Republican Candidates 2016

The purpose of this blog is to allow the potential reader to ponder the field of Republican candidates. I have been collecting some thoughtful articles that I hope will prove helpful. I have stayed away from what I thought of as polemical arguments. The order of discussion of the candidates is the in order in which I have my preferences today. I like the diversity represented in the field of 17 candidates. The order reflects that appreciation. This field is diverse, and the "best" person will win, but I hope the best will also be Hispanic, Black, Indian, or female. I hope any potential reader will take a few moments to reflect.

Before I begin, a few authors have explored some general issues in the campaign. For example, Helen Raleigh explains why the Asian vote typically goes Democrat and how Republicans might change this. For another example, we can take the matter of Iraq and its continuing influence on the campaign. Steve Chapman explores the hesitancy of Republican candidates to deal with Iraq. If you look at the comments section, you should see one from me. Charles Krauthammer has his reaction to the question of a hypothetical here.

Of course, we have some analysis of the horse race. Mark Davis offers a general analysis of a Quinnpiac numbers as of May 2015. Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute offers a study in June 2015 that suggests that Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are the strongest candidates in this field. David Shribman describes surprises in the campaign as of June 2015.

Of course, the debate scheme, with 17 candidates, is one that will attract attention. Byron York discusses the criticism of the debate scheme. My puzzlement has been the focus upon national polls rather than the polls in IA and NH, where the candidates have naturally been spending their time.

I should add that at this stage, in addition to the articles I refer, much of what I have are impressions. I do not have the time, at this stage, to study the positions.

Marco Rubio
He presents his position on the issues on his web site. I like the idea of a Cuban-American becoming President, but my primary concern is the issues.

Whenever I hear him speak, I am impressed. He has what some of us might call a conservative vision of what American can be. For me, this is primary. He seems willing to engage the battle. Nicholas Riccardi of the AP has provided a relatively balanced review of the Rubio tax plan. Star Parker shares her early sense that Rubio may have that Reagan touch.

The New York Times provided some levity. They must think he is dangerous from the perspective of their liberal bias. They ran stories that he had two driving violations in 20 years and that he had a "luxury speed boat." My understanding is that for many who live in Miami, the driving violation should earn him an award for best driver. You can find a picture of the boat. Ramesh Ponnuru digs into the supposed bad decisions regarding personal finances and thinks that he is like most Americans.

Carly Fiorino
She does not have an issues page, but you can "meet" her.

When I hear her, I like what she says. She has persistence about her. I would be happy for her to be the first female President. She has integrated her faith journey into her presentation of herself in a powerful way.

Debra J. Sanders discusses some of the things excite her about this candidate. However, the layoffs at Hewlitt-Packard and the failure to pay off campaign debt promptly are problems with her. Alex Smith discusses the contrast between this candidate and Hillary Clinton.


Ben Carson
He offers his position on issues on his web site. I like the way he weaves his faith story into his presentation of himself. Having a black president who is actually successful would be wonderful. However, I share the concern about his readiness. I wish he would have run for Senator, for example. I would normally have him ranked higher. This field is strong.

Star Parker writes about the power of the personal story of this candidate. Joy Overbeck offers the same through the eyes of his mother. A blogger wanted to like him, but points to a blunder in Iowa to say that he is not ready for prime time. Justin Haskins also has a concern for his readiness for the presidency, but thinks the vice-presidency would be a possibility. Arthur Schaper has a similar concern, noting public utterances he has had to retract or for which he made apology.

John Kasich
I have long liked him and followed his work in Congress as well as Governor. He would find ways to get things done and work across the aisle. I like the way he has integrated his faith journey into his presentation of himself.

A Newsweek interview in the Jewish World Review offers some background. Margaret Carlson promotes this candidate on the basis of his record, but also points out that he is not pure enough for some conservatives.

Bobby Jindal
He has a newsroom that discusses issues as they arise.

I have long liked this candidate. His parents were from India. He provides a fresh look for the Party. He also presents conservative ideas in a fresh and interesting way. He has been a good governor.

Stuart Rothenberg offers an initial assessment of why no one should underestimate him. Stephanie Grace discusses the low approval he has in Louisiana and the budget deficit.

Chris Christie
I like his combative style. I like his willingness to tackle entitlements.

Rick Perry
He presents his position on the issues on his web site.

He is doing better this time. I like much of what he has to say. He seemed to do well as governor of Texas. I do not like the way he handled the Donald Trump matter.

Mark Davis offers a good introduction to this campaign and reasons for him to become the nominee as of June 2015. Star Parker offers what appears to be an endorsement, given his economic record as governor and his military service.

Scott Walker
He has a news page that will keep an interested person up to date on his take on matters.

I admire him for his willingness to fight on issues in which he believed in Wisconsin. He seems to have been a good governor. A recall election that should never have happened showed his strength.

Ken Blackwell seems to like this candidates position immigration. Brent Bozell states that the NYT is already starting the character assassination. Arthur Schaper discusses the common core issue. This article is disturbing in that I have seen Walker waffle on issues before. Here, he started out for common core and then changes his tune as he starts thinking about the presidency. He keeps wanting to appeal to the "right," when his real appeal is broader than that. He also changed his position in Iowa on subsidies. Some democrats are wanting to paint him as a male version of Sarah Palin.

Rand Paul
Not surprisingly, you can quickly access his stance on issues. His libertarian leaning is well-known, and I like it. His stance on the military is a little too far for me. I wish other Republican candidates shared some of his hesitancy to use military force.

