Halloween, Graveyards, and the Power of God

In the month of October, my entertainments moments often turn to horror stories. I recall the early Frankenstein and vampire stories. I still like to watch them on Turner Classic Movies. As I got a little older, I liked the classic stories as written. I read the stories of Edgar Allen Poe with intrigue and enjoyment. For some people, the stories of Goosebump by R. L. Stine or the stories of Stephen King provide the same type of enjoyment.

Halloween was a never a favorite American observance of mine. Going up to strangers asking for candy was just not appealing. I do not really like dressing up in horror costumes, although I get enjoyment out of the joy others seem to find in doing so. One congregation of which I was pastor had a wonderful party. One year, one of the members dressed up in a "bag lady" costume that stumped everyone.

I have been pastor of congregations that had a graveyard as part of their property. I actually like walking in them. People used to put sayings on tombstones. In one such graveyard, I saw a set of five stones from one family. The first four were children who died very young, and the fifth was the wife who died at the birth of her final child. The next stone, several decades later, was her husband. One easily imagines the pain in this family.

In the past, if you wanted to visit a graveyard, you would not go to one the cemetery of today or to a mausoleum, but you would go to church. The graveyards of the past were planted around the church, creating a community of the "quick and the dead" - quick inside, dead outside.

For believers it was important to be buried within the borders of sanctified ground from which rose both the church building - the center of the living saints' worship life - and the communal cemetery - the final resting place for all past generations of saints who had lived and died as believers.

Some congregations are recovering this tradition by having a memorial area where one can place cremated remains. When I first heard it, it sounded odd. However, one person, who had clearly bought a spot, found it comforting that her remains would be part of the church at which she had worshipped for decades.

Such a notion of placing the dead near a place of worship is the opposite of our usual experience of isolating the cemetery from our line of sight. Rather, when we worship near the dead, we have the constant reminder of the reality of death.

To whom do you belong?

You belong to God.

You do not belong to your parents. You do not belong to your community. You do not belong to yourself. You belong to God.

Steve Wilson of Meadow Grove Baptist Church in Brandon, Mississippi, shocks our sterile sensibilities by insisting that "God's power works best in a graveyard."

He invites us to look at the Lazarus story:

"It is never hopeless with God. God's power works best in a graveyard. What is happening in your life? Are you ready to give up? Do you think it is too late for even God to help? Are your plans dead? Are your dreams dead? Is your hope dead? God's power works best in a graveyard."

Or look at the Luther story: At one point in his flight from both civil and ecclesiastical authorities, Luther was forced to take refuge among the bats and owls of a cold, dark and dank Wartburg castle. Lonely and depressed, he wrote, "I had rather burn on live coals than rot here." Smoke was rising from the charcoal burners outside his room. But as he watched, a wind came up and blew the smoke away. In that moment his doubt dissipated and his faith was restored.[1]

Or look at the C.S. Lewis story. Lewis, an Oxford don and Christian apologist of the middle decades of this century, married late in life and then lost his wife, Joy, to cancer. In his graveyard of grief, he muses: 

"Meanwhile, where is God? When you are happy ... and turn to him with gratitude and praise, you will be welcomed with open arms. But go to him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and who do you find? A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double-bolting on the inside. After that, silence. You may as well turn away. The longer you wait, the more emphatic the silence will become."[2]  

Or look at the Jesus story: Wilson writes,  

"I wonder if in your pain, you have lost sight of Jesus. Can you not see that he is at work all around you? Do you not know you are in his presence? Listen, you can hear him calling your name! He wants to resurrect your hope. He wants to give you life. When life looks the worst, God is at his best. God's power works best in a graveyard" (swilson@ucmail.com, May 18, 1998). 

[Take a moment and reflect upon how the power of God works best in a graveyard.]

Where is your graveyard?

Where in your life are you most bereft of hope? Where do you feel most helpless? Where are you most at your wits' end? It is there, precisely there, that God can work best. Where life is worst, God is best. God does his best work in a graveyard.

In Lamentations 3:18, Jeremiah complains, "Gone is my glory, and all that I had hoped for from the LORD." But a couple verses later (3:20-24), he affirms that, although his "soul ... is bowed down," he has not forgotten, nor has he lost all hope: "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. 'The LORD is my portion,' says my soul, 'therefore I will hope in him.'"

Hymnwriter Thomas Chisholm based the words to "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" on this text. But at one point Chisholm makes an error in his representation of the passage. Remember the chorus?

