George H.W. Bush & Ourselves

Although I vividly remember the 1992 Presidential Election, I was really too young to understand it or have an informed opinion about it, but the occasion of the death last week of 94 year-old President George H.W. Bush and the subsequent media commentary and coverage about the life and times of that first President Bush has been clarifying to me.  Not so much about then, as about now.  Three observations about our culture that the death of George H.W. Bush have made clear to me, and what I am going to do about it.

We Delight in Tearing Down; We Hold Others to an Impossible Standard

I found it ridiculous how many of the death announcements of President Bush began with some note about how he "only" was president for one term.  Here's a representative example from the lede in The New York Times obituary:

George Bush, the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd, who steered the nation through a tumultuous period in world affairs but was denied a second term after support for his presidency collapsed under the weight of an economic downturn and his seeming inattention to domestic affairs, died on Friday night at his home in Houston. He was 94.  [my emphasis]

Note: President Bush was "denied a second term."  As if being elected to two terms is someone's birthright, and as if being elected president of these United States only once is not good enough!?  Think how easily that opening sentence might have read

George Bush, the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd, who, after a long career in public service, was elected to the presidency, from which office he steered the nation through a tumultuous period in world affairs and faced the challenge of an economic downturn and the public perception of his seeming inattention to domestic affairs, died on Friday night at his home in Houston. He was 94.

I'll admit it's not a very elegant sentence, but that's because I was trying to preserve as much of the obit's original language as possible, but you get the point: to imply that being elected president once is somehow falling short is outrageous.  The first sentence of the obituary shows that we delight in tearing down and pointing out how other people fail to meet the impossible standards of success we set for them.  Examples are everywhere.Some sports examples: Aaron Rodgers has "only" won one Super Bowl; LeBron should have one more NBA Championships with Cleveland; Peyton Manning "only" won two Super Bowls.  Etc.  It used to frustrate me when Tony Romo played for the Cowboys how some fans used to talk about how he wasn't good enough.  Here's a guy who was undrafted when he signed with the Cowboys, and then went on to start at quarterback from 2006-2015.  He played at a level that only a few dozen people who have ever lived could have played at, for multiple years, and yet he's a failure in many peoples' opinions, because he didn't win enough.We set an impossible standard for other people--he didn't do enough, she didn't win enough, etc.--and we make sure to emphasize where other people fell short, rather than drawing attention to all that they did achieve.  I hate this tendency in our culture.President Bush "only" served one term as president, "was denied a second term."  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?So, what I am going to do about it? I am going to work hard to talk about the positive achievements of others first. 

Our Media Commentators Are Totally Unaccountable

To his credit, Evan Thomas today regrets his editorial decision to imply, on the cover of Newsweek in October 1987, that George H.W. Bush was a "wimp".  I find it amazing that someone would call a man who was shot down in the Pacific Ocean at age 20 as other men were trying to kill him a "wimp".  But, there you are.  Taking our pervasive tendency to tear down (see above) and then publicizing it, our media does this kind of stuff all the time, and the mainly faceless and nameless hacks who do this kind of thing are seemingly immune from accountability.  To take a more recent example: on the same night that he won the Heisman Trophy as the best college football player in the country, Oklahoma's Kyler Murray had to apologize for what the USA Today called "several homophobic tweets more than six years old."Get this: Kyler Murray is currently 21 years-old, which means he posted the offending statements on Twitter when he was 15(!).  Other than yet more evidence that no teenagers should be on social media at all (I am not exaggerating), note the outrageous passive voice in the original USA Today story which "broke" the news:

Heisman Trophy winner Kyler Murray had a Saturday to remember. But the Oklahoma quarterback's memorable night also helped resurface social media's memory of several homophobic tweets more than six years old.  [my emphasis]

When Murray was 15 years old, he tweeted at his friends (via his since-verified Twitter account) using an anti-gay slur to defame them. Four offensive tweets remained active on his account late Saturday night but were eventually deleted by Sunday morning — when Murray apologized for his insensitive language in a tweet.

His "memorable night also helped resurface social media's memory"?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  These tweets did not "resurface" like a corpse washing ashore after a shipwreck several weeks before.  Tweets don't "resurface"--they have no agency.  Instead, some nameless "reporters" at USA Today were running through a child's tweets from 6 years ago, and then they publicized the results at exactly the moment that would cause a 21 year-old young man the most embarrassment and discomfort.  Instead of being able to celebrate one of the great nights of his life with his family and teammates, Kyler Murray had to enact a familiar routine: the humiliating public apology we have all come to accept.  Let me be clear: I do not approve of Mr. Murray's comments.  But, it seems to me that the USA Today reporters were more interested in tearing down a public figure than they were in drawing attention to the casual way teenagers bully and humiliate others.It's bad enough that the Internet means that any fool can say anything about anyone else and have other people listen to him; it's that much worse that people in media can do the same thing and then use the amazing power of mass media to get millions of people to listen to them.There are many many many more examples I could list of unaccountable media commentators doing this sort of thing, and precious few examples of those people ever being held accountable for what they say.  Burns me up.So, what I am going to do about it?  If I have something difficult or controversial to say, whether publicly or in private relationship, I will put my name to it and stand by what I have said.  If I later change my mind, I'll own that, too. 

