming their suspicions and Newsweek backpedaling as the result of government pressure. They will see a cover-up. What a mess!

The Bushfish, Part 3: Why I Find the Bushfish So Objectionable (Second Objection)

I used to be an atheist.

Because I had never seen God, I concluded He didn't exist.

I wrote off those who confessed faith as weak people who needed a crutch.

More than that, I deemed believers--particularly Christian believers--as fearful infants who spent their lives trying to placate an angry God.

Over time, I came to regard the proposition that this world came into being on its own as intellectually suspect.

I came to believe also that life is sometimes so scary, that it's sensible to have a crutch and that God is a better one than booze, drugs, money, status, or any of a thousand other dependencies we may develop. As a friend of mine once told another friend of ours, "Pray to God and rely on Him. If you're right, the result is that you'll be with Him forever. If you're wrong, what will you be out?"

But my last objection to Christian faith was the least informed and the most off-base. That was my dismissal of those with faith in Christ as "fearful infants who spent their lives trying to placate an angry God."

You see, I thought that Christian faith was like all the other religions of the world. All other religious systems, whether aimed at bringing a person to absorption into God following a long chain of reincarnations, or satori, or nirvana, or going to heaven with a harem, or winning the Lottery have one thing in common. They all believe that human beings can and must work to advance themselves spiritually to achieve these lofty heights. Under these systems, adherents must do certain good deeds, go through proscribed rituals, make specified sacrifices, say parroted prayers, attain vaunted behavior patterns, do a penance, or buy a ticket.

The Judeo-Christian tradition, expressed ultimately in the person and lordship of Jesus Christ turns all such notions on their heads.

The first thing that a person who comes to follow Jesus Christ admits is that no one, including themselves, is capable of the perfection that all other religious systems say we must strive for.

The second thing a follow of Christ admits is that we need a Savior or Advocate Who can fill the gap between the goodness we desire to evidence and the place where we are. More than that, we admit that Christ is the One Who can give us this new life, not our efforts or goodness.

Thirdly, to become a follower of Christ and beneficiary of His blessings is not a matter of our doing. It's a matter of our surrender. We surrender to the God we know in Christ and ask Him to imbue our lives with the righteousness, forgiveness, purpose, and everlasting life that He gives to those with faith in Him.

The book of Ephesians in the New Testament portion of the Bible says:

For by grace [literally, charity, in this case, God's charity] you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God---not the result of works, so that no one may boast. [Ephesians 2:8-9]

The Christian believes that we have a relationship with the eternal God of the universe because of what God has done for us through Jesus' death and resurrection and our simple trusting faith in Him. As the most famous passage of Scripture puts it:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but may have eternal life. [John 3:16]

This leads to my second objection to the Bushfish, a car magnet which appropriates the most ancient symbol of Christian faith--the fish--to promote or agree to the politics of President Bush:

It sends a signal that Christian faith is an attainment, a particular set of political behaviors, a proscribed way of voting. It says, "If you vote this way, you're in the righteousness club and if you don't, your out of the club."

Don't say that I'm overreacting. I have heard people say this overtly and the Bushfish is a symbol of this sentiment.

As such, the Bushfish represents one of the worst of all Christian heresies, what Martin Luther called "works righteousness."

Works righteousness is the common human notion that can only enslave us, that tells us we are righteous once we adhere to a certain code of behavior, such as voting for or supporting conservative Republicans, or condemning liberal Democrats as faithless secularists. (Keep in mind that I am a conservative Republican. But I don't believe that as a Christian I must be a conservative Republican and that I'm free to vote for Democrats.)

Works righteousness also insists that if you can get people to adhere to a certain set of propositions or proscribed behavior patterns, you will have made them "righteous," irrespective of any inward difference in their consciences or their relationship with God. This was the very approach of the Pharisees so often condemned by Jesus. The Pharisees were religionists who should have known better, but who cheapened Biblical faith by boiling it down to a kind of mercantile transaction between a Clerk-God and "customers" who bought him off with their deeds.

Works righteousness is really the religion of the devil, designed to get us caught up in looking good (what that Ephesians passage would call boasting), rather than humbly submitting ourselves to the Lord Who, as we surrender to Him more each day, can begin to make us good from the inside out.

Works righteousness leads to smugness, judgmentalism, and self-righteousness.

Righteousness as a gift from God leads to humilty, graciousness, and love for God and neighbor.

You can tell from the language on the Bushfish web site which of these two divergent paths it represents. It writes off all opposition to President Bush, even that expressed by evangelical Christians, as un-Christian secularism.

Not only is this intellectually suspect, it's flat-out wrong.

There are thoughtful Christians who believe, for example, that it may not be a good idea for we Christians to force the Ten Commandments down the throats of our fellow citizens on public property. I'm one of those Christians. The government entity which can today force the Ten Commandments down a community's throat, may be forced to swallow someone else's creed tomorrow. People cannot be made Christian by majority vote or by being forced to read Commandments.

Jesus has proscribed an entirely different method for helping others to know the new life He wants to give all people.

Just this past Sunday, Christians all over the world celebrated the third great festival of the Church Year: Pentecost. (The other two festivals are Christmas and Easter.) On the first Pentecost, fifty days after Jesus' resurrection and ten days after His ascension back to heaven, God sent His Holy Spirit to Jesus' praying followers, turning them into the Church and empowering them to lovingly share the good message--the Gospel--of God's free gifts of forgiveness and new life offered to all who follow Christ!

The process of sharing Christ is what the Bible calls evangelism--good newsing. It takes time, patience, love, and absolute reliance on God to see it through. Through political activism, it's impossible for you to get a majority in the Congress, take control of the White House, or pack the Supreme Court and then pass laws or get judicial rulings that will magically make America a Christian nation.

Becoming a follower of Jesus Christ is a matter of people allowing their wills to bend to the Lordship of Jesus. It cannot be commanded of them, just by making them adhere to laws that we think--and which may or may not be--Christian.

Peter, one of Jesus' first followers and a guy known for being rather pushy, realized this. That's why Peter's recommendation for introducing people to God-righteousness rather than works righteousness is so striking. Peter says:

Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. [First Peter 3:15-16]

Frankly, the sorry spiritual state of America today is not attributable to a dearth of evangelical political activity or a failure to get the right judges in our courts. Many of the pieces of legislation and lots of the judicial rulings that have upset or angered us as Christians would not have even been thinkable had we as a Church not grown so lazy about fulfilling our primary mission of sharing Christ with unbelieving people and so, making disciples for Him. On this, we have been asleep at the switch.

More than that, if Americans were reconciled to Christ and seeking to do God's will, it wouldn't matter how many heinous things our laws allowed us to do. America will not change until Americans change and that is a matter of people's hearts, minds, and wills being surrendered to the good God we know through Christ, not who's on the Supreme Court. It's perfectly possible for Christians to advance a political agenda, even electing a President and controlling the Congress, and still lose America for Jesus Christ.

America's spiritual somnambulence has only grown more acute the more deeply we Christians have mixed our "faith" with partisan politics.

We need to give up on works righteousness and embrace the righteousness that comes from God alone. It's fine for us to have political opinions. (God knows I have enough of them!) But we must not allow our proclamation of Christ to become a sideshow.

Nor can we allow it to be subordinated to a particular set of political propositions or partisans.

And we must not let our faith relationship with God be boiled down to a list of do's and don't's, no matter how laudable.