Great is thy faithfulness!

Great is thy faithfulness!

Morning by morning, new mercies I see ...

Oops! Did the hymnwriter get it wrong? The Bible clearly states that Jeremiah did not see. He didn't see a thing! In the words of David C. Needham, who first brought this to my attention, Jeremiah had no visible evidence of God's mercies at all. Morning by morning brought horror, pain and dread, but not "new mercies." Jeremiah could not say, "I trust you because I understand it all - because I've got it all figured out." He could only say, "I trust you because you are God and you cannot lie" (Close to His Majesty [Portland, Oreg.: Multnomah, 1987], 94-95).

No, the hymnwriter did not get it wrong. God was working in Jeremiah's graveyard, enabling him to "see" what no one else could see. Like C.S. Lewis, he could only say, "We cannot understand. The best is perhaps what we understand least" (59). God was working in the Thessalonians' graveyard, giving them the courage to bear the name of Jesus. God was working in the graveyard of the early Church as they bore witness to the faith. God was working in Luther's graveyard, and God is working in our graveyards today.

God's power works best in a graveyard!

---

[1] (see Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther [Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950], 194).

[2] (A Grief Observed [New York: The Seabury Press, 1961], 9).

Blessing in Disguise

A commonly held view within common wisdom is not to let events become catastrophic or give you too much confidence. “There is a time for everything.” Here is a story from China that many people have heard, but it begs repetition here.

There is an old Chinese saying, "Who could have guessed it was a blessing in disguise when the old man on the frontier lost his mare?" It means a loss may turn out to be a gain, or misfortune may be a blessing in disguise. It is now a common adage. This saying originally comes from a story in "Lessons from the Human World" of Hua Nan Zi compiled by Liu An in the West Han dynasty. The story is as follows.

Once upon a time, there was a man living on the northern border of China who was very good at raising horses. Everyone called him Sai Wong (meaning "an old man on the border"). One day, one of Sai Wong's horses escaped from the stable and ran across the border straight into the territory of the Hu people. Upon hearing this news, all his neighbors came to comfort Sai Wong, and hoped he wouldn't be too upset about the news. To everyone's surprise, Sai Wong was not at all affected by the news, and said with a smile, "A horse running off might turn out to be a good blessing in disguise."

Several months later, this runaway horse returned with a fine horse from the Hu territory. When his neighbors heard the news, one after another they came by to congratulate Sai Wong. This time, Sai Wong frowned and said to everyone, "Getting a fine horse for nothing is probably a bad omen in disguise."

Sai Wong had a son who enjoyed horseback riding. One day his son went riding on this fine horse from the Hu territory for an excursion and accidentally fell off the horse and broke a leg. So Sai Wong's neighbors came to comfort him. They asked him not to take it too hard. Surprisingly, Sai Wong said to everyone peacefully, "My son breaking a leg might be a blessing in disguise!" His neighbors were all puzzled by his response and decided Sai Wong must have lost his senses due to grief.

However, shortly thereafter the Hu people began a large-scale invasion against China. All the young men had been summoned to join the army and defend the country. Because the Hu people were very swift, daring and skillful at fighting, most of those young men were killed on the battlefield. Yet, Sai Wong's son survived the war because he did not have to join the army due to his broken leg. It was only then that Sai Wong's neighbors discovered the wisdom hidden in his words.

The moral of the story is as follows: Everything may be a blessing or a misfortune in disguise, meaning that you cannot just superficially judge whether something is a blessing or misfortune. One should just let nature run its course and not pursue outcomes. Try not to be too complacent when things go smoothly and too discouraged and depressed when you run into troubles.[1]

---

[1]  --Translated from: zhengjian.org. See: Shi Shuwen, "Chinese idiom: Misfortune may be a blessing in disguise," pureinsight.org, October 20, 2003. Retrieved April 27, 2016.

 

Fortuitous Events

An article has made me think about things like “blessings in disguise,” fortuitous events, good and bad fortune, and even “luck.” One who lives by faith rather than sight might mean looking beyond present circumstances, which seem out of control, and remain trustful that God is at work.

"Billionaire Dies at a Fortuitous Time."

That was the headline of a 2010 article in the journal of the American Bar Association.

It invites the question, "Is there really a fortuitous time to die?"