We Don't Like to Acknowledge the Sufferings of the Rich & Famous

By any standard, George H.W. Bush was born into extreme privilege.  There is no question that his life was made easier because of wealth and connections, and that the things he achieved may have been impossible to someone with neither wealth nor connections.  However, one of the tendencies we have to is downplay the sufferings of wealthy people.  See, wealthy people suffer like the rest of us.  George Bush, for example, had to watch his 3 year-old daughter Robin die from leukemia.  Here's a question for you: would you rather be rich and lose your little girl, or poor?  Trick question.  It doesn't matter--losing a child will break your heart no matter how much money you have in the bank.  Sheryl Sandberg, billionaire and COO of Facebook, lost her husband from an undiagnosed heart condition; he was 47.  All the money in the world won't bring him back.  Joe Biden has lost a wife, a daughter, and now a son.You may dislike those peoples' politics or positions, but you have to acknowledge that they have suffered.  I can tell you from personal experience that people with lots of money and power experience loss in the same way as the rest of us.So, what I am going to do about it?  I want to be someone who is aware and acknowledges the sufferings of others, particularly the people I disagree with.  They are human, like me. I said I had 3 observations, but here's a fourth:

P.S.  It Was a Memorial Service For All of Us

This is totally unoriginal with me, but one of the striking things about the funeral services for President Bush was how it illustrated how far we've come from a national faith.  There was a time when most Americans would have had passing knowledge of the hymns, readings, and creeds that were part of President Bush's services.  Today, I doubt that's the case.  In some ways, the elements of the funeral service were as far removed from modern America as the elements of a royal wedding or the Queen's coronation.  I found it interesting to see the living presidents all reciting The Apostles Creed together, with President Trump not taking part.  I doubt if Mr. Trump's silence during the creed means anything at all, and I don't really care, but I did find the moment symbolic: we modern Americans have less and less in common with our cultural past.  It's very hard for a people to stay together when they don't share the same fundamental beliefs about Reality.  I wonder how much longer we can sustain the American Experiment, now that we no longer believe the same things.  I hope I'm wrong. 

I’ve written a very short whitepaper on a subject I care a lot about: communication.Click HERE to subscribe to my newsletter and I’ll send it to you for free:The Simple Technique Anyone Can Immediately Use To Become a Better Communicator.(If you are already a subscriber, drop me a line and I’ll send you the whitepaper.)

Early Thoughts on the Election

I went to bed early last night and woke up really early this morning, and even though I like to remind myself that no one knows the future, I was still surprised by the election result. Here are some early thoughts, in no particular order. Donald Trump's victory reminds us once again: no one knows the future. I wrote last year about how the experts always want us to believe that they can predict the future, but that they are?always wrong. None of the experts predicted Mr. Trump's victory in the primaries, and none of the experts predicted his victory last night. I'll say it again:?No one knows the future. Though the inherent obscurity of the future could seem terrifying, I tend to find this truth strangely comforting: it means that there is potential in every situation for the grace of God to be at work.The reason our politics is so bitter is because we don't?believe in the transcendent and the eternal. If naked political power is all there is, then you have to fight tooth and claw to achieve it. Since we've killed off God in the West, we have nothing else to live for.We should pray for Barron Trump. A ten year-old little boy, thrust into the spotlight.I cannot imagine what Hillary Clinton must be feeling this morning. As with any celebrity, it's easy to forget that Mrs. Clinton is a real person. She's been reaching for the presidency for much of her life; the bitterness of her loss this morning must be overwhelming.This election proves how distant the elites that run our country are from millions of ordinary people.? The establishment--including the conservative establishment--was opposed to Donald Trump's candidacy. And yet he won anyway. It cannot be good for America in the long term for the people with power--in the media, in academia, in business, and in government--to be so different from the people without it.We have no shared purpose as a people. I think Rod Dreher's metaphor is helpful:

Here‘s the problem, as I see it. Is the American nation (or any nation) more like:

1. The diverse crowd that gathers at the shopping mall on Saturday afternoon, or
2. The diverse crowd that gathers at the football stadium on Saturday night?

The difference is that the only thing the first crowd shares is little more than a geographical space, but the second crowd shares not only a geographical space, but a purpose.Our problem is that we want the solidarity and sense of purpose that the football stadium crowd possesses, but without its shared sense of a mission greater than the individuals engaged in it. I don‘t think this is a problem that politics can solve, but it is certainly a problem that politics can exacerbate. As the next four years will demonstrate.Instead of the Stadium as a symbol, I might have used the Cathedral, but of course America, as a foundationally secular nation, is better represented by a stadium. Plus, these days, Cathedrals function more like Malls, in the sense I mean in this post. There‘s?not much shared sense of purpose there, only a diverse group of people gathered in a particular geographical space to pursue private ends. The Mall really is the symbol of our place in this time. 