Our message shouldn't be, "Vote for Bush and be a Christian," but more along the lines of what Paul wrote to the first-century church at Rome:

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

It's Not Just Losing Parties That Need to Know What They Stand For

Two articles in the latest issue of The Economist have particularly interested me. Their diverse topics bear some relationship to one another.

The first, a piece triggered by the Labour Party's victory in the May 5 British elections, addresses the future of the Conservative Party--the Tories--there. One intriguing paragraph:

The best thing that can be said for this near-disaster [the party's declining ability to connect with the electorate because of its barrenness of ideas] is that the Tories are beginning to talk seriously about ideas. There has long been, lurking below the surface, an ideological split within the party; and now that it is visible, it has become the battleground for the fight over the soul of the Tory party.

Parties that are out of power must, of course, do some soul-searching and often, poll-searching, to determine what they stand for and how to best present themselves. This is the very process many Democrats in this country are recommending be pursued in their party.

But do parties in power need to undertake a similar process? Another fascinating article in The Economist deals with the legacy--or lack thereof at the national level--of Barry Goldwater, godfather of Republican conservatism, an advocate of small government, who disdained what he regarded as government intrusions into people's lives, including saying or doing anything about abortion. (In fact, looking at Democrats and Republicans historically, pro-life would seem more natural as a position for Democrats to take and pro-choice more naturally at home with Republican history. Pro-life Democrats and women's movement leaders who are opposed to abortion often make this same argument.)

I came under some criticism when writing a few months ago that the legislation that Congress passed and the President signed relative to the Terri Schaivo case that, however laudable its intent, represented a final, firm departure from traditional American conservatism by this President and this Congress.

But the facts pointed out in The Economist article show how far big-government conservatism has traveled from the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, the founding father of modern conservatism. A sampling:

[The current Republican Party's] love affair with big government has been inflamed by the experience of power...The congressional Republican Party, once a brake on spending, is now an accelerator. Congress trimmed Mr Clinton's budgets by $57 billion in 1996-2001; in Mr Bush's first term, it added an extra $91 billion of domestic spending...

Even if you strip out spending on defence and homeland security [in the wake of 9/11], Mr Bush still wins the prize as the biggest booster of public spending for three decades.

What all this suggests is that America's conservatives need to do some soul-searching as well. Do today's Republicans embrace Goldwater's legacy or not? Does it believe in keeping government spending under control or not? And who exactly do we think that the godfather of conservatism would support in the 2008 election: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, John Hagel, or...Sam Brownback?

With no clear successor to President Bush looming on the political horizon, the British Tories and US Democrats won't be the only political parties needing to figure out what they really stand for over the next several years.

A Who's Hu of Repression?

John Tierney's New York Times column cataloging some of the repressive policies of Chinese Communist leader Hu Jintao demonstrates that Asian nation's leadership has not given up its bad old past. With its massive population, aggressive campaign of economic development, and steady military development, I will say what I have said before: Dealing with China is the most important foreign policy, economic policy, energy policy, and military policy matter with which the US government must deal.

Repressive regimes love exporting their despotism and the current Chinese government is increasingly menacing. US policy must see and address these facts.

The Bushfish, Part 2: Why I Find the Bushfish So Objectionable (First Objection)

Okay, let me put a few things on the metaphorical cybertable.

1. I am an evangelical Christian. Don't laugh! Lutherans were the first ones to call themselves evangelical. We're people who believe in the Good News--the euangelion--that new life and forgiveness come to all with faith in Jesus Christ. Lest some be quick to dismiss what I say, I assure you that I'm a grateful forgiven sinner saved by the grace God grants through Christ to all who are born again.

2. I'm a conservative Republican, a pro-government conservative as identified in the recent Pew Center survey. I'm a Republican in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, with hat-tips to antecedents like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Henry Clay.

3. I am alarmed by how far from God our individualistic, narcissistic culture has gone.

4. Symbols' meanings can be changed . At one time, long before a guy named Hitler took it for his Nazi movement in Germany, Native Americans used the swastika to symbolize different things. Churchill's V-for-Victory two-fingered salute became, several decades later, a peace sign for antiwar activists opposed to the conflict in Vietnam.

5. As a general rule, I'm not much into signs or symbols. When I pray personally, I never use candles, beads, religionspeak, visual aids, or ritualistic formulae of any kind. I just talk to God, believing that God has made Himself accessible to all with faith in Christ; that's what Jesus was telling us when He told us to pray in His Name. I realize that such symbols and signs can help some people pray and if you're one of them, that's fine. But it's important for what I'm going to say here that you know that they aren't part of my faith life.

Knowing some of this about me, it may have surprised some people to read my comments on the Bushfish at Rob Asghar's blog last week. The Bushfish is a car magnet in the shape of a fish, the most ancient symbol of Christianity--more ancient even than the cross--with the last name of the President in the middle of it, imprinted on a field of red and white stripes.

The company's web site asks at the top of its page, "Do you believe God belongs in government?" Well, duh! I want God to be part of everything we human beings do. I pray about that every day, I ask God to help me share the Good News of Jesus so that hearts and lives are changed by His goodness, and as Jesus directs, I ask God to send "workers into the harvest," committed Jesus-Followers willing to share Christ with those ready to meet Him.

The company marketing the magnet goes on to say this:

If this country's legislature and judiciary are supposed to
reflect the values and beliefs of The People, then send them
a message that they are WAY off course!

If you are tired of secularists telling you that The Lord has no place
in our government and our public institutions, then show them that
you disagree.

This symbol, this site, and this car magnet have been created for the
millions of Americans who support the President and his vision for a
government that embraces religion, morality, and family values. It
shows worship to the Lord, respect for the President, and hope for
all.

Join the millions of Americans who believe that President Bush’s faith-
based administration presents the best hope for America’s future.
The future is in your hands. Stand up and be counted!

Order a BushFish for yourself or a loved one today.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Now, whether meant as a genuine expression of belief or a bald attempt to play to people's sentiments and rip them off, I find the Bushfish deeply offensive. Here's why:

First: It equates being American with being righteous people of God. More specifically, it equates the policies of a particular politician with the righteousness of God.

In this, it overlooks a very important fact. During last year's presidential contest, I had several people approach me, disturbed by the campaign being waged by President Bush and his operatives. These people are committed Christians, who believe in Jesus, read their Bibles daily, worship, tithe, and use their gifts and abilities to volunteer many hours in sharing Christ with the world through their actions, words, and lives.

But they didn't support George W. Bush. They voted for John Kerry. They didn't agree with every policy proposal made by Kerry. I daresay that not all of Bush's supporters agreed with everything the President said either. But these good Christian people backed Kerry in part because of their moral beliefs, rooted in their faith in Jesus.

Yet, the campaign waged by many on behalf of President Bush discounted the faith of those who would support Kerry as inauthentic, that true Christians would only back Bush. "How can they say these things?" one man asked me. "They're just writing me off as a Christian because I disagree with them politically."

The Bushfish carries this theme deep into the first year of Mr. Bush's second term. Let's be clear: George W. Bush seems to be a personally decent man. I am glad that he prays each day and that his relationship with Christ is important to him.

All the same things could be said of Jimmy Carter, a small-government, moderately liberal Democrat. And it's stupid to argue, as author Tim LaHaye does, that Bush's policies are more reflective of his faith than Carter's policies were of his. I'm pro-life and conservative, but I believe that a solid case can be made for the Christ-rootedness of Carter's policies--from his emphasis on human rights in foreign policy to his insistence on equality of opportunity for all Americans. One could also make the case that many of the current President's policies are un-Christian.