Brian Darling explores the challenge he brings to the Republican Party, apparently thinking other Republicans favor a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy and are they do not tell the truth about the Bush/Obama NSA spying program. Of course, the way I have worded this, I disagree, but the article is worth reading. Stephen Moore helped put together his tax plan and offers an explanation that it is "flat and fair."

Jeb Bush
He offers news and positions on issues on his web site. I like much about him. I have not been a Bush fan, although I think they are wonderful people and desire to serve the nation they love. George H. W. gave us Bill Clinton, and George W. gave us Iraq and Barak Obama. It also simply looks like he does not really want the job. I saw this recently when Jeb, following Hillary as a speaker, listened to Hillary attack him, and he simply got up and gave his prepared speech. Byron York addresses this incident.

Guy Benson writes about the relationship between Jeb and George W. William Kristol says that George W. was right on several matters.  Jonah Goldberg is surprised that a family with so much institutional knowledge of how to run for President seems to have so many mistakes at the beginning of this campaign. Erick Erickson discusses some of the problems he has. Debra Saunders has a positive reflection on the energy of Jeb Bush. Kathleen Parker discusses Alzheimer costs to the government and the plan of Jeb to deal with it.

Larry Kudlow thinks that he is right that the economy can grow at 4%.

Jeb seemed to have a misstep in his response to a question from Megyn Kelly about whether what he knew now would he have done the same thing that George W. did in Iraq. David Harsanyi connects this interest with the vote by Hillary Clinton for the war.

Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site. Of course, his Hispanic background is attractive. He has said many things I like. He is an intelligent man. He can make a sound argument. I do not like the fact that when he has staked out a position in the Senate, only one or two others join him. He sounds too much like a preacher for me.

The rest are people that I hope and trust do not get the nomination. Here is my "Please No" list.

Mike Huckabee
Do not ask why. I think he seems like a fine person and good TV host, but President? No.

Steve Chapman thinks that since 2008 this candidate has done things to narrow his appeal rather than broaden it. George Will has concerns related to the way he understands God in politics. David French argues that a loss by this candidate will be a victory for cultural conservatives. Jonah Goldberg offers his analysis of the progressive nature of the Huckabee campaign. Todd Starnes thinks he is a man of conviction as he stands for traditional marriage and has concerns over what the Supreme Court will do regarding legalizing gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg does want to defend this candidate, but he did not compare Obama to Hitler.

Lindsay Graham
Daniel Doherty considers him a longshot candidate. Paul Greenberg does not think he has a chance, but he likes him, especially on national defense and on reform of entitlements.

Rick Santorum
George Will makes it clear that he thinks this candidate is silly for even considering a run for the presidency again. Agreed.

Donald Trump
He will not be the nominee. Jeff Jacoby shares why, beginning with the idea that it says many good things about the Republican Party that most Republicans have a negative view of him. William Kristol is also against Trump, but pauses to listen to what attracts people to him. Joseph Curl thinks that he is actually a Democrat plant, given his donations to the Democrat Party. Jonah Goldberg says he is a bad deal for the Party. In raising the issue of illegal immigration, Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Michael Reagan says that Trump is a fake conservative and a danger to the Republican Party. Alicia Colon, who apparently knows The Donald, thinks he would have been wonderful mayor of NYC, but not a President. Kathleen Parker says one should not dismiss Trump, and offers her reasons. David Limbaugh wonders if Trump will awaken the "sleeping giant." Angelo Codevilla has some very good comments about the rise of Trump. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration. Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is.

Jim Gilmore

George Pataki

Valley of Dry Bones and Hope

            In 1990, I was an associate pastor in Plainfield. A group from that congregation went to a pre-conference briefing at Zionsville United Methodist Church.  Larry Rudy, a member of the congregation, led the opening portion of the meeting.  Part of it was a reflection on Ezekiel 37:1-14, the well-known vision of a valley of dry bones.  There was time for reflection, private, small group, and the whole group.  During the whole group discussion, there were several comments about how the valley of dry bones is a time of judgment.  Thus, one is in this valley because one has sinned, and God is judging.  From the viewpoint of exegesis, this interpretation is correct. In the view of the Old Testament, the exile of the Jewish people from their homeland was the result of their disobedience to God. They broke covenant, and the response from God was one of judgment. One pastor, obviously frustrated with the United Methodist Church, said that he believed that is where our denomination as a whole is right now.  I imagine that today, even more people might make that statement. That is the context in which I have often heard this text used.  It is a word of judgment to those who have disobeyed God. 

            The Pew Research Center released a study in which the number of people who self-identify as Christian declined by 7% from 2007-2014. The number of those who self-identify as none increased by the same percent to 23%. Those who self-identify as Roman Catholic and Mainline Protestant have declined by the same percent. Those who self-identify as evangelical have increased by one percent. In fact, some people will suggest that half of those who identify as Christian will self-identify as evangelical. Over the past decade the emergent church movement provided some hope for some of us (yes, I include myself in this) that the trend would change. Some people looked upon this movement as the next great awakening. However, Elizabeth Drescher says the awakening has simply not happened. What are we to think?

            It may be that people who were nominally Christian no longer feel the need to self-identify as Christian any longer. What used to be socially unacceptable has become acceptable. This may not be a bad thing. In addition, those who self-identify as Christian may increasingly be relatively serious in their discipleship. They may really want to identify, not so much with a denomination (many evangelicals are not in traditionally evangelical denominations, for example), but with Jesus.

            At the meeting mentioned above, one woman raised her hand and said, "I believe this text reminds us that God takes us where we are."  For me, it turned the whole atmosphere around.  The text was no longer simply a word of judgment.  It became a word of hope.  Exile, regardless of the reason, does not mean God has forgotten or abandoned. The vision of Ezekiel reminds us that the Spirit of God is a life-giving Spirit, and is in fact the source of life.