I suspect the Bradley Effect?was in effect yesterday. I wrote about the Bradley effect in yesterday's post.Politics exposes our idols. Millions of people would be in despair this morning had Mrs. Clinton won. Millions of people are despairing because Mr. Trump?has won. Ravi Zacharias has it right: "The loneliest moment is life is when you have just experienced that which you thought would deliver the ultimate and it has just let you down."I'm glad the?Church is "of no party or clique." My job is to be a pastor, a shepherd of people. That responsibility?does not depend on the fortunes of any party or clique, and my calling is to people, regardless of how they vote. I'm glad of that, this morning.As my friend Matt Judkins, a pastor in Oklahoma, puts it:[embed]https://twitter.com/matt_judkins/status/796339315336941568[/embed]  

The fox knows many things;The hedgehog knows one big thing.Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

Brief Thoughts on Voting

I was at my polling place (a beautiful old church in East Dallas) 10 minutes before the polls opened this morning, and there were already 10 people in front of me. Voting always makes me?reflective, and here are some of my thoughts and reminiscences, in no particular order. The sacred solemnity of peaceful voting always strikes me. There is just something about being surrounded by my fellow citizens, who may or may not share my beliefs, as we all line up peacefully and patiently to cast our votes. There is just something sacred about walking into the voting booth as a free man. I think voting represents America much better than fighter jet flyovers at NFL games--that's just a show of power: our real power lies in the peaceful ritual of?Election Day.Nothing is more important than the peaceful transfer of power. There are lots of issues I feel very strongly about, issues I believe matter to God. But I don't think anything matters more than the peaceful transfer of power. This 229 year-old experiment we have with our Constitution is exceeding rare in human history, and unless we are governed by laws with a peaceful transfer of power, nothing else is possible. I lived in West Africa as a small boy, and I distinctly remember watching from the verandah of our house, which was perched on the side of a small mountain, and looking down at the capital city below as the sirens sounded and soldiers shouted: there had been a coup attempt. Nothing is more destructive than chaos. May our system continue long into the future.God bless the election volunteers. I remember the first time I voted (must have been November, 1998). I was home from college and I went with my dad up to our polling place, which was a school I'd attended. In the 1950s era gymnasium/auditorium/cafeteria, we checked in with the volunteers and I was surprised to see I knew all of them--they were ladies from our church. I was impressed then with their civic commitment, and I have been impressed with election volunteers ever since. These people make our freedom possible.The longest line I ever waited in to vote was in 2004. I was living in Richmond, Virginia, off of Monument Avenue. I went to vote around midday, and the line wrapped around the city block. No one complained.It is shameful that I don't know more about the down ballot races and propositions. I am an educated guy. I read the newspaper every day. I care about local issues. And yet there were a few races on my ballot this morning that I knew nothing about. There was also a long and complicated proposition having to do with the pension fund for civilian city employees. I was mortified to read it and realize?I didn't know what I should do. I left it blank. That is unacceptable. I never want to be in that position again. It is my responsibility to be?more informed.But it is also shameful how our media don't prepare us for these important races and issues. I have a good memory and a varied media diet, and yet I walked into the voting booth knowing very little about issues beyond the headlines involving our leading presidential candidates. I know that there may not be a market for journalism devoted to issues, particularly down ballot issues, but I still think it's shameful how little space our media devotes to anything other than the presidential horse race.I wonder if a variation of the "Bradley Effect" will play a role in this election. The Bradley effect derives its name from the 1982 candidacy of Tom Bradley for governor of California. Mr. Bradley, a black politician, was ahead in the polling before the election, but lost the actual election. Why? Political scientists concluded that potential voters were not?honest with pollsters, telling the pollsters that they were going to vote for a black man (the socially acceptable answer), while not actually doing so in the privacy of the voting booth. I wonder if the same thing might happen today with regard to Mr. Trump--are there people who will privately vote for him, even though they'd be embarrassed to say so publicly?I don't know why cell phones are banned at polling places, but I'm glad they are. In Texas, cell phones and other "electronic communications devices" are banned within 100 feet of voting stations. I don't really see the problem with a ballot selfie, but I'm not complaining.Finally, the Presidency isn't going to save us, and our future will not depend on tonight's results. I believe it matters whom we elect--I want good people serving in office, from dog catcher on up to President of the United States. But, our ultimate hopes do not lie with our politicians, and the church does not depend on politics to carry out its mission; our hopes lie with God, and the church depends on him.In other words, Jesus is Lord, today, tomorrow, and forever.  

The fox knows many things;The hedgehog knows one big thing.Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

Does Public Polling Hurt Democracy?

Tomorrow is election day, and all the media organizations are poring over the polls, eager to tell us who's up and who's down and who's going to be the next President of the United States. I'm curious what tomorrow will bring, too, but I worry that our modern obsession with polling presents a problem for our republic. Here's why.

Public Polls are Self-Fulfilling

"Don't throw your vote away." This is the advice we're constantly given. If we vote for the candidate whom the polls say has no chance of winning, we feel as if we're wasting our vote. People want to back a winner. So, when the media tell us that this or that candidate is definitely going to lose, it makes us less likely to vote for the candidate who is behind, thereby reinforcing the polling results. Many American political campaigns are based less on ideas than on the "inevitability" of this or that candidate. I'd argue that inevitability was the main argument of George W. Bush's candidacy in the Republican primaries of 2000 and Hillary Clinton's candidacy in the Democratic primaries this year.

Public Polls Prop-up Our Current 2 Party System

Because the polls tell us that voting for a 3rd party candidate is a futile exercise, many of us reluctantly support the 2 main parties in elections. Unfortunately, this means there are significant parts of the electorate and significant ideas that are not given a hearing. It is telling that so many people appreciated Bernie Sanders's message of economic populism, a message that was relatively unheard in previous Democratic primary campaigns, even though it's clear now there's been an electorate eager to hear it. It is also telling that Donald Trump was the first Republican candidate that I know of to explicitly call the Iraq War a mistake. What if there was another party on the left that was able to make the arguments the Democrats refuse to make, or another party on the right that was able to make the arguments that the Republicans refuse to make? The point is that if alternative political movements and parties were able to gain traction in our system, new ideas would gain traction as well. Competition is good in the public square: it makes each of us refine our ideas and our arguments. Rival parties would make Republicans and Democrats better, which would make our republic better.

