I came home from the Tuesday night Bible study wanting to do some reading and watch the Yankees-Angels game with a soft drink and some popcorn. But I was out of my beloved 7-Up and had to drink caffeinated Coke. So, I'm up, unable to sleep.
I decided that since I may not be able to post on Thursday through Saturday of this week, I'd give you a list of some blogs you might want to explore in my absence. The list doesn't mean I give them blanet endorsements. But there's interesting stuff in them. Here goes...
All Others Must Bring Data (A Boston sports fan shares his passions)
Pools of Grace
Dana Roc's Blog
Lenscape
Tomorrow's Trends
My Best Gadgets
6ft.10ft.2ft.com
Letting me be...random wondering and philosophy
If these aren't enough to sate your blog appetite, check out the Blogroll on the left side of the page.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Discouragement and 'Mr. Nice Guy'
His sudden death, seemingly in the prime of life, had come as a shock to his wife and family. One phrase was used repeatedly to describe him. "He was a nice guy," everyone said.
As someone who had informally counseled with him, I knew this to be true. But I knew something else about him: He was deeply discouraged and unhappy.
"I'm everybody's doormat," he told me. "It's not that I mind doing things for others. It's that people expect me to drop everything and do for them whenever they need help. But I never seem able to muster the courage to ask anyone else to help me."
He revealed that he was so burdened by the obligation he felt to please others that he couldn't imagine ever striving to achieve the goals he had for his life, even those he felt certain God had planted in his mind.
Mr. Nice Guy, a deeply committed Christian, would then hang his head in shame for these supposedly "unchristian" thoughts. He thought that he was called to be a nice guy/pleaser/doormat.
Of course, we should all be interruptible, open to opportunities to do loving deeds for others. Jesus says that whenever we care for those who need care, we're really serving Him. Such service can be a way of fulfilling Jesus' call to "love others as we love ourselves."
But it's been my experience that people don't fall into the doormat way of living, which is really a life style of slavery, out of gratitude for the love God offers through Jesus, the proper motive for Christian service. Jesus' love doesn't enslave us, but liberates us to become our best selves.
Pleasers though, seem to be motivated by one or more of several different desires:
"If I can be nice enough to everyone," the pleaser subconsciously thinks, "they'll all like me, they'll do what I want them to do, and my life will be easier."
Behind all the nice person's efforts to please everyone is self-loathing. Inside, there's a quaking child with a gaping hole that the pleaser tries to fill with the trophies of others' appreciation and compliments. But such self-aggrandizing approaches to life simply don't work!
In the next installment of this series on discouragement, I'll talk about what I'm starting to learn does work or can work, if we let it.
As someone who had informally counseled with him, I knew this to be true. But I knew something else about him: He was deeply discouraged and unhappy.
"I'm everybody's doormat," he told me. "It's not that I mind doing things for others. It's that people expect me to drop everything and do for them whenever they need help. But I never seem able to muster the courage to ask anyone else to help me."
He revealed that he was so burdened by the obligation he felt to please others that he couldn't imagine ever striving to achieve the goals he had for his life, even those he felt certain God had planted in his mind.
Mr. Nice Guy, a deeply committed Christian, would then hang his head in shame for these supposedly "unchristian" thoughts. He thought that he was called to be a nice guy/pleaser/doormat.
Of course, we should all be interruptible, open to opportunities to do loving deeds for others. Jesus says that whenever we care for those who need care, we're really serving Him. Such service can be a way of fulfilling Jesus' call to "love others as we love ourselves."
But it's been my experience that people don't fall into the doormat way of living, which is really a life style of slavery, out of gratitude for the love God offers through Jesus, the proper motive for Christian service. Jesus' love doesn't enslave us, but liberates us to become our best selves.
Pleasers though, seem to be motivated by one or more of several different desires:
- Keeping others from becoming angry with them
- Placating those already angry with them
- Avoiding confrontation, creating an atmosphere of false placidness in which differences are swept under the rug, the pleaser accepting servitude without a whimper
- Getting people to like them
- Getting people to depend on them
- Subtly soliciting and receiving compliments
- Making others feel beholden to them, even if the pleaser's desire to be perceived as being competent may prevent them from ever "calling in their chits"
- Feeling powerful, capable of doing for others what they won't or can't do for themselves
- Feeling competent
"If I can be nice enough to everyone," the pleaser subconsciously thinks, "they'll all like me, they'll do what I want them to do, and my life will be easier."
Behind all the nice person's efforts to please everyone is self-loathing. Inside, there's a quaking child with a gaping hole that the pleaser tries to fill with the trophies of others' appreciation and compliments. But such self-aggrandizing approaches to life simply don't work!
In the next installment of this series on discouragement, I'll talk about what I'm starting to learn does work or can work, if we let it.
Monday, October 03, 2005
The Problem with Stealth Supreme Court Justices
In earlier describing Harriet Miers, the President's nominee for the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as a "stealth nominee," I wasn't disparaging Miers' candidacy or qualifications for the Court.
When one considers it, Miers probably has more relevant experience for service there than O'Connor had when Ronald Reagan nominated her. The soon-retiring justice had been a state court judge in Arizona and before that, a member of the state legislature. Miers has been the senior partner in a major law firm, a member of a City Council, and counsel to a governor and a President.
It isn't essential that members of the Court have experience as judges. (In fact, the Constitution doesn't even require them to be lawyers, leading me to sometimes speculate on what would happen to the deliberations of the justices if they were leavened by the participation of non-lawyers.) Rehnquist, as has been pointed out many times today, wasn't a judge prior to his nomination for an Associate Justice slot in 1971. Earl Warren was a former California governor.
I've been reading the late Roy Jenkins' profile of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and just last evening, went through his brief account of FDR's controversial plan to add one new justice to the Supreme Court for every then-sitting member who was seventy years of age or older. Of course, Roosevelt's plan, never really embraced by his own administration and ultimately rejected by a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by his fellow Democrats, was triggered by his frustration that the Court was ruling many of his New Deal prescriptions for the ailing US economy unconstitutional.
According to Jenkins, FDR would have been better off to have simply waited for the Court's membership to turn over, rather than expending precious second-term political capital on a futile battle. Within a short period, the President had what can surely be described as a Roosevelt Court:
In John Roberts and Harriet Miers, the President has put forward two people with whom he and the members of his administration are familiar, but who don't have a boatload of "incriminating evidence" that potential opponents--on the right or the left--might use against them.
The result is a process in which little information is shared, the President and his administration winkingly ask their supporters to trust them, and an opposition, often driven by purely ideological motives, is frustrated.
Harriet Miers may be confirmed and she may turn out to be a great justice. She seems competent and hard working. But one day, a stealth nominee is going turn out to be a massive failure not because their judgments displease people, but because of incompetence which a strangely-constricted confirmation process doesn't surface.
When one considers it, Miers probably has more relevant experience for service there than O'Connor had when Ronald Reagan nominated her. The soon-retiring justice had been a state court judge in Arizona and before that, a member of the state legislature. Miers has been the senior partner in a major law firm, a member of a City Council, and counsel to a governor and a President.
It isn't essential that members of the Court have experience as judges. (In fact, the Constitution doesn't even require them to be lawyers, leading me to sometimes speculate on what would happen to the deliberations of the justices if they were leavened by the participation of non-lawyers.) Rehnquist, as has been pointed out many times today, wasn't a judge prior to his nomination for an Associate Justice slot in 1971. Earl Warren was a former California governor.
I've been reading the late Roy Jenkins' profile of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and just last evening, went through his brief account of FDR's controversial plan to add one new justice to the Supreme Court for every then-sitting member who was seventy years of age or older. Of course, Roosevelt's plan, never really embraced by his own administration and ultimately rejected by a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by his fellow Democrats, was triggered by his frustration that the Court was ruling many of his New Deal prescriptions for the ailing US economy unconstitutional.
According to Jenkins, FDR would have been better off to have simply waited for the Court's membership to turn over, rather than expending precious second-term political capital on a futile battle. Within a short period, the President had what can surely be described as a Roosevelt Court:
In place of [Willis] Devanter he appointed the young senator Hugo Black. Then, in the next few years, Supreme Court vacancies occurred like November's falling leaves. The president was able to appoint his own solicitor general, Stanley Reed; Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard academic; William O. Douglas, an equally liberal Yale academic; Attorney General Frank Murphy; Senator James Byrnes of South Carolina, later to be Truman's not entirely satisfactory secretary of state; and Robert Jackson, Murphy's replacement as attorney general.There are several points to this little history lesson:
1. The justices nominated and confirmed during Roosevelt's tenure fairly reflect the varied walks of life that have usually been represented on the Supreme Court. Black and Byrnes were politicians; Frankfurter and Douglas were scholars; Reed, Jackson, and Murphy were lawyers with political experience. They weren't all White House lawyers whose views were known only to those who served with them in the Executive Branch. All of these nominees had extensive public records whether in political decisions or legal scholarship. These were people who had taken sides and everybody knew what sides they had taken. That didn't prevent them from being confirmed.In making these two points, I'm not criticizing this President Bush or his father for nominating stealth candidates to the Court. In the poisonous atmosphere which has often surrounded Supreme Court nominations over the past thirty years, Presidents have their reasons for offering up persons with scant public records who they believe will reflect their views, but not attract opposition or controversy on the way to being confirmed.