It is likely, however, that lawyers -- the readers of the ABA journal -- understood precisely the implications of that headline. Unlike the general population that usually understands a "fortuitous event" to mean a "fortunate event," or a stroke of good luck, attorneys know that in legalese the word goes back to its original meaning applying to "an unforeseen event that occurs by chance or accident from natural or man-made forces over which an affected person has no control. A fortuitous event can have either positive or negative consequences."

Whether positive or negative, fortuitous events are not something within our control. In that regard, they're much like what insurance companies mean when they label a freak occurrence as "an act of God" -- an instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation -- or what a legal contract means when it speaks of force majeure -- a chance occurrence or unavoidable accident that results from a power superior to that of any human actor.

In any case, the article under this headline told about the passing of a 77-year-old Texas oil-pipeline billionaire, Dan Duncan. His death was fortuitous not to him, but to his heirs, thanks to a quirk in the U.S. estate tax law. As it happened, Duncan died within a one-year exemption window from the estate tax.

Had he died three months earlier, the government would have taxed his estimated $9 billion estate at a rate of at least 45 percent. If he had lived until the following year, the tax rate would have been 55 percent. Since he died within that window of exemption, however, his whole fortune went on to those to whom he had willed it.

That was indeed fortuitous for his heirs, but bear in mind that if the quirk in the estate tax had worked the other way -- that is, if he had died during a window when death taxes were higher than usual -- the outcome would still have been fortuitous for the heirs. As already noted, according to the legal and business definition, a fortuitous event can have either positive or negative consequences.

A usage note at dictionary.com explains: "Fortuitous has developed in [its meaning] from 'happening by chance' to 'happening by lucky chance' to simply 'lucky, fortunate.' This development was probably influenced by the similarity of fortuitous to fortunate and perhaps to felicitous."

The point is not to reinstate the original meaning of "fortuitous events," but, because life throws all sorts of events at us that may not be as good or bad as we initially think, it is useful to recall that the term once allowed for both positive and negative outcomes.

Have you not had happenings in your life that you at first thought were bad things, but which, given time or twists in this or that, turned out to be good things? Or vice versa? If things do not go as planned, do you really know if that was a good or a bad? It might be too early to tell.

A classic biblical example of that is Joseph being thrown in the pit and sold into slavery. At the time, I am sure that to Joseph it was a bad thing. However, when he was reunited with his brothers after a widespread and long-lasting famine drove them to Egypt in search of food, he told them, "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today" (Genesis 50:20).

Sport and Faith

A couple of years ago, I was at Anytime Fitness, preparing for a run in the Indianapolis Mini-marathon. They have a stepper there, and I was stepping away. One of the workers told me she had entered a race in Indianapolis that year, not going horizontal, but going vertical, up one of the high rise buildings in downtown Indy. I was quite amazed. She said she loved it. At that point, it was the “in” thing with some. I had not really heard of it.

My age checks me from doing something silly with my body. However, my mind still can easily excite when it comes to such matters. I have been exercising since I was around 18, and I have not stopped. I do not intend to stop until I have to do so. It has become I enjoy so much.

Yet, I found a mini-marathon too much this year. I hope I can do it one more time. I have never had running a marathon on my bucket list. 13.1 miles is plenty for me. I have also come to realize the hazards of running. You have likely heard them as well. The beating the body takes is one. If you run a marathon, it can become monotonous.

One article[1] a few years ago said that some marathon runners were shifting to running up the stairs of tall buildings. One reason is the importance of cross training. You strengthen a different set of muscles as you train for different sports. You can actually make yourself better in one sport by training in another.

Welcome to the sport of professional stair climbing.

Kristin Frey (b. 1984) is a 32-year-old environmental scientist who turned to stair climbing (also known as tower running) after qualifying for the Boston Marathon 10 times and running a bunch of others. She turned to vertical racing after a friend encouraged her to try it, and she became hooked on running up the stairs instead of pounding the pavement. Kristin is now the best female U.S. athlete in the sport and ran a groundbreaking 24-hour endurance event in Jacksonville where she and three fellow climbers repeatedly scrambled up the Bank of America Tower's 42 floors. By the time they were finished, they had logged 123,480 steps and 5,880 floors -- the equivalent of scaling Mount Everest two and a half times. She has run up most of the tall buildings in the United States, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Empire State Building.

Most of us would consider running up 5,880 floors to be, well, insane. After all, that is what elevators are for, right? Indeed, Kristin says that the recovery time for running all those stairs, mostly two at a time, is longer than that of a marathon.