Public Polling Perpetuates the Red/Blue Divide

It doesn't seem as if Texas is going to turn blue any time soon, any more than it seems that California will turn red, and I think public polling perpetuates this divide. If people in the minority party in various states weren't convinced that their votes "wouldn't count," then perhaps they'd be more likely to vote, which in turn would require politicians and parties to make more effective arguments in so-called safe districts and spaces, taking no votes for granted.

Public Polling Encourages the Media to Focus on the Horse Race

I've written before (and it's not an argument unique to me) how the media obsession with who is ahead and who is behind--the "horse race"--is bad for democracy. Public polling encourages the media to make every story about how this or that development will hurt or help a candidate, and discourages the media from telling the electorate what ideas the candidate supports, and how those ideas will play out in government. This unhealthy obsession with the political horse race means that we begin to assume that the only thing that matters is winning, and politics becomes a permanent campaign, with actual governing an afterthought.

Okay, Smart Guy, What Should We?Do?

I think there are 2 actions we could take that would begin to undue the malign influence public polling has on our republic. (Note that in this post I've been talking about public polling. I see no problem with candidates and parties conducting polls for their own purposes, as long as they don't make those polls public. And,?I can certainly see the value of exit-polling, because that kind of polling doesn't influence elections results, but rather gives us more insight into the electorate.)First, I think Americans should be encouraged to vote for the candidate we like most. Rather than voting for whom seems most likely to win, or whom we dislike least, if we each began to vote our beliefs, our republic would be better served.Second, I think we should consider legal and Constitutional limits on the publicizing of polling results before elections.? The First Amendment would seem to prohibit any restrictions on the press. I believe strongly in the importance of a free press, but perhaps there might be narrow laws or even Constitutional amendments that?could be passed that would appropriate. (For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the press does not have the right to publish child pornography.) I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I think it's at least worth exploring, and it might be the case that the Fourteenth Amendment ("equal protection of the laws") could have some bearing on the issue.

Am I Missing Something?

I'm worried about the negative effects of public polling. Am I missing something? Is there a greater public good I'm overlooking? Let me know what you think. (If you'd like to read more on this issue, Jill Lepore had an interesting essay that looks at the historical development of opinion polls in the November 16, 2015 issue of?The New Yorker called "Are Polls Ruining Democracy?"? She was also a guest on?Fresh Air in February 2016. The BBC explored the polling and whether it should be banned before elections here.)  

The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing.Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

The Limits of Tolerance

Is there a limit to tolerance? A friend of mine put that question to me this afternoon, in response to last week's post on tolerance. My answer: No. Here's why. 

The Roots of Tolerance

Tolerance is simply the social recognition of a fundamental truth: all people are completely free to choose to believe and do whatever they want to believe and do. There are no exceptions to this principle. This truth is not dependent on whether laws and governments recognize it; this truth is simply true.Yes, governments and societies try to constrain the behavior of the people under their power, but they cannot actually remove free choice from their people--all they can do is make it more or less likely that people freely?choose this or that action.As I argued last week, tolerance has its roots in the character of God: God created us as free creatures and allows us to exercise that freedom, for good or ill.I don't think there is a limit to tolerance because I don't think there is a time when God takes away our freedom to choose.

But Actions Have Consequences

We are all free to believe and do whatever we choose, but we are?not free to choose the consequences of our actions. Actions have consequences. I'm free to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, but I cannot avoid the consequences of my freely chosen actions. Actions have consequences.

Doesn't God's Tolerance Have a Limit?

In the Bible, we read how God eventually allowed the Israelites to be conquered by their pagan neighbors as a consequence of their continued disobedience. I don't think this is an example of the limits of God's tolerance, however. Rather, I think God's tolerance never wavered: he always allowed the Israelites to freely choose to accept or reject him. But, although God's forbearance (a synonym of tolerance) never ran out, the Israelites' actions eventually caught up with them. Their actions led to the Exile. Certain actions lead to certain consequences, the way day inexorably follows night.

What About Human Law?

As humans, we seek to constrain certain behaviors precisely because?we know that people are always free to choose. When we lock up the serial murderer, we are not suddenly denying his freedom to choose, but acknowledging it: we know that if we do not lock him up, he may very likely continue to freely choose murder. Actions have consequences and human societies impose various consequences on various behaviors, but those consequences do not change the fundamental fact on which the principle of tolerance rests, namely that people are always free to choose.

Our True Limit

God's tolerance does not have a limit, but our lives are limited: we are limited by the choices of our actions, and we are limited by our?mortality. None of us can choose to be exempt from the consequences of his choices, and none of us can choose to be exempt from death.Sooner or later, all our actions catch up to us.

P.S. Why Does This Matter?

Tolerance recognizes that it's never too late for anyone--all people can choose to turn towards God or away from God up until their last breath. (And maybe beyond their last breath--who knows?) Because I can't take away someone's free will--even by force--it means that the pressure is off: I can't force anyone to believe what I believe. I can't make anyone believe anything, but I can persuade her‘through my words and actions to freely choose the Truth I've chosen.Which is a sacred privilege, when you think about it.   

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog. It's your free choice....

Is God Tolerant?

Tolerance is not just what we need to live peaceably together in an increasingly diverse society (though that's true): tolerance is much more important than that. In fact,?I think it's fair to say that life itself depends on tolerance, as does the fate of the entire world. 