God took the dust at creation and gave it life it never had before. In this vision, God gave bones that once had life the opportunity for new life. That is redemption, God redeeming the people of God, restoring to them the life-giving Spirit.

I found Bishop Hodapp's sermon at Annual Conference 1990 very challenging.  He spoke on Ezekiel 47.  In that text, Ezekiel records another vision.  This time, a river flows from the altar in the Temple outward to the desert.  That river gives life to all it touches.  The Bishop then said that is what the church can be.  The church can be a faithful conduit of the life-giving Spirit, so that as we go forth to a world very broken and dry, we can offer life and bring that life to others. 

           

Memorial Day 2015

Memorial Day, or Decoration Day, used to be May 30, but the date changed at the request of Federal employees in 1971. Now, we observe Memorial Day on the last Monday in May.

Arlington National Cemetery is the place that receives the most attention on Memorial Day, though it is but one of 141 national cemeteries in the United States and 24 others located on foreign soil.

Unfortunately, war is sometimes the answer. When it is, soldiers die.

War is sometimes the answer, because freedom is something we cherish. We care for our neighbors, of course. The greatest single gift we can offer our neighbors is freedom. With freedom comes responsibility, responsibility to ensure that our freedom is maintained.  Freedom is never free, but comes at a cost of lives, time, effort and responsibility.

War is sometimes the answer, because tyrants want to take freedom away. We may disagree over whether this war or that war was fought for the right reasons. Yet, this nation keeps its armed services ready because someone, somewhere, is plotting to take away our freedom. The greatest gift we can give to each other is a free nation. The greatest gift this nation can offer to the world is to remain free.

Today, we have a volunteer military. These persons put their lives on the line for this nation every day. We are grateful for their service. Yet, as we all know, on this weekend, which is more than just a race, a long weekend, or a time for cookouts, it is a time to remember those who have died serving their country through the military.

The practice is centuries old. Pericles, the Athenian leader, noted “Not only are they commemorated by column and inscriptions, but there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men.”  This tribute was given to the fallen heroes of the Peloponnesian War more than four centuries before Christ was born.

The words of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln were enough to inspire their generations, and many after them. Yet, without General George Washington and his soldiers, they would have been words on a page. Without the leadership of many generals, but especially U. S. Grant, and the many soldiers who fought in the Civil War, the words of Lincoln would never have actually liberated slaves. The opposition to the horrors of Nazi Germany would have been nothing more than fine sentiments were it not for the generals and soldiers who fought in WWII. In this imperfect world, no matter how beautiful the words, words are not enough.

Some people raise the question of whether this nation is worthy of such sacrifice. The simple answer is, unequivocally, “Yes.” Yet, many people, including many in the Christian community, think that on the world stage, all nations are morally equal. Is this nation different from that of others? The Declaration of Independence holds the answer.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

I love my country. I am thankful for it. America has always been about an idea. It has fallen short of practicing the idea. However, let me ask you a couple questions. Do you love your spouse? I hope you do. Is he or she perfect? I seriously doubt it. Do you love your parents? I hope so. Are they perfect? They are far from it. We live in a nation today that is the result of decisions made by our “parents,” those who have gone on before us. Many of them saw the ways in which the nation fell short of the ideal of freedom, and worked to expand such freedoms. We have even more work to do in this regard.

In my mind, this nation is a grand experiment worth sacrifice and effort.

I hope we cherish the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address:

"We can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow, this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Today, we cannot consecrate this land. The over one million soldiers who have died have already done so. 

Share the Call

           

            Several events have come together over the past two weeks that have made me reflect upon the notion of calling, for which a synonym is vocation, life’s work, or even mission.  

            Bishop Mike asked clergy throughout Indiana to reflect upon our call on Pentecost Sunday, May 24, 2015. During the months since he encouraged clergy to do this, I have wondered how I would share. After all, I have told the story in every church, usually more than once, how I sensed the call of God on my life at the close of a worship service when I was 18 and attending Miltonvale Wesleyan College in 1970. It was a quiet nudge, and I am grateful I listened. I had another nudge or hunch to talk with the District Superintendents of the South Indiana Annual Conference in 1976 while I was a student at Asbury. I eventually learned that mom and Pastor Joe Matt, of Austin, MN, had been praying that I would be open to what they thought God wanted in my life. At that point, I became grateful for their prayers.

Yet, I have never wanted anyone to think that a sense of calling or vocation was open only to clergy. One can find a sense of calling in many tasks, jobs, and careers. One person who has recently taught me about this is Marcel Proust.

Among the surprises in the journey of the past few months has been the reading of a long novel. I started it in the summer of 2014 and did not finish until spring 2015. I had a long stretch where I had gotten bored, so I stopped. I knew I would come back - eventually. Thus, it took me a while, but I final read Marcel Proust (1871-1922) Remembrance of Things Past, more recently retitled, In Search of Lost Time. The novel is part of a lifetime reading plan list on which I have been working since the mid-1990s. Most people, I think, rather than reading all seven volumes, stop with the first volume, Swann’s Way. Surprisingly, the lifetime reading plan suggested this. However, this would be a mistake, for one would miss the primary thrust of the novel. I have learned that one might adopt the reading hypothesis that the long novel is in the form of an ellipse, one focus being the search and the second the visitation. The tale about time is the tale that creates the relation between these two foci of the novel. The character of the novel arises out of the apprenticeship to signs (defined by Gilles Deleuze as signs of the social world, signs of life, signs of sensuous impressions, and signs of art) and to the irruption of involuntary memories. It represents the form of interminable wandering, interrupted by the sudden illumination that retrospectively transforms the entire narrative into the invisible history of a vocation. Time, which seemed lost in the wandering, becomes something that is at stake again as soon as it is a question of making the inordinately long apprenticeship to signs correspond to the suddenness of a belatedly recounted visitation, which retrospectively characterizes the entire quest as lost time.[1]