2. The standards to which judges were held in those days were both more political and less ideological. It was assumed that Presidents would nominate people for membership on the Court who were more or less sympathetic to the President's basic philosophy.
In John Roberts and Harriet Miers, the President has put forward two people with whom he and the members of his administration are familiar, but who don't have a boatload of "incriminating evidence" that potential opponents--on the right or the left--might use against them.
The result is a process in which little information is shared, the President and his administration winkingly ask their supporters to trust them, and an opposition, often driven by purely ideological motives, is frustrated.
Harriet Miers may be confirmed and she may turn out to be a great justice. She seems competent and hard working. But one day, a stealth nominee is going turn out to be a massive failure not because their judgments displease people, but because of incompetence which a strangely-constricted confirmation process doesn't surface.
So, How About Some Encouragement?
I wrote earlier on discouragement and antidotes for this common experience. Below are links to a series I wrote some months ago:
The Power of Encouragement, Part 1: The Impact of Encouragers
The Power of Encouragement, Part 2: Encouraging without Words
The Power of Encouragement, Part 3: Principles for Parents
The Power of Encouragement, Part 4: Encouraging Leaders
The Power of Encouragement, Part 5: The Ultimate Source of Encouragement
The Power of Encouragement, Part 6: A Community of Encouragement
The Power of Encouragement, Part 1: The Impact of Encouragers
The Power of Encouragement, Part 2: Encouraging without Words
The Power of Encouragement, Part 3: Principles for Parents
The Power of Encouragement, Part 4: Encouraging Leaders
The Power of Encouragement, Part 5: The Ultimate Source of Encouragement
The Power of Encouragement, Part 6: A Community of Encouragement
Discouragement and Some Antidotes
I've been thinking lately about discouragement. (That's partly because I've been wrestling with feeling a bit discouraged about a few things in my life and because I've been dealing with lots of other folks coping with some sizeable cases of discouragement.)
This morning, in an unsystematic way, I jotted down a few things that cause discouragement. The list includes:
1. Altering our expectations. Notice I didn't say "lowering" our expectations! One example of altered expectations would include accepting that things don't always go our ways and so, having the humility and sense of humor to try our best and let the chips fall where they may, as the saying goes.
Another might be accepting that, contrary to the Coldplay song, Fix You, we can't fix other people or make them do what we want them to do. Why would we aspire to be such control freaks that we would want to "fix" people anyway?
2. Accepting that I'm not God. I believe it was Chuck Swindoll who first alerted me to two fundamental facts about life that lead both to sanity and faith: God is God; I'm not.
3. Learning to pray and really mean, "Your will be done." That's the central and most important petition of the Lord's Prayer, the template prayer taught by Jesus.
Don't misunderstand: There is a difference between faith and fatalism! But once we've prayed and tried our hardest--in our relationships, in our work, and so on, we need to be able to let it go and to let God be in charge.
4. Related to #3, rely on God. One of the most common prayers I'm offering to God these days is a simple one: "Help!" or "Help so and so!" or "Help me!" I used to try to micromanage God, describing in detail how I thought he should go about helping me or others. But if it's true that God is God and I'm not, this is a bit presumptuous.
What, someone might ask, about the statement in the Old Testament that if we approach God in prayer, He'll give us the desires of our hearts?
I believe that the deeper we go in our relationships with God, the more our desires will be reflective of His will and even when they're not, our greatest desire will be that God's will be done.
Besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling God what we want, so long as we're willing to accept that He may have better ideas than we do. (The may in that last sentence is meant to be ironic, folks.)
5. When daunted by a seeming profusion of failures, count your successes. The old Irving Berlin song sung by Bing Crosby in the movie, White Christmas, says, "When I grow weary and I can't sleep/I count my blessings instead of sheep/And I fall asleep, counting my blessings."
Homely advice? Terminally unhip? Yes and yes. But still valid advice. When things are going poorly, it's easy to fall prey to thinking that everything always has been and always will be lousy. Remembering blessings reminds us that this isn't true.
Some people I know keep their prayers in a notebook and as each one is answered, sometimes in ways they never would have anticipated, they make note of the answers and the dates on which they learned of these blessings.
Years ago, I began a habit of putting all the thank you notes I receive into file folders. When I'm feeling discouraged, I leaf through those notes. They remind me that I'm not as incompetent or unworthy as I might be feeling in my discouraged state.
However you do it, counting your successes--so long as you don't take too much credit for them--is one more antidote for discouragement.
6. Because some forms of discouragement stem from sin and its consequences, repentance and acceptance of God's grace is another antidote for discouragement.
God is gracious. That means that He has our best interests at heart and that in spite of our imperfections, He willingly forgives those who turn from their sin (which is what repentance means) and sends His Holy Spirit to help them avoid that sin in the future.
There's a big difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is God's way of getting our attention. The person without a capacity for guilt can't sense forgiveness or know the joy of having God renew them. Guilt drives us to the God we know in Christ, where we can find brand new starts and God's love for us.
A passage in the New Testament says this:
We need to let God love us to restoration and healing.
Just a few thoughts on discouragement and how to combat it.
This morning, in an unsystematic way, I jotted down a few things that cause discouragement. The list includes:
1. Things not going the ways we want them to goHere are a few antidotes for discouragement that I listed:
2. People not cooperating with us
3. Being taken for granted by others
4. Persistent failure (or the perception of persistent failure)
5. Taking the short view of things
6. Feeling that nothing we do matters
7. Financial difficulties
8. Insufficient reliance on God
9. Shame, something that comes to us when we either refuse to accept God's forgiveness for past sins or when we have sinned and refuse to repent, allowing the sin to become part of our personal make-ups.
1. Altering our expectations. Notice I didn't say "lowering" our expectations! One example of altered expectations would include accepting that things don't always go our ways and so, having the humility and sense of humor to try our best and let the chips fall where they may, as the saying goes.
Another might be accepting that, contrary to the Coldplay song, Fix You, we can't fix other people or make them do what we want them to do. Why would we aspire to be such control freaks that we would want to "fix" people anyway?
2. Accepting that I'm not God. I believe it was Chuck Swindoll who first alerted me to two fundamental facts about life that lead both to sanity and faith: God is God; I'm not.
3. Learning to pray and really mean, "Your will be done." That's the central and most important petition of the Lord's Prayer, the template prayer taught by Jesus.
Don't misunderstand: There is a difference between faith and fatalism! But once we've prayed and tried our hardest--in our relationships, in our work, and so on, we need to be able to let it go and to let God be in charge.
4. Related to #3, rely on God. One of the most common prayers I'm offering to God these days is a simple one: "Help!" or "Help so and so!" or "Help me!" I used to try to micromanage God, describing in detail how I thought he should go about helping me or others. But if it's true that God is God and I'm not, this is a bit presumptuous.
What, someone might ask, about the statement in the Old Testament that if we approach God in prayer, He'll give us the desires of our hearts?
I believe that the deeper we go in our relationships with God, the more our desires will be reflective of His will and even when they're not, our greatest desire will be that God's will be done.
Besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling God what we want, so long as we're willing to accept that He may have better ideas than we do. (The may in that last sentence is meant to be ironic, folks.)
5. When daunted by a seeming profusion of failures, count your successes. The old Irving Berlin song sung by Bing Crosby in the movie, White Christmas, says, "When I grow weary and I can't sleep/I count my blessings instead of sheep/And I fall asleep, counting my blessings."
Homely advice? Terminally unhip? Yes and yes. But still valid advice. When things are going poorly, it's easy to fall prey to thinking that everything always has been and always will be lousy. Remembering blessings reminds us that this isn't true.
Some people I know keep their prayers in a notebook and as each one is answered, sometimes in ways they never would have anticipated, they make note of the answers and the dates on which they learned of these blessings.
Years ago, I began a habit of putting all the thank you notes I receive into file folders. When I'm feeling discouraged, I leaf through those notes. They remind me that I'm not as incompetent or unworthy as I might be feeling in my discouraged state.
However you do it, counting your successes--so long as you don't take too much credit for them--is one more antidote for discouragement.
6. Because some forms of discouragement stem from sin and its consequences, repentance and acceptance of God's grace is another antidote for discouragement.
God is gracious. That means that He has our best interests at heart and that in spite of our imperfections, He willingly forgives those who turn from their sin (which is what repentance means) and sends His Holy Spirit to help them avoid that sin in the future.
There's a big difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is God's way of getting our attention. The person without a capacity for guilt can't sense forgiveness or know the joy of having God renew them. Guilt drives us to the God we know in Christ, where we can find brand new starts and God's love for us.
A passage in the New Testament says this:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (First John 1:9-10)Shame, on the other hand, walls us off from God. It makes us think that we are our sin, makes us despair, overwhelmed by the seeming futility of our lives.
We need to let God love us to restoration and healing.
Just a few thoughts on discouragement and how to combat it.
Miers: Another Stealth Nominee?
Two things strike me about the revelation that President Bush intends to nominate his White House counsel, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
First, I'm struck by the fact that this story broke before an official White House announcement. Aides leaked it to the press before the Communications office confirmed that on Sunday night, Mr. Bush offered the nomination to Miers.
In past administrations, this wouldn't be a surprise. But the Bush 2 White House has been relatively leak-proof. Was this a trial balloon? Or has the once-vaunted discipline of the administration begun to erode?