False Tolerance

Tolerance is not, despite how‘the word is often employed, a vague sense‘that all beliefs and all religions are basically the same. This is a false idea, and this is a false definition of tolerance. In fact, it's the?exact opposite of what tolerance actually implies.

True Tolerance

Tolerance is about recognizing that all beliefs and all religions are?not basically the same. In fact, tolerance recognizes that many beliefs and religions are inherently contradictory, and no amount of hand-holding and attendance at diversity seminars will make inherently contradictory beliefs the same.Rather, tolerance is about making space for irreconcilable differences. Tolerance is not about agreement, but about?tolerating viewpoints with which you vehemently disagree.

Limits of Tolerance

It should be said that the one thing that we cannot tolerate is violence (which is not‘the same thing as speech, however ugly and hateful that speech might be), because violence makes tolerance itself impossible. But, with the exception of violence, tolerance makes room for all other actions and choices and beliefs.

A Theology of Tolerance

One of the main expressions of tolerance in the American Constitution is in our First Amendment: our right to religious freedom. (The First Amendment literally says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.") But religious freedom is not just a nice idea, codified into law. Rather, religious freedom is a principle built on the bedrock of reality, because it's a principle that is obviously true: all people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You cannot force anyone to believe anything. God created us as completely free creatures, and we can use that freedom in whatever way we want. We are even free to believe ugly things and free to act in ugly ways, free even to reject God himself. And God permits this freedom.God, you might say, is tolerant.In fact, I‘think that the Lord is far more tolerant than I would be, were I in his place:?I'd never have allowed that evil man to massacre all those people in that Orlando nightclub.But then again, neither would?I have so loved the world that I would have given my only son for the world, knowing that the world (which I created) would reject and kill him. God's tolerance, you might say, made the Crucifixion possible.Which means God's tolerance also made the Resurrection possible.Which means that tolerance is part of God's plan to save the world.   

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog.

My Friend's Orlando Thoughts

I haven't yet come up with anything interesting or helpful to say about the murders in Orlando, so I haven't written anything. But I read something my friend Jacob Sahms wrote that struck me, and I share it below. 

Reading and hearing the responses to the violence in Orlando, I'm struck by the outrage - and the way fingers start pointing at anyone but ourselves. If we're going to be the peacemakers who are called the children of God, then the solutions all start with us.Do we talk and act peacefully? (Yes, that includes driving.) Do we recognize that we're all children of God, even the people we don't agree with/like? Do our dollars and our votes endorse peace? Do we teach our children peace and love for all? We can pray all we want for peace, but if we're not part of being peace, then "thy kingdom come" isn't actually something we're part of.

-Jacob Sahms

He's totally right: "the way fingers start pointing at anyone but ourselves." Certainly true about me, and I don't like it.Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace....

2 Brief Thoughts on Elections

Christians make two mistakes when it comes to elections. Either we are triumphalist, thinking that because our candidate won, all will be well, or we are defeatist and despairing, thinking that because our candidate lost, all will be lost. Both reactions are mistaken.

Elections Are Important

Don't get me wrong--politics matters. I voted yesterday, and I think it matters who is elected, from dog catcher to president, and I want our leaders to lead and our government to run well. It matters whether the trains run on time and the roads are paved and the trash picked up. But as important as all that is, politics is not ultimate, and political power is not most important. There is something more important than politics, and therefore Christians shouldn't make the mistake of believing that our hope depends on how the election returns come in.

But Political Power is Not *Most* Important

Faithfulness is more important than politics and election results. David Watson is the Dean of United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, and he wrote a blog post yesterday about the temptation the church faces to value political power over faithfulness. Professor Watson's article is worth quoting from at length (though you should read the whole thing):

My fellow evangelicals, let me state this clearly: the ‘system? will never serve us, because the ‘system? is not of Christ. The ‘system? is a political machine beholden to special interests, lobbying groups, large corporations, financial contributors, and other entities, many of which are not the least bit concerned with anything remotely resembling Christian values. The idea that you can tear down the ‘system? and reshape it to serve you is, and always has been, a lie. It has been a lie since the time of Constantine. The ‘system? is about power, but Christ‘s power is the power of the cross, and God‘s power is made perfect in weakness. Christians must always stand outside the ‘system,? even when it is ostensibly Christian. As Christ taught us, No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other? (Matthew 6:24). Christians willing to compromise core tenets of the faith in order to bend the political process‘to their will may win in the short term, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. In the end, they will lose far more than they gain. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?? (Mark 8:36). It‘s not worth it. It‘s?not even close....

His ending makes our choice clear:

Who will we follow? Will we follow Christ and rightly understand ourselves as a countercultural family of faith, or will we baptize an idol of crass?materialism, place a crown on its?head, and call it?Jesus?

Good stuff.  

Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox.

Who Cares if Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Lots of folks are asking that question these days, and though it is an important question (and one that I will not be answering in this post), I don't think the question is as helpful as other people seem to think.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Some people say yes, and these people imply that Christians are therefore under obligation to show compassion to Muslims because of their theological commonalities. After all, aren't Christians and Jews and Muslims all "people of the book?" (That phrase comes from the Qu'ran.) And, since we are all people of the book, shouldn't Christians treat Muslims with compassion?I do not agree with this implication.