 

"Sometimes I'll feel sick for two or three days afterwards. A few times, I've tasted blood near the top of a race, and I've seen spots in some races when I was just five floors from the top. Once I pass the timing mat, I usually fall and will crawl out of other people's way, trying to catch my breath. I've stumbled when my legs are Jello-y but have never fallen. And I've gotten blisters on my hands from grabbing the rails, so I bought football gloves that protect the skin."

 

            And you thought that walking those three floors up to your office was tough.

Point is, running vertical can be tough, but it is also a great way for all of us to achieve good health, a sense of satisfaction and a stronger desire to keep moving. It can help us keep going in the race of life.

The American Lung Association has more than doubled its number of stair-climbing races in the past five years, from 25 to 57 (many American stair climbs benefit some sort of lung or respiratory disease).

The ALA wants to promote stair climbing not just for these athletes but for the rest of us as well. The health benefits from doing some vertical walking are many:

- It requires less time to achieve the same workout intensity. For example, if you run 30 minutes a day, you could achieve the same benefit from running stairs for 15 minutes.

- It's a total body workout, involving the legs (obviously) and the arms since grabbing the handrails is encouraged.

- It requires no special equipment. Anyone can walk, jog or run stairs anywhere from your office building to the library to your church. Even a few steps a day can make a difference. You do not need to be tasting your own blood!

           Paul refers to the analogy between sports and faith, especially in II Timothy 4 and I Corinthians 9. To be in sports is to suffer and struggle in order to attain a goal. It requires training, dedication, and commitment. It requires giving your life and time to it. Pondering what it takes to be good in a sport can teach us about living our faith, if we let it.

---

[1] Goldman, Leslie. "Kristin Frey on fast climb to the top."

Your Last Year

I have much discomfort reflecting upon death. If you do not want exposure to that discomfort, you will not read any further.

In doing some reflection on the theological theme of eschatology, I came across an article by Karl Rahner, a Roman Catholic theologian. He says that freedom is the power to decide what is to be final and definitive in our lives. How will we approach our end? He reminds us that we are dying all our lives. Every moment of life is a stage on the way to this final goal. Life is a process of dying. Death is the final point in this life-long process. Dying takes place throughout life. Death is the completion of the process. We can approach that end desperately clinging to finite things and thus with anxiety. We can also approach that end with faith and hope as we free ourselves for the hand of God.[1]

Most pastors must reflect upon death on a regular basis. We officiate at funerals and walk with people through the loss of one they love.

Recently, I discussed with a colleague of his health issues. He is young, meaning he is younger than by 64. He had a disease in which the doctor that 10% of the people live longer than five years. He is in the second year of that that prediction. As I move toward retirement age, I think more about the finitude of my time.

This time of the church year invites such reflections. For me, the time from Halloween to the end of the year make me a bit pensive. All Saints’ Day, for example, is a reminder that we are all terminal. We will die, and perhaps sooner than later. Tomorrow is not a guarantee.

I realize that this thought sounds morbid. Such thoughts can lead us into sin.  

Then set

 The wine and dice, and let him perish who

 Doth care about to-morrow. Death your ear

 Demands and says, 'I come, so live to-day.'"[2]

Also: Death whispers in my ear

Live now, for I am coming.

Also: Death twitches in my ear

“Live” he says, “I am coming.” 

Our approach could be to approach life in a cavalier way. Since we will die, as the saying goes, eat, drink, and be merry. Of course, I would suggest that most think of our lives as meaningful and as making a positive contribution to the lives of others. We want to enjoy life, of course, but most of think we are here for something more than that.

Thus, let us think about death in a different way. It would not be healthy obsess about this. It would also not be healthy to avoid the question or pretend it is not there.

 I am suggesting that we might benefit from thinking more about death -- our own death, in particular. It could help us to stop wasting time with foolish stuff, help us to focus attention on meaningful activities and help us to derive more enjoyment in our lives.

Buddhist monks in Thailand contemplate corpses at various stages of decay. I suppose that could be a place to start. You might not want to do that, but you could start by looking at some pictures of corpses. The idea, of course, is to reflect on the finite character of your life.

Arthur C. Brooks of the New York Times writes,  

"Years ago on a visit to Thailand, I was surprised to learn that Buddhist monks often contemplate the photos of corpses in various stages of decay. The Buddha himself recommended corpse meditation. 'This body, too,' students were taught to say about their own bodies, 'such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.'"  