Thus, we come to the second part of the twin foci of the ellipse that is the form of this novel. We come to the final volume, “The Past Recaptured,” (“Time Regained”). We learn that the hero of the story suddenly realizes, in an epiphany or visitation, that his speculation on time has its anchor in the narrative as a founding event in the vocation of the writer. An epiphany that seems to come from outside Time brings the hero to the threshold of time regained. Only the decision to write ends the tension between the time lost/wasted and time regained. The visitation becomes a meditation on the origin of aesthetic creation. It becomes a contemplative moment. Time regained in the sense of lost time revived arises out of fixing this contemplative moment in a lasting work. Artistic creation offers its mediation. The decision to write transposes the extra-temporal character of the original vision into the temporality of the resurrection of time lost. Time becomes the artist that works slowly.[2] Another way to say this is that the narrator recovers the full meaning of his past and thus restores the “lost” time. He has no longer wasted the time he lived, for now it has meaning, as the time of preparation for the work of the writer who will give shape to the unity of his life. The irretrievable past he has now recovered in its unity with the life he yet has to live. Here is an example of how the modern person wants the future to redeem the past, as the future makes the past part of a life story that has a purpose in the midst of a life that seems like senseless wandering. One can take up the past in a meaningful unity.[3] This narrated unity is one in which Proust has struck a deep chord in contemporary imagination.[4] Outside of this epiphany, and prior to it, he cannot bring his life together into the usual story of achievement. The routines of everyday life seem boring. Any job career seems empty. Only by cohering in a way that cuts across time, which joins widely separated moments of epiphany through memory, can his life have a sense that forms the basis of a recovery of the past that stops the wasting of time.[5]

For the hero of this novel and I assume for Proust as well, the sense of calling or vocation focused on his work as a writer. It indeed becomes the life’s work of the author. The discovery of something deeper than simply a job or career is the longing of many people in this technological age.

In fact, a member of the Cross~Wind congregation suggested that I read a recent article by David Brooks. For me, it indicates how deeply this notion of vocation appeals to us today. In describing “a moral bucket list, the experiences one should have on the way toward the richest possible inner life,” he describes the need for a “call within the call.”

We all go into professions for many reasons: money, status, security. But some people have experiences that turn a career into a calling. These experiences quiet the self. All that matters is living up to the standard of excellence inherent in their craft.[6]

Such a notion has religious overtones. People have a calling from God to serve in their unique way. The calling may change and evolve over a lifetime. Some may have a calling to parent young children at one stage, and then have a calling to be leaders beyond the home. Some may serve God in “secular” careers, bringing their sense of the divine to work. Such notions are quite “normal” in the world of the church today.

Several months ago, I had thought I might preach from Ezekiel 37, the well-known vision Ezekiel had of a valley of dry bones. The first phrase took on new meaning. The hand of the LORD came upon me, we find in Ezekiel 37:1. The expression is frequent in the Hebrew Bible, and is a favorite of the prophet Ezekiel (1:3, 3:14, 3:22, 8:1, 33:22, 37:1, 40:1). The phrase also denotes the divine presence in a negative way — the hand of the LORD is often “against” someone or something (e.g., Judges 2:15; Ruth 1:13; I Samuel 5:9). The expression has clear directive implications, with the “hand of the LORD” functioning synonymously with what we would call “divine providence” or “the divine will.”

For Proust and Brooks, calling or vocation arises out of you. They have understood an important aspect of calling. Yet, Ezekiel wants us to turn our gaze away from ourselves and to the sense of a divine will for our lives. Of course, we may be good at something, we may need to make money doing something, we may love to do something, and we may even see the need in the world that we can help address. Yet, a sense of calling or vocation is at the center of this discussion. I am not just writing about a job or career. I am writing about my sense of my life’s work. In doing so, I am asking the reader about his or her life’s work. The sense of call within a call, the experience of an epiphany, may come early or late in life, but I hope it will come. It may be a dramatic, unmistakable moment. It may also be a quiet nudge or hunch that we think might be from God. Am I open to feeling the hand of the Lord upon me? If I am, will I be willing to follow where the hand of the Lord leads (nudges) me? This is far more than simply for clergy, although that is important as well. In any job, in any task we accept, let it be with a sense that the hand of the Lord is upon us.

---

[1]  (Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 1984, 1985), Volume 2, 131-32.

[2]  (Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 1984, 1985), Volume 2, 141-47.

[3]  (Taylor, 1989), 51.

[4]  (Taylor, 1989), 106.

[5]  (Taylor, 1989), 464.

[6] David Brooks, “The Moral Bucket List,” New York Times, April 11, 2015.

Running Out of Energy

What is wrong with this car? Perhaps you have asked the question yourself. Most of us have, at one time or another.

Several years ago now, Suzanne and I were pulling off 465 in Indianapolis off Keystone Avenue. We were talking away about something, I know not what. Suddenly, the SUV rolled to a stop. Fortunately, I was able to get it over to the side. We wondered what happened, until I looked down at the gas gage. Yes, I was driving. It was empty. We were out of gas. My first reaction was embarrassment. It had never happened to me before. We were very fortunate in that a very nice fellow traveler saw what happened. She and eventually her husband spend a couple of hours helping us get back on the road.