The Problem With Saying Yes

As Mark Tooley points out in Newsweek, if you stress that Christians are obligated to show compassion to Muslims because they are theological cousins, you are inadvertently implying that Christians are not under the same obligation to show compassion to other peoples with whom they don't have any theological commonalities. Hindus, for example, are not "people of the book," and yet that fact should not affect Christian treatment of Hindus (or Sikhs or Jains or Buddhists or atheist communists, etc.)A Christian's compassion for another does not depend on that other's theological commitments. Whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether a Christian should show compassion towards his Muslim neighbor.Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? What if the answer is no--should‘that change how a Christian treats her Muslim neighbor?

Love Isn't Conditional

Christians are not required to only love people with whom we agree (or partially agree).Jesus, after all, told his followers to love their enemies.  

(Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox 3 days a week.)

236 Piercing Words

The following 236 words are among the most insightful, prescient, and terrifying words I have ever read.

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good?? At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

This is the culture in which we now live. Chesterton, writing 110 years ago, noticed the inclination we have in the Western world to disregard and dismantle the hard-won wisdom of the centuries in the name of "progress," progress both of the moral and technological variety.

In the name of political progress:

• 60,000 men were mowed down with machine guns?on the first day of the Somme, July 1, 1916. (The wise men of Europe were certain that they had eliminated man's tendency to war.)

In the name of racial and evolutionary progress:

• 6 million Jews were incinerated in Nazi ovens. (The Nazis were interested in eugenics, the cutting-edge science of the time that promised to eliminate the dregs of humanity.)

In the name of sexual progress:

• Millions and millions of children are being raised without a father in their lives. (The sexual revolution promised us that uncoupling marriage and sex would lead to increasing levels of human flourishing and freedom.)

In the name of technological progress:

• We're unable to sit alone with our thoughts, but must constantly be connected.

This is the world in which we live. "Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark."

(I post 3 times a week, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Click here to subscribe.)

My Daily Media Diet

What are the books, podcasts, websites, blogs, and newsletters that make up your media diet? You are what you eat, and that includes the information you consume. Today's post is about what I read daily as part of my media diet (part 1 of a 3 part series).

What Is a "Media Diet?"

"Media diet" is a phrase I came across several years ago in a web series by?The Atlantic. A reporter would interview public figures about how they stayed informed and what they regularly read and watched and make a simple post out of it. (I still remember Malcolm Gladwell's comment about his daily reading habits:?"Since my brain really only works in the morning, I try to keep that time free for writing and thinking and don't read any media at all until lunchtime." I totally identify....)In part 1 of this series (parts 2 and 3 coming on the next two Mondays) about my media diet, I'll focus on what I read daily (or at least regularly).

What I Do First Thing in the Morning

I've written before about the importance of the First 15, i,e., spending?at least the first 15 minutes of your day in prayer, scripture, and silence. So, I've been getting up really early recently in order to have an unhurried time of prayer first thing, before I workout.Currently this is what I use in my prayer time:

• the NRSV Thinline Bible I was given by the bishop at my ordination;
• the scripture reading calendar my church gives out through our?Eat This Book program;
• Seedbed's Field Guide to Daily?Prayer (I really like the 30 day- reading plan for the Psalms);
• and a small journal that I write in about once a week or so.

 

Breakfast:?The Dallas Morning News and NPR

After working out and while eating breakfast and getting ready:

• I get the print version of?The Dallas?Morning News delivered at home, and read it every morning (except Sundays, when I don't get to it until late afternoon, if at all). I have come to really like?The DMN and get more locally-focused and sports news from it than anywhere else.
• I listen to NPR's?Morning Edition radio program most mornings.

Blogs: Rod Dreher (and Not Much Else)

I used to read Andrew Sullivan's blog almost every day. Now that he has stopped blogging, almost the only blogger I read regularly is Rod Dreher. Rod Dreher is a fascinating and unique writer: a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy living in his native rural South Louisiana who writes about culture from a social conservative point of view.One of the topics Rod Dreher writes about that I find most intriguing and persuasive is the so-called "Benedict Option": the idea that Christians in the West today may need to follow the 5th century example of St. Benedict and spend less time participating in politics and the culture wars and more time deliberately cultivating the practices that will "thicken" our faith and deepen our witness. Here is a post from Rod's blog in July that summarizes his thoughts on the Benedict Option.

Websites I Read Almost Daily

• I read?The New Yorker almost every day. I like the short form pieces from folks like John Cassidy and Amy Davidson, but I really prefer The New Yorker for its?long-form essays like this one about Northern Ireland that I wrote about in April.
• I also browse?The Atlantic's website regularly, though I believe that?The Atlantic?is a much worse magazine since it expanded its online footprint. Many of the online articles seem to be merely a slightly (sometimes?very slightly) more serious version of the kind of thing that I suppose you find on Buzzfeed or The Huffington Post, and I do not mean that as a compliment. The Atlantic these days seems to feature quick-reaction pieces on hot-button topics that lack nuance and wisdom. (I'll say more about my complaints with?The Atlantic in part 3 of this series.)
• I browse the?Yahoo! main site and scroll through the headlines, particularly about sports and politics.
• I check out the?BBC Sport's soccer page almost daily.

Online Newsletters and Other Sites

• I read movie reviews on?Plugged In every few weeks or so. I'm interested in movies, but I like reading reviews from a conservative Christian perspective (a perspective you don't get from mainstream reviewers). I rarely have time to see movies in the theater anymore, so I find myself reading many more reviews of movies than actually seeing movies.
• I've recently discovered?Book Notes,?a free newsletter from Byron Borger, owner of Hearts and Minds bookstore in central Pennsylvania. Through Book Notes, I've stumbled across books that I would never have heard of elsewhere--it's a great resources.
• I read articles and watch videos the videos on the CrossFit main site several times a week.