But politics and political principles, after all, are only temporary arrangements. The United States of America, as much as I love it, must itself be conceded to be only a temporary arrangement.

Only three things are going to last forever: God, God's Word, and human beings. To suggest that there's eternal righteousness in one person's policy decisions and that all who disagree with him are "secularists" is arrogant, smug self-righteousness and I am sure, not of God!

[More tomorrow]

Farewell to Everybody Loves Raymond

Tonight brought the final episode of Everybody Loves Raymond and I watched it. I loved this understated and typically funny sendoff of my favorite dysfunctional TV family. May ELR live on in syndication for as long as the other great sitcom it emulated, The Dick Van Dyke Show.

Reactions to Newsweek Koran Story

It would be pure hubris for me to feel as though I have something intelligent to add to every discussion that's big in the world at any given time.

But when religion and politics collide, most regular readers here are going to expect me to say at least something.

The sad story of the allegations made in a short article that appeared in the May 9 issue of Newsweek magazine is just such a collision. But frankly, it eluded my notice initially. It hasn't been until today that I have felt reasonably up to speed on the story.

So, several reactions from several different angles of vision.

First: As an observer, consumer, and frequent defender of journalists, I have to say that Newsweek showed an appallingly casual attitude about sourcing for the story. Apparently one source deemed reliable indicated that they had seen an official report from Guantanamo Bay, where detainees from the war on terrorism are being held, saying that a Koran was flushed down a toilet. This was said to be a ploy used by interrogators to intimidate Gitmo prisoners.

It seems to me that these allegations were of such gravity, the implications so severe, that more than one source should have been required by Newsweek before running the story. Back when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were tracking down the facts surrounding the Nixon Administration's assault on the United States Constitution, their Washington Post editors and they agreed to a protocol requiring them to get at least two independently corroborating witnesses or pieces of evidence before running their next story.

In the superheated atmosphere surrounding Guantanamo Bay, the fact that Osama bin Laden and crew appeal to Muslim religiosity, and the possibility that a religion was shown such disrespect, Newsweek should have applied a similar protocol, at the very least.

Yet, the magazine seems unbowed. Jon Meacham, Newsweek's managing editor--whose book on the friendship of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill I loved--told Reuters:

"This was reported very carefully, with great sensitivity and concern, and we'll
continue to report on it. We have tried to be transparent about exactly what
happened, and we leave it to the readers to judge us."

I don't think they get it yet.

Second: As a person of faith, I also think that Newsweek should have been very specifically more concerned about the religious sensibilities that would be aroused and the people who would feel violated before running such an inadequately vetted story.

I wrote earlier today about the misuse of a Christian faith symbol by a company equating faith in Christ with support for President Bush's politics, something which I find highly offensive and hurtful as a follower of Christ. Newsweek apparently never considered the pain and offense that their sloppy journalism would cause, not to mention the risk to which a story, the accuracy of which could not be authenticated, would subject Americans and Muslims throughout the world who have sided with our country in the war on terrorism.

Third: As an observer and participant in the life of the Internet, I know that because of the Worldwide Web, news sites, and blogs, there are now no news cycles. The gathering and dissemination of information and punditry is a constant and instantaneous thing.

This competition from "small fry" news and opinion sources (and the frequently giddy, self-absorbed, self-righteous sniping that these sources generate) has put "legacy" news organizations on the defensive, intent on proving their relevance and reliability, more anxious than ever to beat non-traditional news presenters like Drudge or whoever else, with the story.

Over the course of the day, there is no doubt that The New York Times, MSNBC, and other legacy organizations can deliver more news, more accurately, and with more sourcing than Joe Hoohah working after hours in the attic-converted-to-blogging-office at his house. But the army of Joes pecking away at their keyboards around the world aren't utter dolts either. Nor are the independent and informed bloggers like Glenn Reynolds and others, who show a remarkable facility for sifting through tons of information each day and presenting it, largely unfiltered (except for an occasional, "Heh") to their audiences.

The point is, one is correct in wondering if Newsweek and other news organizations aren't relaxing their standards in order to get the scoop. This seems to me a far more grave problem today than any overt philosophical bias that might exist in big time journalism.

Fourth: As a follower of Christ, I would say, "Check out the power of words!" This is something that the Bible affirms positively and negatively all over the place. God is portrayed as saying the word and creation happens. Jesus is called The Word, the very creative Power of God.

Words, when carelessly wielded by human beings, are also seen as things that can bring death and enmity.

The Bible seems to know what it's talking about! At least sixteen people died and 100 were injured as the result of this probably inaccurate Newsweek article. Words can have a tremendous impact. So, as a big-mouth myself, I must constantly ask God to help me to remember to choose and use them wisely. Words misused can have a terrible impact.
The story's told of a woman who visited a Medieval monk, a man highly regarded for his holy and sensible advice. The woman realized that she had become a terrible gossip, the purveyor of careless, hurtful words. She went to the monk to get his advice. He heard the woman out and told her what to do. She should go through the village and bag all the goose feathers she could find. Then, he said, she should lay a feather at the doorstep of every person about whom she had gossiped. After that, she should return to the monk.

The woman dutifully did what the monk told her to do and knocked at his door. The monk said, "That's wonderful. Now go back to each of those doorsteps and collect the goose feathers you left behind. Then, come back here."

When the woman returned for yet another visit to the monk, she reported that, all the feathers had been blown away by the wind.

"That is the point, of course," the monk told her. "We can be forgiven the sin of gossiping about others. If you repent for it, God surely will forgive you. Those you have violated may do the same. But no matter whether you are forgiven or not, the damage has been done. Gossip spreads as though carried aloft by the wind and you can't bring it back."

Newsweek's careless report, a rather small item in its 'Periscope' feature, had an impact in many countries around the world. Their apologies are appropriate and laudable. But the initial report will probably cause some to doubt the genuineness of their regrets, written off as face-saving or as caving into government officials with something to hide, no matter what the truth may be.

Fifth: As an American, I simply hope that the investigations that will unfold--both governmental and journalistic--as a result of this story, that none of it is true. Insulting people's religion makes Americans and Christians little better than the hate-filled people who use religion to endanger the world. America should be better than that.

Health and Longevity Examined in NYTimes Article

The New York Times is doing an excellent series on class in America and its impact on various aspects of our lives. Today's installment deals with health, looking at the experiences of three different New Yorkers who suffered heart attacks last year. Their ensuing lives reflect the financial and social differences that go with money when it comes to health and longevity. It's interesting reading.

The Bushfish, Part 1: What the Fish Means for a Christian

[Today, I begin a short series on the so-called Bushfish. I'm sure that this desecration of Christian symbolism has nothing to do with President Bush or his operatives. But the misuse of a Christian symbol to make a political statement is highly offensive and fraught with horrible implications. Blogger Rob Asghar first brought this to my attention.]

It's not uncommon for symbols of faith to be trivialized or worn out from misuse and overuse.

The cross is one such trivialized symbol. Worn by people who have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, employed by artists who like the cruciform but not the crucifixion, and portrayed in sentimental kitsch that's only marginally Christian, the cross is often rendered in trite ways.

This is far from how the Bible portrays the cross: A place of execution where Jesus of Nazareth, God-enfleshed, took our punishment for sin in order to open up eternity for all who place their faith in Him.