There are probably good arguments one could advance to answer yes to either of these questions.
I'm also struck with how little anyone seems to really know about Miers at this point. That will probably change quickly. While she may not have judicial paper trail--she's never been a judge--she does have a public record. She served, for example, on the Dallas city council and as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. Democrats, under pressure to placate liberal interest groups, will undoubtedly go through that record with a fine tooth comb.
Certain conservative groups, apparently concerned that Chief Justice Roberts will turn out to be a closet liberal, will also be exerting pressure on Republican senators to make sure that Miers votes their way once she's on the Court. But it seems to me that just as it was wrong to exact pledges from Roberts on how he would vote as a member of the Court, it would be wrong to seek promises from Miers.
In a way, it seems that Miers, like Roberts before her, is a variation of the stealth nominee strategy that began with Justice Souter's appointment to the Court. Ideological pressure groups, feeling that the stakes are even higher when it comes to choosing the successor of Sandra Day O'Connor, will severely test whether the strategy can continue to work.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt writes, "Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others."
Speaking only for myself, when I compared this nomination to that of Souter, it had nothing to do with either how well this President knew this nominee or whether Miers might be a "closet liberal." I meant only that there are no apparent red flags inviting opposition from the opposition party to her nomination.
First, I'm struck by the fact that this story broke before an official White House announcement. Aides leaked it to the press before the Communications office confirmed that on Sunday night, Mr. Bush offered the nomination to Miers.
In past administrations, this wouldn't be a surprise. But the Bush 2 White House has been relatively leak-proof. Was this a trial balloon? Or has the once-vaunted discipline of the administration begun to erode?
There are probably good arguments one could advance to answer yes to either of these questions.
I'm also struck with how little anyone seems to really know about Miers at this point. That will probably change quickly. While she may not have judicial paper trail--she's never been a judge--she does have a public record. She served, for example, on the Dallas city council and as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. Democrats, under pressure to placate liberal interest groups, will undoubtedly go through that record with a fine tooth comb.
Certain conservative groups, apparently concerned that Chief Justice Roberts will turn out to be a closet liberal, will also be exerting pressure on Republican senators to make sure that Miers votes their way once she's on the Court. But it seems to me that just as it was wrong to exact pledges from Roberts on how he would vote as a member of the Court, it would be wrong to seek promises from Miers.
In a way, it seems that Miers, like Roberts before her, is a variation of the stealth nominee strategy that began with Justice Souter's appointment to the Court. Ideological pressure groups, feeling that the stakes are even higher when it comes to choosing the successor of Sandra Day O'Connor, will severely test whether the strategy can continue to work.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt writes, "Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others."
Speaking only for myself, when I compared this nomination to that of Souter, it had nothing to do with either how well this President knew this nominee or whether Miers might be a "closet liberal." I meant only that there are no apparent red flags inviting opposition from the opposition party to her nomination.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Hillary, the Methodist
This profile of Senator Hillary Clinton may be a puff job by the New York Times. But I was intrigued by it nonetheless. And I find one of its central assertions, that Mrs. Clinton's views that abortion is a tragic option that should be exercised rarely, her concerns about film violence and sexual explicitness, and that morality matters don't stem from a desire to shift to the center, but genuinely-held beliefs, plausible.
Like Mrs. Clinton, I spent formative years of my youth in the Methodist Church. With missionary zeal, Methodists have historically not only striven for evangelization of the world and the internal spiritual transformation of believers, but to put that faith in action through social ministries. That spirit of do-goodism, a description I use with appreciation, is something that the young Hillary Rodham could have imbibed as much as the Goldwater Republicanism to which she once adhered.
None of this is to say that I see Senator Clinton's politics as being Christian any more than I see President Bush's in this way. But the probable spiritual roots of her views on a range of subjects are as likely to be imbued with Christian sensibilities as those of the President. God isn't a Republican or a Democrat. God is God and it's not right to trivialize Him by putting him in partisan pigeonholes.
Like Mrs. Clinton, I spent formative years of my youth in the Methodist Church. With missionary zeal, Methodists have historically not only striven for evangelization of the world and the internal spiritual transformation of believers, but to put that faith in action through social ministries. That spirit of do-goodism, a description I use with appreciation, is something that the young Hillary Rodham could have imbibed as much as the Goldwater Republicanism to which she once adhered.
None of this is to say that I see Senator Clinton's politics as being Christian any more than I see President Bush's in this way. But the probable spiritual roots of her views on a range of subjects are as likely to be imbued with Christian sensibilities as those of the President. God isn't a Republican or a Democrat. God is God and it's not right to trivialize Him by putting him in partisan pigeonholes.
Real Worshiping
Philippians 3:4b-14
[This message was shared with the people of Friendship Church on October 2, 2005.]
This past week, a new law went into effect in the state of Maryland. It says that within the first five months of receiving their licenses, new drivers under the age of eighteen may not have any minor passengers with them unless a seasoned driver is also in the vehicle. Besides that, the law says that new drivers may not operate any electronic devices, including cell phones, while driving. The intention, of course, is to force the new drivers to focus on the demanding job of driving.
I suspect that some Maryland teens may regard this as a terribly unfair law, even though some of us might think that it would be good if such restrictions were placed on drivers of every age. But if that happened, there would be a huge outcry, such as occurred when cell phone use while driving was banned in New York City a few years ago. We seem to view doing lots of things as once, or multi-tasking, as it’s called, as our constitutional right.
But this multi-tasking stuff doesn’t always work so well. Presbyterian pastor and theologian Mark Roberts, who I’m looking forward to meeting at a conference for Christian bloggers in the Los Angeles area in a few weeks, enjoyed seeing the remake of the old movie, Cheaper by the Dozen, a few years ago. Mark writes that while there was a lot of the juvenile slapstick you might have expected, the film also conveys a serious point:
You and I are called to do that kind of thing every day. It’s exactly what the writer of our Bible lesson for this morning, the first century preacher and evangelist, Paul, is talking about. Paul wrote these words to the church in the Greek city of Philippi.
A group of persuasive preachers had come to the Philippians and thrown them into doubt about their standing with God. They wondered if they really belonged Christ or if they would be with God in eternity.
That’s because these preachers had told them that it wasn’t enough for them to believe in Jesus, to trust Him with their lives. They told the Philippians that they also must become practicing Jews. The men would be required to be circumcised, for example, and all would have to observe the rituals and the laws of the Jewish religion.
The Philippian Christians had probably once been stirred by the truth that Jesus shared in John 3:16, telling that God had loves all of us so much that He gave His only Son so that everyone who believes in Him will live with God forever.
Now, here was this gang telling them that their belief in Jesus was okay, but now they also had to jump through religious hoops. Otherwise, God wouldn’t love them and they wouldn't be with God forever.
Martin Luther used to say that any time a person tells you that Christian faith consists of "Jesus and..." anything, they're not talking about Christian faith. Not even if it's "Jesus and" the very best things of which you can think. Rightness with God doesn't come from "Jesus and being a good person," or "Jesus and your family," or "Jesus and community service." Salvation and rightness with God have to do with only one thing, Jesus.
Paul said that these people who were commending circumcision, ritual observance, and good works in addition to Jesus were following the way of this flesh-and-blood world, not the God we know in Jesus Christ.
When Paul got wind of what the Philippians had been told and were starting to believe, he was furious!
These false preachers were taking their spiritual confidence away from the Philippian Christians. Our confidence as followers of Jesus has nothing to do with the things we do and everything to do with what Jesus Christ has already done for us from a cross and an empty tomb!
This is the way Paul expresses himself to the Philippians:
But, Paul wants them to know that he considers all that religion stuff to be “rubbish” compared to what he had through Jesus Christ: the gift of an everlasting relationship with God not based on anything he could do, but only on what Christ has done for us already. Our translation puts it a bit too daintily, by the way. Paul didn't say that he regarded his old life as mere rubbish. The word literally can be translated as excrement. That's what a life devoted to self-elevating works--even good religious works--is like compared to having faith in the Savior Jesus Who gives us everything worth having for free!
Then, Paul talks about the choice he has made in response to the incredible free gifts of life, forgiveness, love, hope, and confidence that comes through Jesus Christ. Paul isn’t going to multi-task with his life. He’s going to choose make following Christ his highest priority through all the ups and downs of life.
He writes:
Pastor Mike Foss tells the true story of a business executive in his congregation. Says Foss:
Authentic worship of the God we know with Jesus Christ entails responding to Christ’s love by letting His priorities, His ways, and His love overtake every aspect of our lives. That’s what did John when he put his career behind and stretched out for the way of Jesus.
Every day, we must choose: Christ or me? Christ or my ego? Christ or my priorities? Humbly following Christ or following the religion that makes the world think me pious? Or for our teens perhaps, following Christ or impressing those around me? Every day, we’re called to follow Jesus rather than the world. And this isn’t something we can multi-task. We can’t follow the risen and living Jesus and a selfish and dying world at the same time. We will either have all of Jesus or none of Him.
To have none of Him is unthinkable. To have all of Him is to have everything that really matters for all eternity.
[This message was shared with the people of Friendship Church on October 2, 2005.]