Meditating on one's own death, in other words, is a way of realigning our focus from momentary desires to big-picture life goals. You take the "Last Year" test. This exercise is not one about which to obsess. However, a few prayerful and meditative moments with this question could help one sort out what is important to us.

If this were your last year to live, would you really watch so much television, play so many video games, play so much golf, spend so much time at the club -- waste so much time? I find nothing intrinsically wrong with these things, of course. Would you --

read more books or fewer books?

spend more time or less time with friends?

spend more time or less time with family?

go shopping more frequently or less frequently?

take more walks or fewer walks?

volunteer more or less?

attend worship services more often or less often?

eat more chocolate and ice cream or less chocolate and ice cream?

For most of us, it is the immediate and the transitory that tend to trump the long-term and the meaningful. In another study on how Americans use their time, researchers learned that the average American adult tends to watch TV four times longer than "socializing and communicating," and 20 times longer than engaging in "spiritual and religious activities." It seems that we would rather spend our time clicking through someone else's life than actually living our own, and that does not count the hours we spend surfing the vast wasteland of the Internet where much of our time goes to die!

The misalignment between our channel/site-surfing lifestyles and our desire for a more meaningful life causes a lot of regret, knowing that we spend too much time on low-value activities. We easily allow the urgent and trivial to overwhelm us, putting on the back burner the non-urgent but important.

It can also lead us into a feeling of being physically present in one place while being mentally present in another.

This is when contemplating death can actually help us. Remembering that we are going to die causes us to focus on the scarcity of the time we have left and strengthen our resolve to use it wisely.

To put it another way, what if you took the "Last Year" test and lived your life right now as if you knew that this was your last year to live? Would the activities you do today or tomorrow pass the "Last Year" test? Would you turn off the TV and spend more time with your family? Would you stop playing Candy Crush on your phone and pick up your Bible or spend some time journaling instead? Would you go outside and enjoy the cool snap of the autumn air and the crunch of fallen leaves or watch another episode of The Real Housewives of New York?

Truth is, most of us do not know if this is our last year. Some have had that knowledge, however, and the way that they chose to use their time should be helpful to us as we seek to live more full, meaningful and significant lives.

I measure my life in family

 who speak through tears,

 who serve me meals on a wicker tray,

 who pray and love and float.

 I measure my life in pine siskens

 who entertain me in feeders outside my window,

 and Gus, the schnauzer,

 who curls next to me in bed.

 I measure my life in friends

 who do not know my sins,

 who hug my shrunken body,

 who break open my heart with words.

 I measure my life in cancer

that has taught me how to measure my life.

 --Ken Brewer, who died of pancreatic cancer in 2006, from a poem, "The Measure," cited by Dennis Lythgoe, "Utah poet writes at a fever pitch," Deseret Morning News, December 18, 2005.

---

[1] Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, Volume VII, 287-91.

[2] Virgil, “Copa” one of the “minor poems.”

Pondering Wesleyan Covenant Assoc

           

            I had the honor of traveling to Chicago on October 7, 2016 to be part of the first gathering of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. I also “joined something any laity, congregation, or church can do. The particular concern is some of the issues that have divided the United Methodist Church.

            It has been a long time since I have been part of a United Methodist gathering where I actually wanted to be in the meeting. I do not mean to be negative, but the contrast was clear in my behavior. When I go to most gatherings of the Indiana Annual Conference, the best thing I receive is conversation with people whom I have not seen in a while. In Chicago, 1800 people met from around the globe and heard powerful preaching and music. It was good to be with people with whom you felt kinship and that you were looking in the same direction.

            We also heard presentations that clarified what the group was doing. As I understood it, the bishops have appointed a commission that will make a proposal to a specially called General Conference in 2018. The bishops did this as a charge from the previous General Conference. What struck me was that this group is primarily interested in the “next Methodism.” Their focus is the next thing. I was ready for that. United Methodism has been hurting for a long time over theological, organizational, and sexual matters. Over the past decade, progressives have gotten to the point where breaking covenant, represented by our Book of Discipline, is OK. In fact, breaking covenant has become a justice issue for them. I saw this when I attended General Conference in Tampa in 2012. The Western Jurisdiction put an exclamation mark on the sacred nature (as they see it) of breaking covenant in the election of a gay bishop.