Would it not be great if we never had to worry about putting gas in our tanks?

That is part of the promise of electric cars, vehicles that have the advantages of mechanical simplicity, huge acceleration and quiet running. Of course, they still need to be plugged in, and the recharge can take hours. Very inconvenient. Engineers worked to shorten the time it takes to recharge batteries -- from hours to minutes. Paul Braun and his colleagues at the University of Illinois have succeeded in building prototype batteries that can be recharged in just two minutes. That is about the time you spend filling your tank with gas.

Here is the challenge, according to The Economist magazine (March 26, 2011): "To take advantage of fast-charging batteries, a car's electrics will have to be hardened up to cope with the huge amperage involved." Today's electric cars simply cannot handle such a strong current of electrical energy. They need to be hardened up -- strengthened -- to handle such a highly charged system. If such changes can be made, quick-charge batteries will make electric cars a highly desirable form of transportation -- simple, fast and silent. They may even push the old-fashioned internal combustion engine off the road forever.

            Of course, you will still have to watch the dashboard. Running out of electricity is every bit as easy as running out of gas.
            One way to view the biblical notion of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God) is that God is the source of life-giving energy we need. Life has its ups and downs, twists and turns, that can leave us weary. That means, of course, that we need to develop our time with God. As individuals, we need energy as well to live our lives. Most of us do not the miss the time for physical nourishment. As the saying goes, call me anything, but do not call me late for supper. Most of us make sure we have made time for friends and family. We are social creatures, after all. However, when it comes to seeing the feeding of mind and soul as important, we tend to be less diligent. We need to remember that when we are weak, “the Spirit helps us in our weakness.” (Romans 8:26).

Failing is OK

Microsoft is one of the most successful companies in history, creating three billionaires and 12,000 millionaires among its employees. But the company has had some major design flops. Fast Company magazine (October 2012) lists a few:

Bob. Remember Bob? Released in 1995 Bob, was a software product designed to make it easier to use the computer. Bob featured a cartoon character named Rover the Dog who would exclaim, "Looky! Camper” and try to explain everything. Bob was "childish, convoluted, ridiculous, [and] despised,” according to Fast Company. Even Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer said Bob was an example of a situation where Microsoft "decided that we have not succeeded and let's stop.” Please.

Office Assistant. This program came out just two years later, in 1997. It featured an animated character named Clippy who would tap at the screen and try to guess what you were working on. Clippy always smiled and cheerfully offered to help, even if you were working on a funeral service. Clippy drew intensely negative responses from many users. Even its creator called it "one of the most annoying characters in history.” Although Office Assistant has been replaced, Clippy lives on. In an episode of the television show Family Guy, Stewie sneaks into CIA headquarters and uses one of its computers. He becomes annoyed when Clippy appears on the screen and says, "I see you're trying to take over the world. Can I help?” Stewie yells, "Go away, you paper clip! No one likes you!” Poor Clippy. A major design flop.

The list goes on to include the famous "Blue Screen of Death” and Windows Vista 2007, which was such a mess that some people thought good old Bob was hiding inside. But let's not pick on Microsoft -- every company has its flops, including many incredibly successful corporations. Apple is often given credit for excellent design, but do you remember its personal computer "Lisa” from the early 1980s? Most people don't. It was a commercial failure. And, of course, you remember the recent debacle with the introduction of its latest iPhone and the problem with the GPS map app.

Henry Ford was a genius at designing supply chains and assembly lines. His cheap, reliable Model A and Model T cars became instant, iconic symbols of the automobile age. Yet, Ford failed to understand that consumers were looking for something just a bit more attractive than his drab, boxy, utilitarian vehicles. Someone once asked him if he had ever consider producing cars in different colors, to which he cheerfully responded by saying he would make cars in any color, as long as it is black. That cavalier attitude cost his company a big chunk of its once-dominant market share. Competing auto manufacturers did not limit themselves to "any color as long as it is black.” They ate Ford's lunch. Eventually, even the Ford Motor Company came 'round and began paying attention to how their cars looked. They began manufacturing them in a variety of body shapes and colors. For such a great designer of factories, Henry Ford proved to be not such a good designer of cars the next generation of consumers actually wanted.

If you have tried something new, and it did not work, it is not a sign to stop. It is time to let go and move forward.

Church and World

I John 5:9-13 refers to those who do not believe in God have made God a liar by not believing the testimony that God has given concerning the Son. Those who do not have the Son of God do not have life. John 17:14 says that while Jesus gives them the word from the Father, the world hates them because they do not belong to the world, just as Jesus does not belong to the world.

I have an admission to make. Something in me would like for the church and the world to get along. John is teaching me that what I might like to happen is not realistic.

Scientists are excited about GUT's and TOE's, that is, Grand Unification Theories and Theories of Everything.  In 1988, Stephen Hawking spilled the beans by talking about the search for GUTs and TOEs in his surprise best seller A Brief History of Time.  Instead of trying to dissect every cosmic movement down to its smallest unit, certain scientists admit they are looking for some theory, some concept, some intentional design that pulls everything in the universe together.  A scientific quest for cosmic unity is under way. 

Such a vision may well be appropriate for scientists to seek in terms of the physical unity of the physics of it all. Yet, members of the Body of Christ have already found the GUTs and TOEs for their lives.  Unity of faithfulness does not come at the cost of our connectedness to the world.  The church as the body of Christ is called to be in the world, not of it, but not out of it either. 