While people are certainly free to use it in any way they wish, for Christians, the cross is a symbol of God's goodness and fierce love for humanity, as well as a sign pointing to the new life and freedom from sin all can have when they surrender to Christ.

But we live in a world that tries to put a price tag on everything. As long as there are people who want to make a buck unscrupulously, meaningful symbols will be torn out of context, drained of the meanings with which they were first rendered by committed people, and exploited for commercial advantage.

A new example of this has come to my attention, which is particularly offensive.

The oldest symbol of Christian faith, the archeologists and historians tell us, is the fish. The ancient meeting places of Jesus-Followers, pursuing their faith underground because of persecution, was the fish. The symbol, carved in stone or wood or dirt, told ancient believers that here, they could worship and fellowship in safety together.

The background, of course, is Jesus' statement to some of His earliest followers, who were professional fishermen. When He first called them, Jesus said, "Follow Me, and I will make you fish for people." (Matthew 4:19)

To fully appreciate these words, you have to understand first of all, that the fishing done by these fisher folk was a gentle proposition. No hooks or rods and reels. They used nets, with which they scooped the fish out of the waters in which they trolled.

You have to understand something else as well. For the ancient Judeans, the sea was a place of dark and foreboding mystery. It was the place where they thought the most horrifying of creatures lived, the leviathan.

Part of what had made the Old Testament story of Jonah so amazing to these people was that God had delivered the life of a man who not only had been thrown into a stormy sea in which he would have been expected to die, but used a great fish as the instrument of his rescue!

To fish for people is to gently embrace people who would otherwise die, out of the evil into which we're all born in this world.

A Christian who uses the fish to symbolize his or her faith is then, expressing gratitude that God has saved us from sin and death and caught us in His nets of love, goodness, forgiveness, and grace. The fish tells the world that through Christ and our faith in Him, God has welcomed us into His Kingdom and that He can do that for anyone.

Today, Christians put the fish on their cars, doors to their homes, and on their computers as screen savers. Often, Jesus' Name is printed in the middle. Frequently though, a transliteration of the word appears, Ichthus. Ichthus is a Greek word that means fish. (We get the English word, ichthyology, the study of sea life, from this word.) It's a way for the Christian believer to acknowledge that, "'I once was lost, but now am found' and I owe it all to Christ."

[Next post in this series: A consideration of the Bushfish itself.]

Prayer for Healing? One Approach

The mailing that came to my house last week got my attention. It wasn't printed on slick, multi-clored paper with flashy pics and graphics, just plain printer stock that had been run through a copier.

A pastor of whom I'd never heard, Mark Dahle, from La Jolla Lutheran Church near San Diego, it was announced, was going to offer an hour-and-a-half program at several locations in southern Ohio.

It wasn't fetching advertising or the credibility of a well-known presenter that intrigued me when I read the mailing. It was the topic: Praying for Healing. (That, and the price of admission: It was free!)

Anyone who has ever prayed for the health and well-being of people, as I often have and still do, can point to miracles and answered prayers. But we can also recount the cases of people whose health was not restored, who died in spite of a lot of fervent, faithful prayer for them.

The material announcing Dahle's appearances here in southern Ohio acknowledged that not everyone for whom we pray will receive healing. It further conceded the simple truth that all of us are going to die.

As obvious as those truths are, they're rarely mentioned by the gang who hype what they call "prevailing prayer." People of this ilk act as though God intends for us all to be immortals on the earth and hint that there's something wrong with the faith of pray-ers who don't get the healing they seek.

The mailing I received from Mark Dahle promised that we can pray for healing for people with the expectation of great answers to prayer. And, it said, those who don't receive the healing we seek can nonetheless experience God's presence with them in the most trying situations any of us face.

I went to the building facilities of Dayton's Zion Lutheran Church to check out Pastor Dahle's presentation. I tried to do so with an open mind. Enhancing the credibility of the program from the start was the fact that the pastor of the hosting congregation, Rick Hinger, is a guy I respect.

I won't go into details because you might want to take the opportunity to attend Mark Dahle's presentation if he comes to your area. (To be notified of when he may be coming your way, contact him at LAJOLLALUTHERAN@AOL.COM.) He's also going to be doing a three-day retreat in California this October.

But among the most important things I got out of Dahle's approach to praying for healing is that we begin with God. So often, when we pray for someone to be healed, we focus on their disease or problem. Dahle's method suggests that we begin by focusing on the One Who is bigger than our problems, glorifying Him and acknowledging that He can do great things.

Another important take-away gathered from his presentation is that a good part of prayer for those who ask us to pray for them should be spent in listening. Dahle says that you and I are receiving all sorts of messages, in our subconsciouses, in others' body language, and even in our own bodies, all the time. Many of those messages are from God.

Our prayers for healing should always begin with praise to the God Who can heal. After that, Dahle says that we should be silent, attending to what God is trying to tell us about the person who desires healing. Knowing whether a thought or impression is from God is something we discern in part by trial and error, Dahle says, and there is no downside to not getting things absolutely right. When in doubt about our impressions and their origin, we should always compare it with what we know about God from the Bible, the authoritative source and norm of the Christian's life, faith, and practice.

In this connection, Dahle also suggests that we pray with our eyes open, allowing us to pick up on signals sent by the person who wants healing.

Toward the end of his seminar, Dahle asked those who wanted prayers for healing to remain seated and those of us willing to pray for them to stand. I ended up praying for a man, the specifics of whose situation I obviously can't divulge for ethical reasons.

As I stood with the man desiring healing--for his wife, it turned out, we began as Dahle recommended. But I felt a bit frustrated, like we weren't getting at the real nub of what he needed me to pray for him. So, I began asking some questions about his life, his wife, and so on.

He had begun by saying that he had stood up, feeling that it was his wife who needed praying. "But obviously, I need prayers too," he told me. He just didn't know what he needed. He just sensed that he needed prayers.

This really isn't much of a surprise, when you think about. Often we become so consumed with concerns for those we love that we lose touch with our own needs, concerns, fears, and dis-eases. The rush of daily events can sow confusion in our lives.

I think it's confusion about our needs that's behind what Paul writes in a remarkable passage in the New Testament book of Romans:

...the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but...[the] Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, Who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for all the saints [the Bible's word for the people who believe in Jesus] according to the will of God. [Romans 8:26-27]

In other words, prayer is just one more compartment of life in which we don't have to be perfect. God takes our simple, indistinct impulse to call on Him and counts it as prayer for the needs that He understands even more clearly than we do.

As I questioned this man, my hand on his shoulder the entire time, I learned more about him and a distinct impression washed over me. A single word came to the fore, describing the condition of his heart and mind. I said, "Excuse me, would you mind if we prayed again?" "No, not at all," he told me. I began to pray about the very condition represented by the word that had impressed itself on me as I listened to the man. As I prayed, with my eyes opened, the man shook his head affirmatively with some vigor. It seemed at that moment that his spirit was agreeing with the signal I felt that I'd gotten from God's Spirit as I listened to him. His affirmative head-nodding told me, "That's it! That's what my wife and I need right now!"

As a general principle, even apart from the issue of healing prayer, I think that I learned something else tonight. I learned the importance of taking time in my praying, not just to read God's Word and pray my concerns, but also to be still and listen to what God might want to tell me with that still, small voice, sounding like silence, that He can use to speak to us. It was a good lesson and I hope that I apply it faithfully.