This past week, a new law went into effect in the state of Maryland. It says that within the first five months of receiving their licenses, new drivers under the age of eighteen may not have any minor passengers with them unless a seasoned driver is also in the vehicle. Besides that, the law says that new drivers may not operate any electronic devices, including cell phones, while driving. The intention, of course, is to force the new drivers to focus on the demanding job of driving.
I suspect that some Maryland teens may regard this as a terribly unfair law, even though some of us might think that it would be good if such restrictions were placed on drivers of every age. But if that happened, there would be a huge outcry, such as occurred when cell phone use while driving was banned in New York City a few years ago. We seem to view doing lots of things as once, or multi-tasking, as it’s called, as our constitutional right.
But this multi-tasking stuff doesn’t always work so well. Presbyterian pastor and theologian Mark Roberts, who I’m looking forward to meeting at a conference for Christian bloggers in the Los Angeles area in a few weeks, enjoyed seeing the remake of the old movie, Cheaper by the Dozen, a few years ago. Mark writes that while there was a lot of the juvenile slapstick you might have expected, the film also conveys a serious point:
In scene after scene, the father of 12 children, Tom Baker, played by Steve Martin, is being multi tasked to death as he attempts to balance the impossible demands of work and family. Now I don’t have 12 children, thank God, but sometimes I feel almost as out of sorts as Tom Baker.That’s true, isn’t it? We live in a world of wonders, filled with all sorts of delights and possibilities, career paths and hobbies, entertainments and enterprises that are worthy of attention, dedication, and passion. Many things cry for our attention. At the end of Cheaper by the Dozen, Tom Baker, decides to leave behind his promising career as a head football coach in order to spend more time with his children. He forswore the good to embrace the better.
When we’ve got so much going on in life, when voices all around us clamor for our attention, it’s easy to lose focus. We can forget why we’re here and what we’re living for. We end up charging off in all directions at once, and arriving at none of them.
You and I are called to do that kind of thing every day. It’s exactly what the writer of our Bible lesson for this morning, the first century preacher and evangelist, Paul, is talking about. Paul wrote these words to the church in the Greek city of Philippi.
A group of persuasive preachers had come to the Philippians and thrown them into doubt about their standing with God. They wondered if they really belonged Christ or if they would be with God in eternity.
That’s because these preachers had told them that it wasn’t enough for them to believe in Jesus, to trust Him with their lives. They told the Philippians that they also must become practicing Jews. The men would be required to be circumcised, for example, and all would have to observe the rituals and the laws of the Jewish religion.
The Philippian Christians had probably once been stirred by the truth that Jesus shared in John 3:16, telling that God had loves all of us so much that He gave His only Son so that everyone who believes in Him will live with God forever.
Now, here was this gang telling them that their belief in Jesus was okay, but now they also had to jump through religious hoops. Otherwise, God wouldn’t love them and they wouldn't be with God forever.
Martin Luther used to say that any time a person tells you that Christian faith consists of "Jesus and..." anything, they're not talking about Christian faith. Not even if it's "Jesus and" the very best things of which you can think. Rightness with God doesn't come from "Jesus and being a good person," or "Jesus and your family," or "Jesus and community service." Salvation and rightness with God have to do with only one thing, Jesus.
Paul said that these people who were commending circumcision, ritual observance, and good works in addition to Jesus were following the way of this flesh-and-blood world, not the God we know in Jesus Christ.
When Paul got wind of what the Philippians had been told and were starting to believe, he was furious!
These false preachers were taking their spiritual confidence away from the Philippian Christians. Our confidence as followers of Jesus has nothing to do with the things we do and everything to do with what Jesus Christ has already done for us from a cross and an empty tomb!
This is the way Paul expresses himself to the Philippians:
If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.In other words, Paul is saying, “All these people commanding you to conform to all legalistic provisions to be right with God are off the beam. I was a better Jew than any of these so-called Judaizers. I had climbed up the ladder of Judaism. I was a religious superstar!”
But, Paul wants them to know that he considers all that religion stuff to be “rubbish” compared to what he had through Jesus Christ: the gift of an everlasting relationship with God not based on anything he could do, but only on what Christ has done for us already. Our translation puts it a bit too daintily, by the way. Paul didn't say that he regarded his old life as mere rubbish. The word literally can be translated as excrement. That's what a life devoted to self-elevating works--even good religious works--is like compared to having faith in the Savior Jesus Who gives us everything worth having for free!
Then, Paul talks about the choice he has made in response to the incredible free gifts of life, forgiveness, love, hope, and confidence that comes through Jesus Christ. Paul isn’t going to multi-task with his life. He’s going to choose make following Christ his highest priority through all the ups and downs of life.
He writes:
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus.Folks, last week, we said that authentic faith means worshiping God every day of our lives. Today, Paul reminds us that living lives worshiping God--knowing Jesus and moving toward being like Him--entails making Him the focus of our lives.
Pastor Mike Foss tells the true story of a business executive in his congregation. Says Foss:
John’s life and career were on the upswing. He had just closed a major deal that lead to a large bonus. Membership in the country-club, driving a luxury SUV, and having a fine home and cabin up north, just seemed to be standard fare for one whose accomplishments were so many and frequent. Then it happened: his wife was diagnosed with a terminal disease. Putting his career temporarily on hold, he made certain that she got the very best medical care and, when he didn’t like the diagnosis and treatment plan, he took her to a world-class medical center. But the doctors all seemed to come to the same conclusion: she would die after a long time of decline. They recommended that he put her in a nursing home, visit her regularly, and go back to his career. But John couldn’t do that. Every time he looked at her, he didn’t see the sickness—he saw the woman...he loved, the partner in life with whom he had shared family and faith. And after one night of restless prayer, he made his decision. He quit his [job] to care for her, saying, “I’ll never get a chance to love her again. But I can always go back to work.” So, he sold his cabin and house and moved her to a single-level simple home where he loved her until the end.What that man did was an act of worship. No, he wasn’t worshiping his wife. There may in fact be times when our devotion to Jesus Christ will necessitate our giving attention to things other than our families. I think that many parents today are not being very loving toward their children by their willingness to drop everything whenever their kids want attention. Our children cannot learn to put God and others first, they cannot learn to be responsible, loving adults, if their parents always cater to their kids’ desires. Nor do we help our kids by enabling them in being selfish or inconsiderate or by bailing them out every time they make a bad decision.
Authentic worship of the God we know with Jesus Christ entails responding to Christ’s love by letting His priorities, His ways, and His love overtake every aspect of our lives. That’s what did John when he put his career behind and stretched out for the way of Jesus.
Every day, we must choose: Christ or me? Christ or my ego? Christ or my priorities? Humbly following Christ or following the religion that makes the world think me pious? Or for our teens perhaps, following Christ or impressing those around me? Every day, we’re called to follow Jesus rather than the world. And this isn’t something we can multi-task. We can’t follow the risen and living Jesus and a selfish and dying world at the same time. We will either have all of Jesus or none of Him.
To have none of Him is unthinkable. To have all of Him is to have everything that really matters for all eternity.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Response to a Reasonable Question: Why Do You Believe Christian Faith is True
Here are the links to a serire of posts I wrote that explain why I, a former atheist, believe in Jesus Christ. I hope that you enjoy them. Feel free to leave your comments.
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 1
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 2
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 3
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 4
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 5
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 6
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 1
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 2
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 3
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 4
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 5
Why I Believe Christian Faith is True, Part 6
Weightiness and Nonchalance, the Unexpected Connection
Doris at Grans on Bran posts about a BBC look at the word, tingo. The comments that ensue deal with odd words in the English language.
One of the oddest English words is nonchalant. If non is a negative prefix in this world, as it is in others, then to be nonchalant is to exhibit behaviors that are the opposite of those seen in people who are chalant. But whoever heard of a person being described in that way, except maybe in fun?
The word chalant isn't in the English dictionary. Anyone described as such would presumably be extemely nervous and high-strung.
But, I've learned that, as I suspected, the word comes from the French. Dictionary.com says in explaining the derivation of nonchalant:
And here I thought that the French didn't worry about getting fat!
One of the oddest English words is nonchalant. If non is a negative prefix in this world, as it is in others, then to be nonchalant is to exhibit behaviors that are the opposite of those seen in people who are chalant. But whoever heard of a person being described in that way, except maybe in fun?
The word chalant isn't in the English dictionary. Anyone described as such would presumably be extemely nervous and high-strung.
But, I've learned that, as I suspected, the word comes from the French. Dictionary.com says in explaining the derivation of nonchalant:
"[French, from Old French, present participle of nonchaloir, to be unconcerned : non-, non- + chaloir, to cause concern to (from Latin calre, to be warm, heat up. See kel-1 in Indo-European Roots).]"So, it would seem that being chalant, if ever one were struck by this condition, would have something to do with kel, the Latin prefix from which the word, calories is derived.
And here I thought that the French didn't worry about getting fat!
Random Stuff from Our Genesis Study, Part 13
[I'm continuing to try to catch up in presenting these notes. Feel free to send comments, ideas, or questions. Quotes below are from The Message, Eugene Peterson's wonderful paraphrase of the Bible.]
1. Genesis 30 opens with a scene which, from the perspective of our modern sensibilities, may make little sense. Rachel, seeing that her sister, Leah, the other wife of her husband, Jacob, is having children--"popping them out like a Pez dispenser," in the words of a conference speaker I once heard--becomes desperate. "Give me sons or I'll die!" she tells Jacob.