H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, said the church has four ways it can respond to the culture today.  ANTI-CULTURAL, such as the Amish.  You have to live in the world somewhere.  The gospel must be incarnated in some culture.  EN-CULTURAL, the church is so anxious to fit into the world that it has lost any distinguishing particularity and becomes of the world.  The culture throws a stick and they go bounding after it.  Worship has a "flavor of the week" mentality.  COUNTER-CULTURAL, aggressively isolationist language, such as "let the church be the church," and the church as beachhead, outpost, colony, resident aliens, or anachronisms.  The problem with the counter-cultural model is that it creates an artificial wall between Christians and the world God loves so much God sent Jesus to die for it.  IN-CULTURAL, the aim of the in-cultural church is incarnation, not enculturation or acculturation.  The in-cultural Christian uses the knowledge, the ignorance, the strength and weaknesses of current culture to incarnate Christ for this age.  The challenge of an in-but-not-of faith is knowing when to stand timeless and transcendent as a rock and when to surrender and let go, releasing oneself to be swept along by the relevant currents. 

These are practical issues. The church wrestles with them through the ages.

            Hugo of St. Victor wrote long ago:

Those who find their homeland sweet are still tender beginners; those whom every soil is as their native one is already strong; but those who are perfect regard the entire world as a foreign place.

I find it increasingly hard to justify the easy relationship between church and culture that I would like to see. This text gives us the opportunity to reflect upon the ways in which the church is in the world, yet not at rest or peace in the world.  If you sit down and talk to people for over fifteen minutes about their lives, their families, their work, it is like talking to people who are under attack.  The world can be a rough place for those who love God more than the world. 

Here is a simple example of relatively recent experience.

A student at Duke called the pastor, William Willimon, and needed to talk.  He began by saying: I have had the worst night of my life.  Last night, after the fraternity meeting, as usual, we had a time when we just sit around and talk about what we did over the weekend.  This weekend, during a party we had on Saturday, I went upstairs to get something from a brother’s room and walked in on a couple who were, well, in the act.  I immediately closed the door and went back downstairs, saying nothing.  Well, when we came to the time for sharing at the end of the meeting, after a couple of brothers shared what they did over the weekend, one of the group said, “I understand that Mr. Christian got a real eye full last night.”  With that, they all began to laugh.  Not a good, friendly laugh; it was cold, cruel, mean laughter.  They were all laughing, all saying things like, “You won’t see nothing like that in church!  Better go confess it to the priest.”  Stuff like that.  I tried to recover, tried to say something light, but I could not.  They hate me!  They were serious.  I walked out of the meeting, stood outside, and wept.  I have never been treated like that in my life.  The pastor responded: that is amazing.  Moreover, you are not the greatest Christian in the world, are you?  And yet, just one person running around loose who can say “No” is a threat to everyone else, has to be put down, ridiculed, savaged into silence.”

            All of this reminds me of an often-quoted statement of Luther.

            If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point at which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking.  I am not confessing Christ, however, boldly I may be professing him.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to the steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.[1]

            Malcolm Muggeridge once put it this way:

The only ultimate disaster that can befall us is to feel ourselves to be at home here on earth.  As long as we are aliens we cannot forget our true homeland which is that other kingdom You proclaimed.

            I need this reminder today.

---

[1] Luther, vol 3, p. 81ff.  

Prayer Reflections

"To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."

--Karl Barth

Prayer is "the soul's blood" (seventeenth century poet George Herbert). What would it mean for the church to be a "house of prayer," even to become "The Lord's Prayer?" What would it mean for believers to move from "faith in praying" to "praying in faith?"

John Wesley learned from his mother Susannah not to have a good opinion of anyone who did not spend at least four hours a day in prayer. "God does nothing save in answer to prayer," Wesley wrote. In this article we shall explore what theologians mean when they say Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, or "the rule of prayer is the rule of faith. "

II Thessalonians 1:11: "We pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the works of faith with power."

When Francis Asbury, and generations of Methodist itinerants or revivalists after him came to town, one of the first things they did as they dismounted from their horses was to ask whatever lay persons met them: "Got any praying people around?" "Where are the praying people here?"

In his study called Crucified Love: The Practice of Christian Perfection (Nashville:Abingdon, 1989), Robin Maas points out how,

"Just as it makes no sense to tell someone, 'I love you more than anything in the world, but I just can't manage to find the time to be with you,' it makes no sense to claim that we have no time for prayer. When we love someone we naturally want to spend time together; and when we are 'in love' with someone, we make the time to be with our beloved." (49)

The mystic Guigo II talked about four rungs in our ladder to God. In ascending order, they are Studying, Meditation, Prayer, Contemplation.

Studying: True study is searching the mind of God. Reading the Bible and books, listening to music, watching films, even composing on a computer can be forms of prayer. In fact, there is an ancient Jewish proverb that "An hour of study is in the eyes of God as an hour of prayer." Another proverb has "Those who sing pray twice." For Gregory, the fourth-century bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, the life of the mind is to know God. The first approach to God is the marinating of our lives in the Word of God as it interacts with the world in which we live.

Meditation: Meditation is communicating with God. It is our assuming the initiative with God. Prayer is not best seen as talking to God. The Bible says to pray without ceasing. It does not say to talk without ceasing. The Christian church has largely lost, to its detriment, the classic distinction between meditatio and prayer and contemplatio.

Meditation refers to quiet thinking and reflection about life and God. In the prayer-life of early monks and nuns, novices were sequestered from the community for meditation training, so important was its value. Meditatio included mental exercises such as memorization of scripture, biblical imaging and reflection, and focusing the mind through the mantric repetition of the Jesus Prayer: "Lord have mercy."