I'm not ready, on the basis of two-hours spent in Dayton, to give a blanket endorsement of all that Mark Dahle might teach or believe on this topic. But during that time, I found nothing objectionable to what he said from a Biblical perspective and I appreciated his genuineness and his humility. He made no extravagant claims. He seems to be a guy with a passion and a ministry and I appreciated what I heard and saw.

Mark Dahle will give presentations and pray for healing during appearances at All Saints Lutheran Church, 445 Craig Road, Cincinnati on Tuesday evening from 7:00 to 8:30 P.M. and Saint Paul Lutheran Church, Columbus (New Rome), also from 7:00 to 8:30 P.M.

UPDATE: The links presented by Purple Kangaroo in the Comments section below are definitely worth checking out. For anyone of faith who has been upbraided by the ignorant or fearful, claiming that illness or adversity is the result of no belief in God, her story is an emphatic and gracious affirmation of you and a refutation of your detractors.

Forty Days of Purpose: The "E" Word, Made for Mission

Acts 1:3-8
Acts 2:1-21
(shared with the people of Friendship Church, May 15, 2005, Pentecost Sunday)

Shortly after we moved here, my wife worked as a classroom aide at Withamsville-Tobasco Elementary School. One day, a little girl approached a teacher there. The girl was upset. “So-and-so,” she said, “called me...the E-word.”

The E-word. The E-word? The teacher turned that over in her mind for a little while, trying to figure out what the E-word could possibly be.

Finally, she said to the girl, “What do you mean by the E-word? What’s the E-word?” The girl said that she wasn’t allowed to say words like that. Her parents wouldn’t let her.

“I’m sure that your parents would let you tell me what this other girl said to you. What’s the E-word?” After a little hesitation, the girl told her what the E-word was: Idiot.

We have an E-word in the Church.

It’s a word that we hate to hear.

And it’s a word that describes an activity about which we have great fears and apprehensions.

That word is evangelism.

It’s the word that describes the fifth purpose God has for all of our lives. The word comes from the Greek term euangelion, a compound word which literally means good news. When the Old English got hold of that Greek word, they translated as Good Spell or God Spell, from which we get our word Gospel.

The Good News or the Gospel that all followers of Jesus Christ build their lives upon is summarized in that passage in the New Testament book of John that Martin Luther called, the gospel in a nutshell, where Jesus said that God loved us all so much that He gave Jesus to us and whoever entrusts their whole selves to Him will be with God for eternity.

Every follower of Christ knows that we’re supposed to tell others this Good News. Most know that this is such an important part of our lives that the New Testament quotes Jesus in five major places commanding us to take up the mission of sharing the Good News.

But, let’s admit it: We’re afraid of doing it. We’re afraid that we’ll offend someone or get the words wrong.

But there are lots of ways we can share Jesus with others, fulfilling God’s fifth purpose for our lives--being evangelists. As long as we rely on God and our intentions are to honor God and help others, there is really no wrong way to do evangelism.

From our two Bible lessons for today, we extract several important points to remember about the E-word.

First: Evangelism--sharing the Good News of Jesus by our words, lives, and actions--is a nonnegotiable element of being a Jesus-Follower. Jesus repeatedly tells His followers not to hoard our relationship with Him, but to share Him with others. This was the command He gave in our first lesson to the eleven losers we now call apostles. Within twenty years or so of Jesus giving this command, those loser and their friends had established churches throughout the Mediterranean basin and through Thomas, tradition says, in India. Tradition also says that Mary Magdalene, the woman from whom Jesus exorcised seven different demons, preached the Gospel and established the Church in France.

We’re to share Jesus. People who hoard Jesus experience something like what happened to the Israelites in the wilderness when they tried to hoard the food, called manna, which God provided for them. God told them to only gather what they needed for a given day and twice as much on the Friday before the Sabbath when they were to rest and not do any gathering. (Just their “daily bread,” in other words.) Some dolts got the idea that they should gather extra manna and hold onto it. But all the extra they gathered rotted.

Our faith in Christ may be personal, because each of us must decide about Jesus for ourselves, but it is not a private matter.

When we turn our faith into a private affair, failing to share Jesus with friends, family, coworkers, classmates, business associates, and others, our faith begins to rot.

It becomes selfish.

It focuses more on rituals and traditions and the things that make us comfortable than it does on Jesus and our neighbors and making our faith accessible to those who don’t know Jesus.

Ingrown Christianity is a religion heading for hell.

Christianity focused on God and others is a living relationship with a living God.

Second: Anyone can do evangelism. If you know how to gossip or teach a child to tie their shoes or give someone directions to your house, you know how to do evangelism.

On that first Pentecost Day, one-hundred-twenty believers in Jesus, opened their mouths and talked about the most important thing in the world: How God loves us all and that everyone who will humbly turn from sin and let Jesus be the Boss of their lives can have a full life that starts now and keeps going through eternity. You see, when you evangelize, instead of misusing the gift of speech to gossip, instead of using it to just talk about everyday things, you use it positively to give the life and love of God away to others.

That’s what those first Jesus-Followers did on the first Pentecost and I guarantee that they were less well-groomed, less sophisticated, less wealthy, and less educated,than any of us here this morning. Anyone can do evangelism...including you and me!

Third: To be a faithful evangelist, you need to depend on God. Before that motley crew of 120 hit the streets of Jerusalem on the first Pentecost, they had been praying, helplessly begging God to send them the power to do the right thing.

They were afraid--afraid that the people who had killed Jesus might kill them, afraid that they might say the wrong thing, afraid that they’d look ridiculous.

God sent His Holy Spirit to them and filled with the fire of inspiration, they threw open their locked doors and were empowered to tell others about Jesus in ways that made sense to each listener.

God will do the same thing for us when we pray and depend on Him. We’ll be able to share the Good News in ways that make sense to the people with whom we share it.

Fourth: We can only fulfill this purpose for our lives by getting out of our Christian ghetto and establishing relationships with the bigger world.

In a way, this business of evangelism is the most important of God’s five purposes for us. God uses the other four purposes for our lives to prepare us for being evangelists, people who by sharing Jesus with others, reproduce themselves as disciples.

The Church really is the only organization in the world that exists for nonmembers! We need to be out there in the world telling others about Christ and living for Christ among them. My home pastor had a plaque in his office that said, “The holiest moment in the worship service is when the last song has been sung and the people carry Christ into the world.” I think that's true!

You and I are God’s Pentecost people. Filled with the Holy Spirit, we’re called and powered to share the life of Christ with a dead and dying world. We have a simple and important message to share. It’s the same message that Peter shared on the first Pentecost: “All who call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.”

The mission and ministry fair happening after worship will challenge and call each of us to be God’s Pentecost people, committed to telling the world about Jesus. Let’s share the message of new life from Jesus and watch how God changes people’s lives--our lives and the lives of those we befriend in the Name of Jesus!

More Reasons to Pray for Peace

My future son-in-law, who works for an airline at the Cincinnati International Airport, was on the job yesterday when a Delta flight brought the body of Marine Lance Corporal Taylor Prazynski home. Prazynski died as the result of shrapnel wounds sustained in Iraq.

My son-in-law reported that Delta employees volunteered for the duty of helping take the casket from the plane to an awaiting hearse. Family members and an honor guard stood by. "There were these burly baggage handlers with tears rolling down their faces," he told me. "It was all so sad to see."

Taylor Prazynski graduated from Fairfield High School in 2003. He joined the Marines shortly after that.

The Cincinnati Enquirer today also tells the sad news of a twelfth tristate member of the military killed in Iraq. This young man, Marine Lance Corporal Nick Erdy, 21, was from Clermont County. His cause of death isn't yet known.