This isn't Rachel being a drama queen. As I explained in the last post of this series, not having children was regarded as a curse from God and having them as God's blessing. Since Jacob was clearly "successful" in conceiving children with Leah, Rachel felt that she was being judged. Yet, with these imploring words seem to deflect the blame or responsibility onto Jacob. One can be sympathetic for Rachel; her circumstances may have been unbearable to her.
Adding to Rachel's agony is the fact that, in those days. baby-making wasn't considered successful if sons weren't produced. Only males could own any significant amount of property or, in the case of first-born sons, inherit it from fathers. A widow was often destitute, forced, because of limited options, to either find another husband or become a prostitute.
For all these reasons--competition with her sister, feeling judged by God, wanting to provide for her future--Rachel is desperate to have sons.
2. Jacob reacts angrily to Rachel's words. His retort demonstrates that he believes that God has decided heretofore not to allow Rachel to conceive. But he also effectively puts the blame on Rachel. "Am I God?" he asks her. "Am I the one who refused you babies?"
These words must have been cruel blows for Rachel! They may even have been intended to be cruel. Time and again, Jacob proves to be a most imperfect person. But like the Christian woman who was nonetheless a fanatical bridge player, a competitive ogre, mentioned by C.S. Lewis in his classic, Mere Christianity, one is forced to ask, "If Jacob is this bad with God in his life, how much worse might he be without that relationship?"
3. In her childlessness, Rachel resorts to the same ploy used by Jacob's grandmother, Sarah, when she was childless. "Here's my maid Bilhah. Sleep with her," she tells Jacob. This, as I mentioned when discussing Abraham and Sarah's maid, Hagar, comports with a custom of the time. Servants were regarded as the possessions of their masters and mistresses. If a mistress was childless, she could give her maidservant to her husband and the child that issued from the pairing was then regarded as belonging to the mistress and her husband.
4. Bilhah successfully conceives and bears Jacob several sons. Unlike Sarah when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, Rachel shows no resentment toward Bilhah for being able to give Jacob sons and no fear that Hagar and Ishmael might supplant her in Jacob's affections.
Each son is given a significant name.
5. Leah, always second-fiddle in this dysfunctional family, finds her competitive juices roused when she sees that while she wasn't conceiving, Rachel's maid was. So, she gives her maid, Zilpah, to Jacob. (One wonders whether Jacob wasn't perpetually worn out from all these sexual pairings, tired of living in a domestic war zone, or perhaps, pleased with things. His feelings on this subject aren't recorded.)
Zilpah proves fertile and the result is that Leah was winning her race with Rachel, hopeful that somehow her success as a mother of sons will cause her husband to love her more. Leah is among the most sad and misused figures in the Old Testament. But even from her sadness emerges sons who will found the twelve tribes of Israel, helping to make God's original promise to Abraham come to pass.
6. Genesis 30:14-21 tells what happened when the two competitive sisters essentially bargained with one another to have Jacob sleep with them. Used as barter are fruits known as mandrakes, referred to here by their nickname of love apples. They were thought to be aphrodisiacs. (Why any of this crew would think they need them at this point is beyond me!)
Rachel may have felt utterly humiliated that her sister bears two more sons for Jacob. (Mentioned as an afterthought, reflective of that culture's sexism, is a daughter, Dinah. She will play a sad role in upcoming events.)
7. Another incident of narrative tension, an ongoing element in Genesis, would have arisen by now in the minds of ancient listeners to this story of Jacob. Where, they would wonder, is Joseph? Joseph, they would know, was the son of Jacob, born of Rachel, who ended up as a sort of prime minister in Egypt and would play a pivotal role in God saving His people from famine. Without Joseph, the Abrahamic promise couldn't be fulfilled. Without Joseph, there would be no Israel, no Moses, no journey to the Promised Land. For we believers in Jesus, there would be no salvation.
I'm reminded of that climactic scene in Back to the Future. Everything depends on Marty McFly's future parents kissing at the "Enchantments Under the Sea" dance. But because of Marty's presence and his disurbance of events, that seemed increasingly unlikely. Marty looked at a Polaroid snapshot of his family. His siblings had faded away and he was about to disappear, to. Then, his parents kiss. (As in Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast, it was apparently true love's first kiss.) Marty's future is secured, just in the nick of time. The audience issues sighs of relief.
Jacob and Rachel must conceive a child. And they do. His name is Joseph. God's people issue sighs of relief!
But Rachel isn't finished. She asks God for another son. That son will be Bejamin. He will be the source of joy...and sorrow.
8. The next section of the Genesis narrative was always the most difficult passage in the whole book for me to accept. I had no problem with the creation narratives. The story of the flood surfaced no difficulties. Nor did the acounts of the tower of Babel or of Sodom and Gomorrah. But my faith and credulity were challenged by this story of Jacob and the flocks of Laban.
Then I realized something. This isn't a story of Jacob's manipulation of genetics. Animals conceiving before speckled branches aren't going to produce speckled offspring. This is a story about God's intervention. In essence, Jacob said to God, "I believe that to fulfill Your promises to my ancestors and me, my family and I need to get out from under Laban's thumb. I will trust You, God, to create this animal offspring to increase my family's ability to survive whatever may come our ways when we leave Laban. This is the method I'll use." Jacob takes such a gigantic step of faith in God that when he outlines his proposal to Laban, Laban must think that one more time, he's going to take advantage of his son-in-law.
Jacob never claims that animal husbandry lay behind his success. He attributes it to God. "Over and over," he later tells Rachel and Leah, "God used your father's livestock to reward me" (Genesis 31:9).
The "negotiations" between Jacob and Laban are, in a way, typical of the marketplace transactions of the time, full of the shrewd and sometimes disingenuine wordiness favored to this day by traders in Near East cultures. Both Jacob and Laban are notorious schemers. Heretofore, Laban has always gotten the better of Jacob. Not so this time. That's because this time, God has Jacob's back. It's like I always tell my Catechism students, "Either God gets His way or God gets His way. In the end, there are no other options."
[[Here are links to the previous installments in this series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12]
1. Genesis 30 opens with a scene which, from the perspective of our modern sensibilities, may make little sense. Rachel, seeing that her sister, Leah, the other wife of her husband, Jacob, is having children--"popping them out like a Pez dispenser," in the words of a conference speaker I once heard--becomes desperate. "Give me sons or I'll die!" she tells Jacob.
This isn't Rachel being a drama queen. As I explained in the last post of this series, not having children was regarded as a curse from God and having them as God's blessing. Since Jacob was clearly "successful" in conceiving children with Leah, Rachel felt that she was being judged. Yet, with these imploring words seem to deflect the blame or responsibility onto Jacob. One can be sympathetic for Rachel; her circumstances may have been unbearable to her.
Adding to Rachel's agony is the fact that, in those days. baby-making wasn't considered successful if sons weren't produced. Only males could own any significant amount of property or, in the case of first-born sons, inherit it from fathers. A widow was often destitute, forced, because of limited options, to either find another husband or become a prostitute.
For all these reasons--competition with her sister, feeling judged by God, wanting to provide for her future--Rachel is desperate to have sons.
2. Jacob reacts angrily to Rachel's words. His retort demonstrates that he believes that God has decided heretofore not to allow Rachel to conceive. But he also effectively puts the blame on Rachel. "Am I God?" he asks her. "Am I the one who refused you babies?"
These words must have been cruel blows for Rachel! They may even have been intended to be cruel. Time and again, Jacob proves to be a most imperfect person. But like the Christian woman who was nonetheless a fanatical bridge player, a competitive ogre, mentioned by C.S. Lewis in his classic, Mere Christianity, one is forced to ask, "If Jacob is this bad with God in his life, how much worse might he be without that relationship?"
3. In her childlessness, Rachel resorts to the same ploy used by Jacob's grandmother, Sarah, when she was childless. "Here's my maid Bilhah. Sleep with her," she tells Jacob. This, as I mentioned when discussing Abraham and Sarah's maid, Hagar, comports with a custom of the time. Servants were regarded as the possessions of their masters and mistresses. If a mistress was childless, she could give her maidservant to her husband and the child that issued from the pairing was then regarded as belonging to the mistress and her husband.
4. Bilhah successfully conceives and bears Jacob several sons. Unlike Sarah when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, Rachel shows no resentment toward Bilhah for being able to give Jacob sons and no fear that Hagar and Ishmael might supplant her in Jacob's affections.
Each son is given a significant name.
5. Leah, always second-fiddle in this dysfunctional family, finds her competitive juices roused when she sees that while she wasn't conceiving, Rachel's maid was. So, she gives her maid, Zilpah, to Jacob. (One wonders whether Jacob wasn't perpetually worn out from all these sexual pairings, tired of living in a domestic war zone, or perhaps, pleased with things. His feelings on this subject aren't recorded.)
Zilpah proves fertile and the result is that Leah was winning her race with Rachel, hopeful that somehow her success as a mother of sons will cause her husband to love her more. Leah is among the most sad and misused figures in the Old Testament. But even from her sadness emerges sons who will found the twelve tribes of Israel, helping to make God's original promise to Abraham come to pass.