Prayer: Prayer is God assuming the initiative with us. The difference between meditation and prayer clarifies our complaint about prayers having poor connections, or it seeming as if no one is "listening." Speaking technically, God does not answer prayers. We answer prayers. Meditation is our speaking and God hearing. Prayer is God speaking and we hearing. Prayer is God questioning us and us answering with what we do with our lives. Meditation is asking God for help and direction. Prayer is receiving God's help and direction. Prayer is not us trying to grab hold of God. Prayer is God coming to us, giving us the divine through the "flowers in the field" and the neighbors across the street. Meditation is our talking to and thinking about God. Prayer is God talking to and thinking about us. Evagrius of Pontus even defined prayer as "putting away of thoughts." Because any thought is necessarily less than God, we endanger God's coming to us by the mental shaping of the mind.

Prayer is the soul's love for God. Prayer is not our asking for favors, or presenting God with some shopping list for the kingdom, or begging God and bargaining with God to give us what we want. In the words of New York City's Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church preacher R. Maurice Boyd: "The problem with making bargains with God is that the best you ever get is what you bargained for." Prayer is offering ourselves to be what God wants. Prayer is not asking what God can do for me, but listening to what God can do in the world through me. Prayer is not something you do that gives you a better day or week. Prayer is something you are that makes you a better disciple, that transforms you as a person. In prayer we listen. In meditation we talk.

To pray as Jesus prayed is to practice presencing God - listening and talking, sleeping and waking, sitting and walking.

Contemplation: A Greek monk described the journey of prayer in this way: "When I begin it is ME and GOD. Then it becomes GOD and ME. Then it becomes only GOD." Contemplation, the highest form and most mystical stage of prayer, is the point at which we go beyond consciousness of praying. "When we contemplate," someone has said, "we no more know that we are contemplating than we are conscious of our own sleeping." Contemplation releases the soul from thought and image. It is the closest we come to union with God.

4 Misconceptions of Prayer

There are four modern misconceptions about prayer that must be overcome if we are to pray as Jesus did. We all know them, but we need to be reminded of them again and again because familiarity breeds contempt and indifference. We are no different from the student who related to the professor, "I don't know why Shakespeare rates so high. All he did was string a lot of well-known quotations together."

First, we might think of prayer as a technique when it is really a grace. We want to put our best foot forward when we come into God's presence - we do not want to be petty, silly, selfish and bad. Therefore, we wait until we feel stronger, more good, more unselfish. Alternatively, when we pray we put on our best selves and try to be something we are really not. Prayer is a time for you to be you - for you to be yourself.

Second, one makes a mistake to think of prayer in the terms trying hard to get the attention of God. In the more poetic phrasings of R. S. Thomas:

Prayers like gravel flung up at the sky's window,

hoping to attract the loved one's attention.[1]

The third misconception about prayer is conveyed by those who think of praying as little more than "idle thoughts" or parsley-like plate decorations. Prayers before public functions and sports events are often like the parsley that appears on a sandwich plate. Every restauranteur appears to find it necessary to have such a garnish to a nice sandwich. Nevertheless, few people pay attention to it and even fewer utilize that parsley in any way.

Prayer is one of the most powerful things we can do in life. The Lord's Prayer was so special in the early church that only the confirmed members could pray it. They figured that spectators and inquirers were not ready for the power and mystery of the prayer. It was called the "believer's prayer." Even today in the liturgy of the Greek and Russian Orthodox Church, the praying of the Lord's Prayer is a moment of awe and mystery as a priest says at the introduction: "And make us worthy, O Lord, that we joyously and without presumption may make bold to invoke thee, the heavenly God, as Father and to say, 'Our Father, ...' "

Jesus does not want us to say the Lord's Prayer. Jesus wants us to become the Lord's Prayer. REAL praying is God moving in us through the Spirit. Real praying is the Spirit of God praying in and through us, making us into the likeness of Christ. In the words of Francois Fenelon: "Lord, teach me to pray. Pray thyself in me." Prayer is the breathing of the soul.

Fourth, one might think of prayer as something you do with your mind, a kind of mental telepathy with God. That would be a mistake. Prayer is also something you do with your entire being and body. This means more than that old saying "When you pray, move your feet." It has to do with what organ of the body, do you think? Your entire being. Our behavior stems directly from our beliefs.

Words are not the only means or signs of prayer. If you want to show someone how badly you feel for them, or how deeply you love them, do you tell them in words or do you put your arms around them?

---

[1] --Experimenting with an Amen (London: Macmillan, 1986).

Character

A boy came home from school with a report card that was not very complimentary.  It was a disaster, in fact.  His father brought the subject up at the dinner table that evening.  The boy's response was quite resourceful.  He said, "Dad, we have a problem here, all right.  What do you think?  Is it primarily environmental or hereditary?"

Humor aside, we often look for excuses. Character is the fruit of personal choice‑‑and exertion.  It is not inherited from parents; it is not an appendage of birth, wealth, talent or station; but it is the result of one's own endeavors.  It is the result and reward of "good principles sown in the course of a lifetime of virtuous and honorable action" (J. Dawes).

     A generation ago, the Quaker theologian Elton Trueblood spoke of the necessity of being well planted: 

"The terrible danger of our time consists in the fact that ours is a cut‑flower civilization.  Beautiful as cut flowers may be, and much as we may use our ingenuity to keep them looking fresh for a while, they will eventually die, and they die because they are severed from their sustaining roots.  We are trying to maintain the dignity of the individual apart from the deep faith that every person is made in God's image and therefor draws life from the divine source."