As I said earlier, I pray for peace. I also pray that God will comfort all who mourn.

When Violent Death is an Ever-Present Possibility...

you laugh and you cry. At least that's the lesson to be derived from Love and War, Iraq's most popular TV show. This article from The New York Times describes it as a "tragicomedy" that combines slapstick with drama rooted in the grim realities of war-torn and recovering Iraq.

Says the article:

Even the show's comic moments can be violent. In one episode, Fawzi [the male lead] is so busy flirting with Fatin [the female lead] that he fails to notice his car - the hand brake left off - rolling backward downhill. It rolls all the way to an American military checkpoint, where the soldiers, mistaking it for a car bomb, riddle it with bullets.

Love and War has come to an end. Its final episode, recently filmed and to be seen in June, shows Fawzi and Fatin, now married, being blown up by a suicide bomber. Such is the violent reality of Iraq. I'm praying for peace.

Could Maria Korp Be Taken Off of Life Support Precipitately?

Purple Kangaroo has put me onto the sad case of Maria Korp. The fifty year old Australian woman was found unconscious on February 13 and has been in a coma ever since. Her husband and his lover are alleged to have attempted to murder her.

Today, May 13, Mrs. Korp could be taken off life-support. That's contingent on a Melbourne judge ruling that her status of being in a persistent vegetative state has changed to a permanent state. The court-appointed guardian could then decide to end life support.

Ironically, Mrs. Korp's alleged killers may hope that decision won't be made and that she will not die. Should she die under those circumstances, prosecutors have indicated that they would change the charge of attempted murder to murder.

Purple Kangaroo cites medical protocols indicating that for the court to change Mrs. Korp's status, just three months after she was found, would be premature.

Prayers for Maria Korp and for those charged with making decisions in this matter would be good to offer right now.

UPDATE: Purple Kangaroo has posted information on the difficulty and subjectivity involved in diagnosing someone as having entered a permanent vegetative state (PVS). It's here.

PK has also sent a link my way with background information and a plethora of links dealing with the entire subject. It's here.

I hope that readers find these links informative and will use them as incentive for further exploration of the subjects raised.

I Found Out That I'm a "Pro-Government Conservative"

After mowing the lawn, I found the Pew Center test to which Rob Asghar linked interesting. If you take the few minutes required to go through the test, it'll give you a pretty good picture of where you reside in the US political landscape. I don't fit the demographic profile of most in the "Pro-Government Conservative" group to which the test said I belong and I differ in some of my specific policy views from its members.

But I don't object to being characterized as a Pro-Government Conservative. (That's not the same as a Big-Government Conservative, by the way. Many feel that that's the appropriate designation for the President.)

So, go to Rob's site and link up with the test, then leave a comment with him on your reactions to it.

The Need for Humility from Christians Who Get Into the Political Fray

Rob Asghar, the Dimestore Guru, is having a "discussion" with a commenter on his blog. You might want to check it out. I wrote this response which I think will make sense even if you haven't read any of the background:

It seems to me that what you're commending here, Rob, is a humble approach to faith and life.

Just because we are Christians doesn't mean that we're incapable of being wrong. Just because George W. Bush is a man of faith who prays doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. And just because I'm a Christian, it doesn't mean that I know what ought to happen in our political process.

That's one reason why, when I pray for the President and other foreign
leaders, I tell God, "I have my preferences. But You know better. I just pray that You open their hearts and, in whatever ways You choose, send Christ to them. Then, with their hearts (and wills and minds) open to You, help them to do what You want them to do."

But even then, we must acknowledge that our leaders see through a glass darkly.

I've said it before and now I'm going to say it again: Because of the
security we Christians derive from our relationship with Jesus Christ and our utter dependence on Him, we can feel okay about prefacing all our opinions with
the simple statement of truth, "I could be wrong." In fact, since I am a sinful human being saved only by God's undeserved act of grace through Jesus Christ and because I am a finite mortal being, nothing is more probable at any given moment than that I am wrong, either wholly or in part.

The very first reality any follower of Jesus needs to acknowledge is that, "I'm not God."

By the way, this acknowledgement can be hard to make. The longer a person spends in the Christian subculture, especially one that encourages the kind of self-righteousness Jesus excoriated in the Pharisees, the more that person "identifies" with God and the tougher it becomes to admit that all my thoughts might not come with the input of the Holy Spirit, the wisdom of heaven, or the imprimatur of Jesus.

I'm reminded of Irving Stone's book, They Also Ran, which told the life-stories of the defeated nominees of the major parties for President. One of those profiled was three-time Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, a deeply committed but shallow Christian. Stone described a progression in Bryan's warped thinking that ran roughly through these stages (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the book in front of me and it's been more than thirty years since I read it in full):

I want to do God's will

I've been anointed by God to do His will

I alone know God's will

I am God

Whether they would admit to making a bald claim of deity or not, many Christians, at a functional level, seem to live as though they think that way. After insisting--rightly, I think--that there are such things as objective truth and right and wrong, they leap to the unfounded claim that they know it all through and through. They claim that God is a certain kind of conservative Republican and won't entertain other notions. They claim that God wants to get rid of Senate filibusters of judicial nominations, wanted us to go into Iraq, and thinks that Tom DeLay is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Others will insist that God wants to preserve the Social Security system as is and knows that the Republicans stole the 2000 election.

Maybe God does want and believe those things, but until people can show me chapter and verse in the Bible that's the case, I think that they ought to willingly label their opinions as their opinions, not God's word. None of this is to say that people with particular philosophies, informed by their own Christian sensibilities, shouldn't be politically active. But humility should inform our forays into political debates. We should be able to say, "I'm as willing to listen as to speak. I'm as willing to admit that I'm wrong as insist that I'm right."

Marty, Setting Some Folks Straight

My brother distributes some well-deserved backside-whooping to two perverters of Christian faith: Pat Robertson and the producers of a new television mini-series.

In the case of Robertson, Marty doesn't have to do anything but quote the guy. As is often true of Robertson, what he says is so outrageous and ridiculous that he roasts himself on his own flame.

In the case of the TV series producers and the network airing "Revelations," he quotes extensively from a statement by a Biblical scholar.

Trash-Sorting and Shame

The Japanese, according to this article from today's New York Times are very serious about recycling. Very serious.

An island nation with limited space and limited natural resources, of course, has special incentive for reusing those materials that can be recycled and for incinerating those that would take up precious acreage in landfills.

The Times article talks about communities that have 10 and 44 different refuse categories into which individuals are expected to sort things. This is in many ways, laudable. I believe in recycling and probably no nation on earth is better at organizing themselves quickly and efficiently than the Japanese.

What interested me though, is the role played by societal shame in seeing to it that individuals comply with Japan's complicated trash-sorting rules.

There are what can only be described as "vigilantes" who cruise their neighborhoods, peering at the contents of the required-transparent trash bags to make certain that neighbors have sorted all items properly. When their neighbors fail to do so, the vigliantes are on them, tarring them with bad reputations.

Two vignettes from the article illustrate this use of shame:

Shizuka Gu, 53, said that early on, a community leader sent her a letter reprimanding her for not writing her identification number on the bag with a "thick felt-tip pen." She was chided for using a pen that was "too thin."

"It was a big shock to be told that I had done something wrong," Ms. Gu said. "So I couldn't bring myself to take out the trash here and asked my husband to take it to his office. We did that for one month."