Coming in Parts 2 and 3....

Parts 2 and 3 will be about what I regularly listen to and watch and read in print. The above is what I read online on a regular basis. What about you? What makes up your daily media diet?  

P.S. Subscribe!

If you've read this far, why don't you go ahead and subscribe to my blog? I post 3 times a week (Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays). Click here to subscribe.

Why I Blog

Leadership is about influence, and it's primarily about the influence of ideas. I started blogging because I believe that ideas matter, and I want to be engaged in the public wrestling over which are the true and which are the false ideas. Ideas matter. In fact, as John Maynard Keynes reminds us, history is driven by ideas. 

[Ideas], both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.... Soon or late, it is ideas... which are dangerous for good or evil."

John Maynard Keynes from the conclusion of his General Theory?[1936](quoted in "Lessons in Statecraft," by George Weigel,?First Things, May 2015)

What's Best About America (& Why I'm Worried)

(The crowd really gets going at the "rockets' red glare" part, about 33 seconds in--makes my hair stand up. USA!)[7/8/14 update at 9:36 AM CDT: I've slightly edited the post for clarity.]The Framers of the American Constitution had a deeply-held belief in human sin. That clear-eyed expectation of sin?particularly the expectation that anyone is capable of using power in oppressive ways, and that given time and opportunity, anyone probably will use power in oppressive ways?is what I like best about America.James Madison, writing in 1788 in?The Federalist #51 under the pseudonym "Publius," had this to say about the underlying philosophy of the America Constitution:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Madison and the other framers of the Constitution were so aware of the human capacity for sin that they set up a system of checks and balances to limit sin's effects, so that power couldn't be too closely-held in any one set of sinful hands. Madison didn‘t merely want to keep permanent power away from his political enemies, he also wanted to keep permanent power away from his political allies. Madison was aware that his ideological allies were as likely to fall into sin as his ideological opponents. So, Madison and the Framers built a permanent mistrust of human nature into the American Constitution. This brilliant design has served us well for the last 200 years or so. We've had a lot of problems, but not anarchy and not tyranny.The best thing about America is the wisdom our Founders had to recognize that humans are deeply sinful creatures.? This insight of human sinfulness is, surprisingly, not universally acknowledged. 100 years ago, for example, many intelligent, educated people in the West believed that humans were on a path towards perfection. And then came the Somme.Sin is a part of every human life, and every human situation. We cannot perfect ourselves, cannot trust our best intentions. All of us, even the best-intentioned, are capable of acts of great evil. In the past 200 years, there have been countless revolutionary movements that promised freedom and justice, and a great number of them have made things worse for ordinary people rather than better. The reason revolutionary reality is so much worse that revolutionary rhetoric is because the leaders of these revolutions had no suspicion of their own intentions, no awareness that their hearts were often no more holy than the enemies they wanted to overthrow.In America, this was not the case. James Madison??if men were angels??knew that men and women were far from angelic, and he and the Framers took the human capacity for sin into account as they drew up our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Why I'm Worried

But I'm worried today that we've forgotten what we once knew. Today what most worries me about America is that many of us no longer believe in the universality and inevitability of human sin in all situations and in all lives.Don't misunderstand: it's not that we no longer believe in sin in general; rather, it's that we don't believe in the universality of sin; we no longer believe that?we ourselves and our people could be sinful in our actions.The American Left--particularly the progressive wing--seems only to see sin where it wants to see it.? The Left is quick to see possibilities for sin in for-profit corporations, among the rich, or in cultural systems that have in the past been used to oppress the weak. The Left is correct to see the possibilities for sin in these areas.But the Left seems blind to the possibilities for sin among government bureaucracies, among the poor, or in the progressive push to completely dismantle so-called traditional morality. The Left also seems unable to question its own crusading impulse, unable to concede that perhaps it could be mistaken in its inclinations. This is an extremely dangerous inability.To cite one recent example: The Left correctly complains that much of right-wing rhetoric about President Obama is hysterical and vitriolic. But the Left‘s response to the Supreme Court‘s Hobby Lobby case has itself been hysterical and vitriolic. Steve Coll, writing for The New Yorker‘s website, compared the Green family (the owners of Hobby Lobby) to the Taliban. I had to read the article twice to be sure he wasn‘t making a joke. Unfortunately, he appears to be in earnest; Mr. Coll also appears to be unable to see the sad irony in his use of the comparison.The American Left could use more of Madison‘s clear-eyed view of human sin. The men and women on the Left should be aware that they are as capable of using power in oppressive ways as anyone else.But my conservative readers should not be feeling too good about themselves, either. The American Right also seems only to see sin where it wants to see it. The Right is quick to see possibilities for sin among government bureaucracies, among the poor, or in the progressive push to dismantle traditional morality. The Right is correct to see the possibilities for sin in these areas.But the Right seems blind to the possibilities for sin in capitalist structures, among the wealthy, or in its media-entertainment complex. And the Right seems rarely to apply it's criticism of the Left to itself.The Right often accuses the Left of being out-of-touch with reality, unable to see the hard truths about the inevitability of sin in all human endeavors, that the Left is naively idealistic. But, the Right is capable of making the same mistakes and ignoring Madison's wisdom. To cite the clearest example of the last decade, consider the Iraq War and occupation. The leaders and planners of the war and subsequent occupation suggested that it would be relatively simple and inexpensive to remake Iraqi society. I have a hard time believing Madison would have been so sanguine. A healthy skepticism of human intentions--particularly with regard to human use of political power--and an abiding belief in the pervasiveness of human sin should have caused the architects of the Iraq War to expect more more difficulty when they laid out their plans. For example, a Madisonian understanding of the human use of power to oppress should have given the Iraq War architects the expectation that the leaders in the new Iraq would use violence against their political enemies in the same way that Saddam Hussein had formerly used it against them. Unfortunately--and I am of course only speaking as an outsider--these war architects seem to have ignored Madison's insight, with predictable results. When you forget about the inevitability of human sin and forget that you are capable of making the same mistakes that you have accused your opponents of making, you inevitably find yourself in a mess.