Character is defined by what you are willing to do when the spotlight has been turned off, the applause has died down, and no one is around to give you credit.

On Stress

Feeling stressed? Congratulations. You are a typical American.

Over the last several decades, the United States has become the world champion in the stress category. According to the American Institute of Stress, stress-related illnesses cost the American economy $300 billion in medical bills and lost productivity every year. Forty-four percent of Americans feel more stress than they did five years ago, and one in five people experience "extreme stress," which includes symptoms like heart palpitations, shaking and depression. Three out of every four visits to the doctor are for stress-related ailments.

A lot of that stress is hitting us earlier in life as well. As psychologist Robert Leahy points out, "The average high school kid today has the same level of stress and anxiety as the average psychiatric patient in the early 1950s."

The numbers are shocking, especially given the fact that we live in a country that should have the least to be stressed about. We are relatively secure. We have a higher standard of living than most countries. We have better access to good medical care than the vast majority of other countries in the world. Yet many countries, places like Africa where basics like food, security and clean water are in short supply, report lower levels of stress than those of us who seem to have it all.

Theories abound as to why our stress is worse than so many others are. Some say it is the economy and work-related stress. Others say our loss of community is to blame, as people spend more time with their eyes focused on screens than the faces of family and friends. Related to this is the mind-numbing amount of information we receive on a daily basis that causes us to fear threats that are not even related to us. Put those together with the general American aversion to any negative feeling and you have a stress-induced cocktail of anxiety.

So, how do you beat the specter of stress?

Well, the classic American answer is to buy your way out of it. In fact, there is now a whole industry that is focused on de-stressing your life while denuding your wallet.

Walk around the mall, for example, and you will see opportunities:

- to purchase expensive massage chairs;

- to get a quick massage at a kiosk by Forever 21 (which reminds you that you'll never be 21 again, thus perhaps negating the massage effect ... but we digress ...);

- to sign up for a yoga class at the local gym and contribute to what has become a $6-billion dollar industry while you strike a Child's Pose;

- to sip a relaxing drink. Instead of the amped-up stress jolt of a Red Bull or Monster energy drink, why not have a Chill or a Slow Cow (the anti-Red Bull, and no, we're not making that up).

On the other hand, you can learn from Deepak Chopra, who is arguably the chief guru of stress management in American culture. Chopra, who claims he himself never has stress, sells millions of books and other devices -- all designed to help us relax. Take the Deepak Chopra Dream Weaver Light and Sound Mind Machine, for example. This $299 device is worn like a set of goggles, and uses a kaleidoscope of dream-like images and sounds to help you chill out. No wonder Chopra feels no stress. Sitting on a dreamy pile of easy money will do that to a guy.

The truth is, however, that, despite the billions of dollars we are spending on this stuff, you just cannot buy peace. In a world that feels out of control, no amount of time spent tripping out in the Dream Weaver will ultimately make us feel better. Once the goggles come off, it is back to the reality that we live in a world that we cannot conquer, no matter how much we spend.

I conclude with what I think is better advice.

All over this magnificent world, God calls us to extend his kingdom of shalom-peace and wholeness -- of justice, of goodness, of compassion, of caring, of sharing, of laughter, of joy, of reconciliation. God is transfiguring the world right this very moment through us because God believes in us and because God loves us. What can separate us from the love of God? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And as we share God's love with our brothers and sisters, God's other children, there is no tyrant who can resist us, no opposition that cannot be ended, no hunger that cannot be fed, no wound that cannot be healed, no hatred that cannot be turned into love, no dream that cannot be fulfilled.[1]

---

[1] --Desmond Tutu, God Has a Dream: A Vision of Hope for Our Time (Doubleday, 2004).

May and Change

The month of May is a time of change for many young people. It ends one grade and the movement to another. It can mean the end of High School and movement on to trade school or college. It can mean movement into the world of vocation. For some, it will mean new explorations in relationships and family. Change is in the air.

In 1908, Henry Ford created his remarkable route to personal profit with his revolutionary hand-cranked Model T “Tin Lizzie,” which sold for $825. By 1914, because of Ford’s production line, the car price dropped to $206. His Model T, which came in every color so long as it was black, achieved a 60 percent market share, and in 17 years 10 million cars were sold.

However, Henry Ford very nearly sat at the table too long, holding losing cards.

In the 1920s, the car market changed. General Motors offered new cars at competitive prices with conveniences that the Model T lacked — like an electric starter. Suddenly this novelty starter took on the characteristics of a desirable consumer product. 1920s drivers demanded conveniences.

Ford would not let go. Once when he returned from a vacation he found his engineers had updated a Tin Lizzie. Ford stomped in its roof and kicked out its windshield.

Finally, sales sputtered and Ford faced reality. He did not change just its color or its name — he changed tactics. In May 1927, Ford stopped the Model T’s production. He closed his factory for six months, retooled and then produced the Model A. The Model A was a winning hand. He still produced personal motorized transportation, but by abandoning the tried and true and experimenting with something new, Ford succeeded in recapturing the market.

When successful and beloved products fail, it is time to let go.

Practical and tactical innovation is key to any church that preaches Christ. Change not for change alone, but with one eye to improvement and the other to our real purpose, our real reason, for doing what we do as church.

Henry Ford built cars. When his car did not sell, he changed everything — except he still built and sold cars, only better ones. Nike builds shoes. When sales fell, they changed marketing, not tactics. Unfortunately, that is not enough.

Let go. Focus on the essential. Try a few things. See what works.