And this:

At a 100-family apartment complex not too far away, Sumishi Kawai was keeping his eyes trained on the trash site before pickup. Missorting was easy to spot, given the required use of clear garbage bags with identification numbers. Compliance was perfect - almost.

One young couple consistently failed to properly sort their trash. "Sorry! We'll be careful!" they would say each time Mr. Kawai knocked on their door holding evidence of their transgressions.

At last, even Mr. Kawai - a small 77-year-old man with wispy white hair, an easy smile and a demeanor that can only be described as grandfatherly - could take no more.

"They were renting the apartment, so I asked the owner, 'Well, would it be possible to have them move?' " Mr. Kawai said, recalling, with undisguised satisfaction, that the couple was evicted two months ago.

In America, of course, we've almost done away with anything remotely resembling shame. We do, thankfully, have laws that strive to keep sexual predators away from children and that provide for the publication of these predators' names and faces in newspapers and other media. But by and large, Americans feel little motivation to do or not do things because of the possibility of being shamed.

One day last week, my wife, who works at a local retail establishment part-time in addition to her full-time gig as a school librarian, was approached by one of the young women with whom she works. This early-twenty-something had a look of horror on her face.

My wife soon knew why. A guy perusing the Mother's Day cards, wearing a Hustler ball cap also wore a T-shirt. Across the chest of the shirt was written in bold letters: F**k me, I'm bored.

Neither my wife or I believe in telling other people what to do. We're both squeamish about recent efforts of some Christian political groups to, as we see it, impose their particular brand of Christian morality on society.

But we both believe that when people like the T-shirt guy wear garbage in public where children can read it, people have a right, at the least, to say something.

When the man came to the cash register where my wife was working, she told him, "That is the most disgusting T-shirt I have ever seen in my life and it's completely inappropriate." The guy chuckled and said something about wishing he could find more like it.

While I'm proud of my wife for calling this guy out for publicly imposing his morality on children he passed by, nothing was immediately changed.

By and large, shame is a poor tool for change in America (or anywhere else, I surmise). We're too individualistic here, so raised on the (questionable) notion that all are born with rights, that we often view any obligation to others as an infringement. That's why, for example, we have people who claim that US courts have no jurisdiction over them and why some refuse to pay their taxes.

But I'm surely glad that I don't live in Japan. Shame is a destructive thing and it seems to be a deeply-ingrained and unquestioned presence in Japanese culture.

A woman I knew, who lived in a close-knit community, lost her job. She had taken a small sum of money from the company for which she'd worked and she was fired. Jobless now, she was reimbursing her former employer and could, in that community, have easily secured another position. But she was too ashamed to ask for a job. Doing so would have entailed the possibility of explaining why she was looking for new work.

For weeks, she went through an elaborate hoax designed to convince neighbors, friends, and family members that all was fine and that she was still working at her former job.

At last, she couldn't take the shame any longer. One morning, she got into the car in her garage, turned the engine on, keeping the door closed, and killed herself with carbon monoxide fumes.

Shame is a lousy motivator for long-term changes in human behaviors, no matter what the culture. It's been my observation that shame held onto for long periods of time can morph in three different ways:

(1) The weight of shame can cause people to simply deny the notion of any accountability to anyone or anything. It will lead, in other words, to a kind of libertinism, what I call, "anything goesism." The easiest fix for the shame that others impose on you is to deny that there are any standards whatever for how we interact with the world. That seemed to be the attitude of the guy with the T-shirt.

(2) The weight of shame can crush the life out of its victims, literally causing them to take their own lives. Unable to face or handle their shame, sometimes agreeing with the standards of perfection they sense others imposing upon them and sometimes simply submitting to them, these folks see no way out but death. That was the attitude of the woman who took her life.

(3) The weight of shame can bludgeon people into submission, turning them into furtive creatures, always worried about what the neighbors might say, and doing whatever they can to placate the false god of honor. That appears to be the way of Japanese culture.

I'm not a fan of shame.

But, as I've written more extensively here, guilt can be a good thing.

Shame assaults our personhood. Guilt calls us to accountability for specific actions or ways of thinking.

Shame questions our right to exist. Guilt calls us to make our lives better, affirming our capacity for growth.

Shame believes that we can't change. Guilt can motivate change.

We can learn something from the earnestness with which the Japanese are recycling. But they need to lighten up a little.

And I believe that the only real antidote to shame or guilt is found in a relationship with Jesus Christ, the God-Man Who accepts us as we are and graciously, lovingly, patiently helps those who surrender to Him to become all they're made to be.

A Strange Question Leads to Civil Conversation

A seemingly meaningless question by novelist Richard Cohen on his blog led to a nice interchange on faith, atheism, C.S. Lewis, and the need for civility in our public discussions.

By the Way...

Speaking of Ann Althouse, have I mentioned lately how much I love her blog? I don't understand her obsession with American Idol, a show I've never seen, but which seems to be little more than a glitzy version of Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour or Ed McMahon's Star Search.

But Althouse is smart and funny and attentive to lots going on in the world. I read her blog every single day...often several times a day.

If you haven't looked at her blog yet, give it a rip.

Impending Compromise on Filibuster of Judicial Nominations?

I was away for a meeting on Wednesday evening and so didn't see Hardball until its 11:00 P.M. Eastern Time replay.

During one segment, David Schuster reported on an interview he conducted on the Washington equivalent of the red carpet with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist before last evening's gala fundraiser in honor of Nancy Reagan.

Frist's responses to several Schuster questions seemed to indicate that a compromise on getting rid of the filibuster during debates over judicial nominees was pending. Later comments by Senator John Warner, rumored to be one of several Republicans less than enthralled with the so-called "nuclear option," pointed to the probability of a deal of some sort.

Pardon me if I gloat a little. I'm not always the most accurate prognisticator. But yesterday, in an interesting discussion in the Comments section of a post by Ann Althouse, I predicted that a compromise would emerge.

Here is a sample of my reasoning:

As a general observation, I would say that we hold elections for a reason. When we vote for presidential candidate A, we expect him or her to appoint folks to both the executive and judicial branches who are broadly reflective of their views. I expect George W. Bush to appoint pro-life rather than pro-choice jurists to the bench. So, I agree with former Senator Dole, who wrote in the NYTimes a few weeks ago, that the president's nominations ought to get a straight up-and-down vote.

But I also agree with Dole on another point he has made during this debate over judicial filibustering. The majority needs to be smart in how it uses its power. They shouldn't throw out the filibuster on the basis of temporary political exigencies. The nuclear option could blow up later in Republicans' faces. Exercising that nuclear option would then be seen as the act of political suicide bombers.

Quite simply, it's in everybody's best interest that a compromise like that suggested last week by Senator Frist, one that would limit Senate debate to 100 hours, emerges.

If I were a betting person, I would say that a compromise will be worked out. The Dems will have their say. The President will get his judges. The system will work. No one will feel humiliated, licking wounds that will later be the motivation for pushing some other nuclear, all-or-nothing button.

Some pro-life Republicans, the kinds who would rather be defeated in a blaze of glory than actually advance their cause, are apt to be disgusted when a compromise is announced. They will accuse Frist, the White House, and other Republicans of being sellouts and of, as they're fond of saying, "lacking cojones." The passage of just a little time may show that another description of them is apt: Smart politicians who stick to their principles and successfully pursue their agendas.

Bush v Clinton Again?