6. Genesis 30:14-21 tells what happened when the two competitive sisters essentially bargained with one another to have Jacob sleep with them. Used as barter are fruits known as mandrakes, referred to here by their nickname of love apples. They were thought to be aphrodisiacs. (Why any of this crew would think they need them at this point is beyond me!)
Rachel may have felt utterly humiliated that her sister bears two more sons for Jacob. (Mentioned as an afterthought, reflective of that culture's sexism, is a daughter, Dinah. She will play a sad role in upcoming events.)
7. Another incident of narrative tension, an ongoing element in Genesis, would have arisen by now in the minds of ancient listeners to this story of Jacob. Where, they would wonder, is Joseph? Joseph, they would know, was the son of Jacob, born of Rachel, who ended up as a sort of prime minister in Egypt and would play a pivotal role in God saving His people from famine. Without Joseph, the Abrahamic promise couldn't be fulfilled. Without Joseph, there would be no Israel, no Moses, no journey to the Promised Land. For we believers in Jesus, there would be no salvation.
I'm reminded of that climactic scene in Back to the Future. Everything depends on Marty McFly's future parents kissing at the "Enchantments Under the Sea" dance. But because of Marty's presence and his disurbance of events, that seemed increasingly unlikely. Marty looked at a Polaroid snapshot of his family. His siblings had faded away and he was about to disappear, to. Then, his parents kiss. (As in Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast, it was apparently true love's first kiss.) Marty's future is secured, just in the nick of time. The audience issues sighs of relief.
Jacob and Rachel must conceive a child. And they do. His name is Joseph. God's people issue sighs of relief!
But Rachel isn't finished. She asks God for another son. That son will be Bejamin. He will be the source of joy...and sorrow.
8. The next section of the Genesis narrative was always the most difficult passage in the whole book for me to accept. I had no problem with the creation narratives. The story of the flood surfaced no difficulties. Nor did the acounts of the tower of Babel or of Sodom and Gomorrah. But my faith and credulity were challenged by this story of Jacob and the flocks of Laban.
Then I realized something. This isn't a story of Jacob's manipulation of genetics. Animals conceiving before speckled branches aren't going to produce speckled offspring. This is a story about God's intervention. In essence, Jacob said to God, "I believe that to fulfill Your promises to my ancestors and me, my family and I need to get out from under Laban's thumb. I will trust You, God, to create this animal offspring to increase my family's ability to survive whatever may come our ways when we leave Laban. This is the method I'll use." Jacob takes such a gigantic step of faith in God that when he outlines his proposal to Laban, Laban must think that one more time, he's going to take advantage of his son-in-law.
Jacob never claims that animal husbandry lay behind his success. He attributes it to God. "Over and over," he later tells Rachel and Leah, "God used your father's livestock to reward me" (Genesis 31:9).
The "negotiations" between Jacob and Laban are, in a way, typical of the marketplace transactions of the time, full of the shrewd and sometimes disingenuine wordiness favored to this day by traders in Near East cultures. Both Jacob and Laban are notorious schemers. Heretofore, Laban has always gotten the better of Jacob. Not so this time. That's because this time, God has Jacob's back. It's like I always tell my Catechism students, "Either God gets His way or God gets His way. In the end, there are no other options."
[[Here are links to the previous installments in this series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12]
Friday, September 30, 2005
Chav Hits Mother Lode, Keeps on Being Nuisance
Ever wonder what would happen if the town bully (and in the local parlance, a chav) won the Lottery? The Brit town of Swaffham is finding out.
I found it interesting that this guy was ordered not to menace people within a 400-mile radius of his home town. Does that mean he can do so beyond that radius?
This is bound to become a British made-for-TV movie.
I found it interesting that this guy was ordered not to menace people within a 400-mile radius of his home town. Does that mean he can do so beyond that radius?
This is bound to become a British made-for-TV movie.
'Christmas at Maxwell's'
I study the Biblical commentaries at a Catholic seminary library about once a week. During a short break the other day, I ran across an article in a newspaper from the Roman Catholic diocese in Cleveland. It was about this movie.
Christmas at Maxwell's is the work of a father-daughter creative team who were helped by actors from the Cleveland area. It was filmed at Lakeside, Ohio, a wonderful little community on Lake Erie, where generations of Methodists--and for retreats and continuing education events, people of other denominations--gather. The "Maxwell's" in the title is a real place.
Just getting a project like this completed is pretty amazing. It's no amateur job, either.
The premiere happens on October 27.
Christmas at Maxwell's is the work of a father-daughter creative team who were helped by actors from the Cleveland area. It was filmed at Lakeside, Ohio, a wonderful little community on Lake Erie, where generations of Methodists--and for retreats and continuing education events, people of other denominations--gather. The "Maxwell's" in the title is a real place.
Just getting a project like this completed is pretty amazing. It's no amateur job, either.
The premiere happens on October 27.
Call in the Pest Conrtol Professionals!
Ann Althouse, spooked by an earlier experience of having bats invade her house, is now concerned that the place has become home to squirrels. Earlier, she asked readers if they thought if this might be the case. In an update, she responded to readers telling her how to handle such an invasion, saying that if there are squirrels in the AltHouse, she will call in professionals.
I responded:
I only know that the most important tool in my arsenal for dealing with household repair and maintenance needs is the telephone.
I responded:
I don't know if you have squirrels in your house. But I am with you on the question of what do about them. Of course, you should call in professionals.By the way, my competence in any of the usual homesteading skills is so limited that I require professional help for even the most mundane of tasks. So, my advice in this matter may be worthless.
Earlier this year, we had a family of skunks ensconced beneath our front porch. There was no way I was going to tangle with the crew!
(In fact, a bevy of skunks have terrorized our neighborhood, particularly the local dog population, all summer long.)
The skunks are no longer a problem at our house or in our community. Part of the reason for that happy turn of events is that I "outsourced" my skunk eradication program.
My advice to you is don't try to figure out whether you've got a squirrel problem or not. Call the professionals and let them make that determination.
(No real animals were harmed in the posting of this comment.)
I only know that the most important tool in my arsenal for dealing with household repair and maintenance needs is the telephone.
Adult Spelling Bees
The barkeep says it exposes his establishment to a different demographic. The entire phenomenon begs for treatment as a romantic comedy. Can't you just see it, with Tobey MacGuire and Reese Witherspoon as recovering elementary school nerds, both having gone through a succession of failed relationships, falling for each other over trichotillomania? To give it the New York feel she's expert at imparting--and I mean that sincerely--Nora Ephron could be enlisted as writer/director. Coldplay could be recruited to provide a few suitable species of thirtysomething melancholia and angst to be played in the background during the main characters' long walks solo around Manhattan, contemplating the potential loss of their relationships, as they pore over the newest Scripps list of spelling bee words.
Now that I've pitched the story, remember that I get a piece of the theater and DVD receipts. Ciao, baby.
Now that I've pitched the story, remember that I get a piece of the theater and DVD receipts. Ciao, baby.
Because of My Defiance, Ohio Connection...
...I'm looking forward to this new movie with Julianne Moore and Buddy Harrelson. For six years, my family and I lived in Defiance County, on the county line road between it and Henry County, in rural northwestern Ohio. There, I served as pastor of Bethlehem Lutheran Church of Okolona. We had a Defiance mailing address. It should be interesting, although one might hope that once a town like Defiance gets its moment in the sun, it would be through a less difficult true story.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
A Coincidence? In Hollywood?
My son, here designated P-Diddy, has a second shift job and I do much of my work during the day at home. That's especially true on days like this one, when I had to hang around all morning to wait for a plumber.
Today, I walked through the family room to find P-D watching the Will Smith movie, I, Robot. After about five seconds of watching it, I said, "It's just like Tron."
In that 1982 Disney film, a CPU develops a will independent from programmers and users. It arrogates to itself enormous power, way beyond the bounds its creators established. It's only when the hero, played by Jeff Bridges, flings himself into the monster's core and falls for what seems like miles in order to implant micro-data into the heart of the tall and swirling CPU that the horrors are reversed.
In I, Robot, which my son says is a not-very-faithful adaptation of another property, Smith dives into the heart of a swirling robot control mechanism, impanting data that reverses the enslavement of the robots and their threat to the human race.
Now, I know that there's nothing new under the sun. But you'd think that Hollywood could work a bit harder to do something different. Or is this just one of those coincidences? In "play-it-safe-let's-recycle-Gilligan's Island" Hollywood? I don't think so.
Today, I walked through the family room to find P-D watching the Will Smith movie, I, Robot. After about five seconds of watching it, I said, "It's just like Tron."
In that 1982 Disney film, a CPU develops a will independent from programmers and users. It arrogates to itself enormous power, way beyond the bounds its creators established. It's only when the hero, played by Jeff Bridges, flings himself into the monster's core and falls for what seems like miles in order to implant micro-data into the heart of the tall and swirling CPU that the horrors are reversed.
In I, Robot, which my son says is a not-very-faithful adaptation of another property, Smith dives into the heart of a swirling robot control mechanism, impanting data that reverses the enslavement of the robots and their threat to the human race.
Now, I know that there's nothing new under the sun. But you'd think that Hollywood could work a bit harder to do something different. Or is this just one of those coincidences? In "play-it-safe-let's-recycle-Gilligan's Island" Hollywood? I don't think so.