What the Left and the Right Share in Common

Here's the point: both the Left and the Right are capable of committing the sins that they have accused each other of making. (I know that's an obvious point, but I often find it helpful to point out the obvious.) I'm not arguing for some kind of middle or third way or saying that there is no substantial difference between the Left and the Right in American life. Rather, I'm just pointing out that a more Madisonian skepticism of our own righteousness would be beneficial for each of us, and for our ideological allies. The reason both the Left and the Right are capable of making the same mistakes is because they forget about the human capacity for sin, at least in regard to their own ideas and leaders. Both, in their own ways, believe that their ideas and practices can lead us toward perfection, that their desires are pure enough to be exempt from tendencies to self-delusion and abuses of power, and that the purity and righteousness of their desires justify any means to achieve those desires. This shared belief in their own righteousness?one of the things they have in common?is foolish and, I?d argue, un-American. And it causes me to worry. So, what should we do?

Two Things I'm Going to Do More Of

I?d like to see two changes in American public life. But, as with all changes, these must begin with each of us. I have control over no one‘s behavior but my own, just as you have no control over anyone but you. So, I want to see more of these two things in my own life:First, we need to remind ourselves that, to quote scripture, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In other words, no one is perfect, and no one‘s motives are perfectly pure. Each of us is capable of abusing power and justifying lies for our own, selfish ends. There but for the grace of God go I. I am no better than my enemies. I want to be reminded often of this sobering truth.The Christian practice of confession is valuable because it is impossible to pray a corporate prayer of confession and fail to hear the words applied to yourself. In my tradition, for example, we have a prayer of confession that goes like this:

Merciful God, We confess that we have not loved you with our whole heart. We have failed to be an obedient church. We have not done your will, we have broken your law, We have rebelled against your love, We have not loved our neighbors, And we have not heard the cry of the needy.

Every time I pray those words, I know that they apply to me: I am a sinner. I judge myself by my intentions but my enemies by their actions. In times of honesty and silence, I am forced to admit that I am not better than my enemies.Second, we need to confess our own sin and admit when our people have sinned. We cannot condemn the dirty tricks of our political and ideological enemies while turning a blind eye to those of our own people, whom we want to believe justified in their actions because we believe their ends to be so righteous. It would be powerful to hear people say, Yes, I voted for him, and yes, I broadly agree with his position on X issue, but he was dead wrong in how he spoke about his political enemies, and dead wrong to pursue power in that way, and I don‘t want to win if that‘s the way victory is achieved. I'd like to demonstrate more of this admission and honesty in my own life.What I like best about America is our Constitution‘s undergirding suspicion of power, even when used by seemingly good people. That suspicion has served us well for the last 200 years, and has kept us safe. We ignore that suspicion at our peril, but if we recover it in our own lives, our families, and in our public life together, it has the potential to keep us safe in the future.

---

?The Framers were not exempt from the temptation to ignore their own tendencies to sin, and the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution proved..?I am not suggesting that the current Iraqi government is as violent or oppressive as that under Saddam Hussein, but merely making the point that the years of sectarian violence that have followed Saddam Hussein's overthrow should not surprise us.

Chris Christie and the Problem With Our Media Culture

(I'm very interested in American politics. This is a new blog, so you should know that though I plan on refraining from telling you why your political opinions are wrong and mine are right, I do plan on writing about trends I see in American politics and culture. Such as the following....)The way our media covers American politics is one of the main problems in American politics, as the coverage of the Chris Christie bridge scandal makes clear.This week, documents were published that show that top aides to the NJ Governor deliberately snarled traffic leading from the George Washington Bridge into Fort Lee, NJ. Christie denies any knowledge of their actions.I'm not concerned with parsing out the truth of the scandal or in Governor Christie's fitness for public office. Rather, I'm much more concerned with how the media has covered this and other political scandals: like spectators at a sporting event.I've read very little coverage of the Christie scandal that addresses the morality of the issue, what it means when public officials use their official positions in unethical ways. Instead, almost all the coverage is interested in questions like:

• how will this hurt Governor Christie's 2016 presidential chances?
• did Governor Christie respond quickly enough to diffuse the situation?
• was the tone that Governor Christie struck in his press conference the right one?

Notice that all these (and many other) angles on the story make the story about how the politician plays the game, not about the substance of the actions of the people involved. This tendency is not unique to this story, but is the way the American media covers modern politics.As a citizen, I'm much less concerned with how our political representatives play the game and spin the story than in the substance of their actions. What about you?