'Washington Whispers' is the interesting, sem-gossip column that appears in each edition of US News & World Report. The most recent version has some interesting tidbits. Among them:

President Bush's newest exercise craze

The assessment of Bush supporters that Florida Governor Jeb Bush could make
a credible run for the presidency in 2008

The TV-watching obsessions of Washington's high and mighty

Check it out.

"It's My Carnival, It's a Lovely Day!"

The line comes from 1975-vintage Paul McCartney throwaway song which he scrubbed and in 1993, tacked onto a re-issue of the Venus and Mars collection. It was recorded with a bunch of New Orleans musicians and in spite of being totally insubstantial, is a fun track. But, quoting Leslie Nielsen in Airplane, "That's not important right now."

Here's what is: Two new carnivals of blogging are up and submitted for your reading pleasure.

Check out the Carnival of the Vanities and the Christian Carnival. I'm looking forward to sampling some of the posts on this lovely day myself.

Putin and the Soviet...er, Russia

We all thought that Soviet Communism crumbled and died. Not so fast there, comrade. Here are two articles, one from Saint Petersburg and the other from Great Britain, analyzing Russian president Vladimir Putin's policies and his evident desire to resurrect the former USSR, along with its repressive governance and military ambitions. I wonder what President Bush saw when he looked into Putin's eyes during this trip?

Putin represents a real threat to peace and stability. While we may have entered a post-state era, replete with globalization, border-hopping terrorists, and the Internet, some haven't gotten the word yet. That includes the leaders in places like Moscow, Pyongyang, and Beijing. They bear watching.

A Big Human Need and How We Can Fill It

Our congregation, like hundreds of others across North America, is involved in the Forty Days of Purpose spiritual renewal campaign. It began on April 10 and will wind up on May 22. The campaign has several components:

• Adults and teens are reading Rick Warren's book, The Purpose Driven Life, each day.
• Our weekly worship is built around one of the five purposes for life Warren has identified based on the Great Commission and the Great Commandment found in the New Testament portion of the Bible.
• A Mission and Ministry Fair this coming Sunday will encourage members of our congregation to get involved with ministries to the church and mission to the community outside our fellowship.
• Finally, every week during the campaign, small groups gather to learn, pray, discuss, and grow in their relationships with God and each other.

Tonight, the group my family and I belong to met at our house. After watching a really excellent DVD-based presentation on Christian servanthood, based on Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) by Warren, we went into a discussion segment, built around questions provided by the Purpose Driven Life organization.

We'd already had a good discussion on what fears and apprehensions we had about dropping our own agendas to serve people whose needs become known to us, about the challenge of moving out of our comfort zones to serve, and about the desire we have to serve others as Jesus has already served us, when we came to this question:

Take a minute and write down some of your gifts and talents. Briefly share them with the group and have the group respond with possible areas of ministry where your gifts would be effective.

After I'd asked our group to do this exercise, a silence came over the room and I could feel the apprehension. One of the hardest things in the world is for us to identify or acknowledge our gifts or abilities. Whatever the root cause--fear of appearing egotistical, self-esteem issues, genuine belief that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about us--my years as a pastor have shown me that it's usually a difficult assignment for people, Christians especially, to name their talents.

My wife then made a suggestion. "Mark," she said, "why don't you go around the room and talk about the gifts and abilities you've seen in each person and then we can add our observations?" Whether it was because it got them off the hook a bit or because they thought I was qualified to do this, the rest of the group urged me to proceed in this way.

I told everyone that actually, this appealed to me. I recalled an episode of the old sitcom, Taxi. Louie De Palma is telling Alex Reiger about the gifts possessed by the employees of the cab company, naming each one along with their special abilities. "And Reiger," he says, "do you know what my gift is? I know what everybody else's gift is."

The way I see it, this is the foundational gift for any leader. More than anything else a leader must know what she or he can't do and discern who among the people they lead has the gift to do those things. I believe that the best leaders lead from weakness. They honestly acknowledge their deficiencies and humbly ask those who are more qualified or more able to fill in their gaps.

I may tell myself this because I have so many weaknesses and deficiencies and it consoles me to know that I need so much help in order to be an effective leader. But having them and knowing that I have them has, through my years as a leader in the church and in the community, forced me to do two things:

First, to depend on God. It's to this sort of dependency that Paul was referring when he wrote the seemingly paradoxical statement, "So, I will boast all the more gladly if my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me" (Second Corinthians 12:9). When weakness compels us to ask God to help, we're calling in more power, talent, inspiration, wisdom, insight, and capacity for meaningful accomplishment than we possess on our own.

Second, to depend on others. "A threefold cord is not quickly broken," Ecclesiates 4:12 in the Old Testament says. The strength of our efforts and the prospects of success are enhanced when those who, by themselves, are weak, band together with others. The New Testament makes it clear that God gives us our abilities and talents not just for our own prosperity or enjoyment, but also to give life, help, support, encouragement, and hope to others, Christians and non-Christians.

I've come to see these dependencies and the weaknesses they represent in us as individuals as gifts from God that help us all be more than we can ever be on our own.

Over the years at our congregation, our members occasionally have given short presentations on "What Friendship Church Means to Me" during our worship celebrations. One of the ongoing themes of those talks, one that has become the source of lots of ribbing and jokes, is, "You don't tell Mark what hobbies, interests, or past experiences you have. He'll turn it into your ministry." There's more than a grain of truth to that.

So, confident that I am our congregation's Louie De Palma, I went around the room tonight, naming the gifts, skills, talents, and tendencies of heart of each person present. Others happily joined in.

As we all shared our heartfelt assessments of one another, we experienced lots of laughter and also a few tears. The bond among our group members was strengthened and a deeper appreciation for the Biblical truth that each human being is "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14) was fostered. Our gathering lasted about a half-hour longer than usual--we aim to meet for an hour-and-a-half. But nobody seemed to mind.

It reminded me of an exercise I've done with middle school-aged Catechism students and high schoolers through the years. I write the names of every participant in the group on the top of a piece of paper. Then, I lay the papers out on a long table and tell the kids to write at least one thing they appreciate about the person whose name is on the page.

The first time I ever did this, the kids insisted that a page be made for me as well. I thought that I would get either perfunctory compliments or a few digs. Instead, the kids seemed to take to the project with genuine interest and authentic love, not only toward their peers, but for me as well. I was amazed at some of their comments. One written on my sheet I will never forget: "If you ever do something nice for somone, watch out! Pastor Mark sends out about a million thank you notes." I still have that piece of paper.

Something struck me as we went around the room with the members of our small group tonight, expressing what we appreciated in one another: Pre-teens and teens aren't the only ones who need to be told about what makes them special.

Followers of Jesus are called to be the hands and feet and voice of God in our world. That's what the New Testament is talking about when it calls we Jesus-Followers the "body of Christ." I'm sure that as Christ's body in the world, one of our tasks is to encourage people--whether they're believers or not. Doing so becomes one more way of sharing the love and the Good News of the God we know through the crucified and risen Jesus.

So much about our lives can drag us down. We can provide a real God-honoring service to others when take the time to build them up.

Be Able to Tell Your Grandkids, "I Knew Rob Asghar Before..."

Rob Asghar, as I've said before, is one of the best writers and finest thinkers producing blogs these days. Rob begins his life as a syndicated columnist soon, with a deadline of May 16 for his first piece. He's asking what of topics you'd like to see him address. Pop on over to Rob's site, sample his writing, and send him a comment.

Much success, Rob!