The 'Curse' of Second Presidential Terms
Paul Michael, noting the troubles that President Bush is having in advancing his ambitious agenda, writes interestingly on the curse of second presidential terms, saying that it goes back to at least Richard Nixon.
But second term problems go way back before Nixon. It was during George Washington's second term that the terminally creepy Thomas Jefferson and his acolyte, James Madison, went full-tilt with an anonymous assault on the first president. While Washington continued to serve effectively, he was considerably hampered by Jefferson's cowardly attacks.
FDR, though elected for third and fourth terms, had a tough time during his second round. This was somewhat self-inflicted, owing in part to his Court-packing scheme. Nonetheless, his second term was problematic.
Two reasons that second terms have been bad: (1) The second-term administration grows weary; (2) The administration suffers from a sense of entitlement to power. Second terms are when indictments and scandals are likely either to happen or catch up to administrations.
A reason for second term troubles of more recent vintage is that under the Twenty-Second Amendment, Presidents are term-limited. This means that on election to second terms, they immediately attain lame duck status. This leads to a rather rapid erosion of presidential power. Yes, they still possess all their Constitutional powers. But they suffer from major "clout leak," losing their capacity to make those who cross them miserable. They're put on less sure footing with a Congress, a Court, and a bureaucracy which have no term limits.
But second term problems go way back before Nixon. It was during George Washington's second term that the terminally creepy Thomas Jefferson and his acolyte, James Madison, went full-tilt with an anonymous assault on the first president. While Washington continued to serve effectively, he was considerably hampered by Jefferson's cowardly attacks.
FDR, though elected for third and fourth terms, had a tough time during his second round. This was somewhat self-inflicted, owing in part to his Court-packing scheme. Nonetheless, his second term was problematic.
Two reasons that second terms have been bad: (1) The second-term administration grows weary; (2) The administration suffers from a sense of entitlement to power. Second terms are when indictments and scandals are likely either to happen or catch up to administrations.
A reason for second term troubles of more recent vintage is that under the Twenty-Second Amendment, Presidents are term-limited. This means that on election to second terms, they immediately attain lame duck status. This leads to a rather rapid erosion of presidential power. Yes, they still possess all their Constitutional powers. But they suffer from major "clout leak," losing their capacity to make those who cross them miserable. They're put on less sure footing with a Congress, a Court, and a bureaucracy which have no term limits.
Random Stuff from Our Genesis Study, Part 12
[I've gotten way behind in posting in this series. But I'm trying to catch up in small bits. Previous installments are linked at the bottom of this one.]
1. Fortified by the revelation of God and of God's plans for him and his descendants, Jacob continues his journey to his family's ancestral home in modern day Iraq. The scene that unfolds in Genesis 29:1-13 is the second case of "love at first sight" recorded in the book. The first incident involved Jacob's father and mother, Isaac and Rebekah.
As Jacob approaches Haran, his uncle Laban's home, he meets a number of shepherds with their flocks, near the town well. The well would have been a large hole in the ground, connected to an underground spring, set in the midst of low-lying land. A large rock covered the hole.
When Jacob asked the shepherds why they hadn't rolled the stone away from the well, they said that they had to wait for all the shepherding families of the community to be represented. There may be two reasons for this: (1) Water is a precious commodity in the Middle East, the subject of ongoing diplomatic discourse to this day. The neighbors may have not trusted one another to refrain from taking a fair share of the water from the well. (2) The stone may have been so heavy that several people would have to move it together. Probably both reasons are in play here.
If the second reason is right--and scholars seem to unanimously agree that it is--then what happens next in the scene is a testimony to Jacob's immediate attraction to Rachel. When she approaches, he singlehandedly moves the stone! We've already seen that Jacob is particularly strong. So this explanation is plausible. When the man is inspired, whether by God or Rachel, he seems able to use his strength to stupendous ends. This is clearly "love at first sight."
Rachel seems as excited to meet Jacob as he is to meet her. She runs to tell her father about it.
[Note: Apparently, there's no problem with people marrying their cousins in this culture. When we read this, we're inclined to say, "Yecccccchhhhh!" But it is what it is, folks.]
2. In Genesis 29:14, Jacob meets his uncle, Laban, and were it not for Rachel, he may have later rued this meeting. In Laban, Jacob has met a schemer as selfish as him.
3. In Genesis 29:14b-27, we read a story of incredible deception. Laban knows how much Jacob loves Rachel. Yet, after Jacob worked the agreed-upon seven years for him as a slave, Laban, sends Rachel's sister Leah to the marriage bed instead of Rachel, his agreed-upon prize.
We moderns read this and wonder how Jacob could have consummated a marriage to Leah and not known that she wasn't the woman he loved. But in those days, brides entered the darkened bridal bed room heavily veiled. It wouldn't have been until sunset that Jacob would know that Laban had tricked him.
Of course, in spite of sympathy we might have for Jacob as we read this story, we might also see a kind of justice at play here. This is Jacob, after all: the guy who leveraged his brother's birthright when Esau was famished for a bowl of soup; the guy who decieved Isaac, his father, the blessing meant for Esau.
Jacob is incensed at what Laban (and Leah) have done to him and he expresses his anger to Laban. About seven years too late, Laban explains that it was the custom in his country that the oldest daughter must be married off first. Jacob is over a barrel and so agrees to work an additional seven years for Rachel's marriage. This isn't the last time we'll see that in Laban's culture, women were regarded as property. Laban viewed his daughters as commodities he can use to get what he wants from Jacob.
Throughout the account of Jacob in Haran, Laban reminds me of Mr. Haney from the old Green Acres sitcom. Haney always seemed to have some ace up his sleeve, some conveniently-overlooked custom, fee, or fact that would require the series' main character, Oliver Wendell Douglas, to fork over more money to him.
Fortunately for Jacob (or perhaps unfortunately), the customs of the day allowed a man to have more than one wife. So, he could be married to both Leah and Rachel.
4. Genesis 29:28-35 shows the strange contest between the two sisters for their husband's affections.
One key to understanding this passage is to remember that in Biblical times, having children was regarded as a particular blessing from God. The lack of children was seen as a curse. Thus, the couple not having children would feel even greater pressure than moderns who find themselves in the same situation.
Leah, often overlooked by her husband and knowing that she isn't first in his affections, relishes that she so easily conceives and gives birth (to sons, the more valued offspring, no less), while her sister Rachel remains barren for a long time.
This is one more example of the suspense that is a common element of Genesis. We're conversant enough with the story of Israel's patriarchs to know that Jacob must become the father Joseph, who will save the people from famine. But if Rachel can't become pregnant, where will Joseph come from?
What we learn in Genesis is that God acts at just the right time to advance His will. What seems impossible to us, God pulls off.
[[Here are links to the previous installments in this series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11]
1. Fortified by the revelation of God and of God's plans for him and his descendants, Jacob continues his journey to his family's ancestral home in modern day Iraq. The scene that unfolds in Genesis 29:1-13 is the second case of "love at first sight" recorded in the book. The first incident involved Jacob's father and mother, Isaac and Rebekah.
As Jacob approaches Haran, his uncle Laban's home, he meets a number of shepherds with their flocks, near the town well. The well would have been a large hole in the ground, connected to an underground spring, set in the midst of low-lying land. A large rock covered the hole.
When Jacob asked the shepherds why they hadn't rolled the stone away from the well, they said that they had to wait for all the shepherding families of the community to be represented. There may be two reasons for this: (1) Water is a precious commodity in the Middle East, the subject of ongoing diplomatic discourse to this day. The neighbors may have not trusted one another to refrain from taking a fair share of the water from the well. (2) The stone may have been so heavy that several people would have to move it together. Probably both reasons are in play here.
If the second reason is right--and scholars seem to unanimously agree that it is--then what happens next in the scene is a testimony to Jacob's immediate attraction to Rachel. When she approaches, he singlehandedly moves the stone! We've already seen that Jacob is particularly strong. So this explanation is plausible. When the man is inspired, whether by God or Rachel, he seems able to use his strength to stupendous ends. This is clearly "love at first sight."
Rachel seems as excited to meet Jacob as he is to meet her. She runs to tell her father about it.
[Note: Apparently, there's no problem with people marrying their cousins in this culture. When we read this, we're inclined to say, "Yecccccchhhhh!" But it is what it is, folks.]
2. In Genesis 29:14, Jacob meets his uncle, Laban, and were it not for Rachel, he may have later rued this meeting. In Laban, Jacob has met a schemer as selfish as him.
3. In Genesis 29:14b-27, we read a story of incredible deception. Laban knows how much Jacob loves Rachel. Yet, after Jacob worked the agreed-upon seven years for him as a slave, Laban, sends Rachel's sister Leah to the marriage bed instead of Rachel, his agreed-upon prize.
We moderns read this and wonder how Jacob could have consummated a marriage to Leah and not known that she wasn't the woman he loved. But in those days, brides entered the darkened bridal bed room heavily veiled. It wouldn't have been until sunset that Jacob would know that Laban had tricked him.
Of course, in spite of sympathy we might have for Jacob as we read this story, we might also see a kind of justice at play here. This is Jacob, after all: the guy who leveraged his brother's birthright when Esau was famished for a bowl of soup; the guy who decieved Isaac, his father, the blessing meant for Esau.
Jacob is incensed at what Laban (and Leah) have done to him and he expresses his anger to Laban. About seven years too late, Laban explains that it was the custom in his country that the oldest daughter must be married off first. Jacob is over a barrel and so agrees to work an additional seven years for Rachel's marriage. This isn't the last time we'll see that in Laban's culture, women were regarded as property. Laban viewed his daughters as commodities he can use to get what he wants from Jacob.
Throughout the account of Jacob in Haran, Laban reminds me of Mr. Haney from the old Green Acres sitcom. Haney always seemed to have some ace up his sleeve, some conveniently-overlooked custom, fee, or fact that would require the series' main character, Oliver Wendell Douglas, to fork over more money to him.
Fortunately for Jacob (or perhaps unfortunately), the customs of the day allowed a man to have more than one wife. So, he could be married to both Leah and Rachel.
4. Genesis 29:28-35 shows the strange contest between the two sisters for their husband's affections.
One key to understanding this passage is to remember that in Biblical times, having children was regarded as a particular blessing from God. The lack of children was seen as a curse. Thus, the couple not having children would feel even greater pressure than moderns who find themselves in the same situation.
Leah, often overlooked by her husband and knowing that she isn't first in his affections, relishes that she so easily conceives and gives birth (to sons, the more valued offspring, no less), while her sister Rachel remains barren for a long time.
This is one more example of the suspense that is a common element of Genesis. We're conversant enough with the story of Israel's patriarchs to know that Jacob must become the father Joseph, who will save the people from famine. But if Rachel can't become pregnant, where will Joseph come from?
What we learn in Genesis is that God acts at just the right time to advance His will. What seems impossible to us, God pulls off.
[[Here are links to the previous installments in this series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11]
Liberal Giuliani Adored by Conservative Republicans...What's Up with That?
Patrick Ruffini is a fledgling political pundit who is getting a lot of Republicans to participate in his monthly online straw polls. The subject of these polls is who should be the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Last month, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was the decided winner in the crowded field. Once again this month, Giuliani is in the lead.
Ruffini points out that his poll isn't scientific. But as Hugh Hewitt reported some months ago, based on interactions he's had with grassroots Republicans, there's alot of support for a Giuliani presidential run from people who disagree with him on abortion, gay marriage, and a whole host of subjects.
Why is that? Why are conservative Republicans gah-gah over the liberal Giuliani?
I think that there are two reasons, one to which Hewitt alludes. In a nutshell, it's the insecurity of our world and the desire to have a leader who acts with confidence and dispatch in emergency situations. Giuliani is perceived as having done that on September 11. Wanting security in the face of disasters, whether caused by terrorists or by nature, is trumping concerns about other issues for conservatives. They want Rudy--right now anyway--because he's seen as tough.
This, by the way, is the very trait that probably propelled Ronald Reagan past Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. Americans had massive misgivings about Reagan. A few years before, his perceived bellicosity and possession of "the nuclear button" would have been grounds for most American voters to dismiss his candidacy for President out of hand. But with the long-running Iranian hostage crisis still dragging on by election day of that year, Reagan's perceived toughness seemed preferable. Similar concerns could propel Giuliani to the Republican nomination and to the White House.
But I think that there's a second reason for the enthusiasm Republicans appear to have for Giuliani. It's this: The labels of conservative and liberal have been fairly depleted of meaning. Today, by and large, when people say, "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a liberal," they may mean nothing more than, "I like the blue team" or "I like the red."
Sure, there are still true believers. But I'll give you a test. In it, I'll describe the policies of phantom administrations and ask you to name the party of their President.
Administration #1 undertakes a major retrenchment and reduction in the size of the modern welfare state and it moves the federal budget from a deficit to a surplus.
Administration #2 oversees a massive growth in the size of government, including the establishment of several new buraucracies, and undertakes an activist foreign policy designed to spread democracy throughout the world.
By any conventional reckoning, one would say that the first administration was Republican and the second one Democratic. But in fact, the first is that of Bill Clinton and the second of George W. Bush.
Yes, circumstances change. But can you imagine Lyndon Johnson acquiescing to the welfare reform program Clinton signed into law? Or even Mr. Bush's father enacting the kind of Wilsonian response to terrorism that incited our current war in Iraq?
Mind you, I'm not arguing about the policies of these matters or whether either Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush were right in abandoning their party's core principles. Clinton probably had little choice once the Republicans won the 1994 midterm elections but to go along with the Republican-passed welfare reform program. It was only after those elections and its triumphant "Contract with America," that Clinton declared the era of big government to be ended. But Clinton had always been committed to a politics of "triangulation" in which he swiped enough of the ideas of his opponents to weaken their hold on more conservative voters.
Mr. Bush appears as committed as another president from Texas, the Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, to using money from the federal treasury--even when it has to be borrowed from China and other foreign lenders--to fatten the budget with people-pleasing pork.
Even on social issues, modern conservatives don't sound too much like the conservatives of bygone days. For example, many conservatives have been alarmed by soon-to-be Chief Justice John Roberts' answers during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like conventional conservative jurists of the past, Roberts insisted that the Court should not be in the business of making new law and should pay attention to precedent. In other words, he disdains judicial activism. But this isn't what some "conservatives" wanted to hear. They want judges who will be activists in the pursuit of their agendas on abortion, homosexuality, and other issues. For them, activism on behalf of what they believe in is okay.
So meaningless have the labels conservative, liberal, left, and right become that not long ago, I a conservative Republican activist told me, "If Barry Goldwater were alive today, we'd see what a liberal he really was. I could never vote for him." When I heard that statement, I couldn't help but think of the novel, 1984, in which war was said to really be peace.
The bottom line is that Rudy Giuliani may just win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and on his way to the White House, he'll be declared a great conservative.
Ruffini points out that his poll isn't scientific. But as Hugh Hewitt reported some months ago, based on interactions he's had with grassroots Republicans, there's alot of support for a Giuliani presidential run from people who disagree with him on abortion, gay marriage, and a whole host of subjects.
Why is that? Why are conservative Republicans gah-gah over the liberal Giuliani?
I think that there are two reasons, one to which Hewitt alludes. In a nutshell, it's the insecurity of our world and the desire to have a leader who acts with confidence and dispatch in emergency situations. Giuliani is perceived as having done that on September 11. Wanting security in the face of disasters, whether caused by terrorists or by nature, is trumping concerns about other issues for conservatives. They want Rudy--right now anyway--because he's seen as tough.
This, by the way, is the very trait that probably propelled Ronald Reagan past Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. Americans had massive misgivings about Reagan. A few years before, his perceived bellicosity and possession of "the nuclear button" would have been grounds for most American voters to dismiss his candidacy for President out of hand. But with the long-running Iranian hostage crisis still dragging on by election day of that year, Reagan's perceived toughness seemed preferable. Similar concerns could propel Giuliani to the Republican nomination and to the White House.
But I think that there's a second reason for the enthusiasm Republicans appear to have for Giuliani. It's this: The labels of conservative and liberal have been fairly depleted of meaning. Today, by and large, when people say, "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a liberal," they may mean nothing more than, "I like the blue team" or "I like the red."
Sure, there are still true believers. But I'll give you a test. In it, I'll describe the policies of phantom administrations and ask you to name the party of their President.
Administration #1 undertakes a major retrenchment and reduction in the size of the modern welfare state and it moves the federal budget from a deficit to a surplus.
Administration #2 oversees a massive growth in the size of government, including the establishment of several new buraucracies, and undertakes an activist foreign policy designed to spread democracy throughout the world.
By any conventional reckoning, one would say that the first administration was Republican and the second one Democratic. But in fact, the first is that of Bill Clinton and the second of George W. Bush.
Yes, circumstances change. But can you imagine Lyndon Johnson acquiescing to the welfare reform program Clinton signed into law? Or even Mr. Bush's father enacting the kind of Wilsonian response to terrorism that incited our current war in Iraq?
Mind you, I'm not arguing about the policies of these matters or whether either Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush were right in abandoning their party's core principles. Clinton probably had little choice once the Republicans won the 1994 midterm elections but to go along with the Republican-passed welfare reform program. It was only after those elections and its triumphant "Contract with America," that Clinton declared the era of big government to be ended. But Clinton had always been committed to a politics of "triangulation" in which he swiped enough of the ideas of his opponents to weaken their hold on more conservative voters.
Mr. Bush appears as committed as another president from Texas, the Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, to using money from the federal treasury--even when it has to be borrowed from China and other foreign lenders--to fatten the budget with people-pleasing pork.
Even on social issues, modern conservatives don't sound too much like the conservatives of bygone days. For example, many conservatives have been alarmed by soon-to-be Chief Justice John Roberts' answers during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like conventional conservative jurists of the past, Roberts insisted that the Court should not be in the business of making new law and should pay attention to precedent. In other words, he disdains judicial activism. But this isn't what some "conservatives" wanted to hear. They want judges who will be activists in the pursuit of their agendas on abortion, homosexuality, and other issues. For them, activism on behalf of what they believe in is okay.
So meaningless have the labels conservative, liberal, left, and right become that not long ago, I a conservative Republican activist told me, "If Barry Goldwater were alive today, we'd see what a liberal he really was. I could never vote for him." When I heard that statement, I couldn't help but think of the novel, 1984, in which war was said to really be peace.
The bottom line is that Rudy Giuliani may just win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and on his way to the White House, he'll be declared a great conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)