            Rob Renfroe stressed that the themes of the WCA are the uniqueness of Christ, the Bible as our standard, the radical notion of believing what the UMC says it believes, and the Wesleyan way of head and heart, piety and social holiness. He stressed that change is coming. He stressed that this is “our” time to be bold. I heard much about “Jesus-loving and Spirit-filled,” and I received that description from a colleague, for which I felt honored.

            It may be my stage of life, but it made me reflect upon the decisions I made as youth. At 10, I asked Jesus into my heart. My pastor prayed with me. The church and Christian schools nurtured me in that relationship. Like most people, I have been tempted to go elsewhere, but I keep circling back to Jesus. The other decision I made was that at 15 I asked my parents to purchase a study Bible. They were not as plentiful and varied then as they are now. I started on a journey with the Bible. Of course, the temptation is always there to make a philosophy or a political ideology primary in my life, but I keep circling back to the Bible. Preaching and teaching from the Bible have been a steady source of spiritual food and drink. I have sought to live my life in accord with it. I keep trying to understand it and apply it as the sacred book of my life, but always with the awareness of its sacredness to people whom I hold in high regard and to the broader 2000 years of church history.

I concluded long ago that it was time for some dramatic action. I am not yet sure what that action will be. One surprise I received, however, was that some very good minds have put themselves to the task of focusing upon the next thing rather than continuing the old fights. United Methodism has spent far too much energy on fighting each other. Re-focusing energy upon mission in the world will be a breath of fresh air.

It was such a pleasure to see representatives from Africa, as well as their participation in music and preaching. The global nature of United Methodism has been an important element of the internal debate.

I appreciated the broadening of the theological perspective from the articles of religion, confession of faith, and the 52 Standard Sermons of Wesley to include reciting the Nicean Creed.

I think the group shows its respect of the process by working and waiting until the General Conference in 2018. Leaders on both sides in the UMC seem prepared to recognize that we are at a point where division needs to happen. No one knows what the commission will propose. WCA is already fashioning its publishing house and board of discipleship. It had the support of several bishops. 

Of course, in the meantime, I am ready to pray and do my small part.

I wish peace for the UMC, for the WCA, and for the next Methodism.

Let's Talk About the Bible

Typically, in sermons about the Bible itself, the preacher acknowledges that it is not easy reading and that it takes some commitment and energy to stay with it. For example, the late Ellsworth Kalas, a noted preacher of recent times, wrote:  

 "... our Bible is not what one would expect a book of religious instruction should be. If you and I were preparing a book to bless and guide people's lives, we wouldn't include large portions of Numbers, Chronicles or Ezekiel. And we'd organize it differently. We have to acknowledge that this book has a style and a purpose of its own; and we confess that in a sense, it has succeeded in spite of itself. On the surface, it isn't the sort of book which looks like a bestseller. It's long, and there are many dull and difficult portions. And while there is a plot, you have to pay attention if you're to find it." 

            Of course, it should not surprise us that Kalas insisted that the plot was worth discovering. I agree. Some have said the Bible is the story of a love affair between God and the human race. I like that. Yet, I do not think that goes far enough. Without God revealing who God is in a specific time and place, we might have hints, clues, intuitions and some logic to speculate about God. Yet, we would never know. Thus, in that regard, the poorly educated person who sounds out the words of the Bible to read it but tries to live by what it says is actually closer to the spirit that animates the Bible than the intellectual who reads it simply for its historical, theological, or philosophical value.

Yes, a spirit animates the Bible. Those who are longtime Bible readers have no doubt noticed that you can be reading along in a passage you have read many times before. Suddenly, something jumps out at you, some word of encouragement, hope, guidance, or conviction. You hear something you needed to hear at that particular juncture of your life. The Bible seems to possess that uncanny capacity. Author Elie Wiesel has suggested that like the paintings of the great masters, the Scriptures "soak up" something from the lives of all those readers who have interacted with them over the ages.

If you get past the skepticism and suspicion many of us have of ancient texts, you might find a challenging Word from God.

Admitting all of this, our modern skepticism and suspicion may well become blocks to truly hearing a challenging Word from God.

Let us be honest about this. In some places, we understand the Bible all too well.  

The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. --Søren Kierkegaard, Provocations: SpiritualWritings of Kierkegaard. 

Robert Farrar Capon, The Romance of the Word (Eerdmans, 1996), 214-5, shares the following. He reminds us that the Bible is a library. Yes, we can go to a library and find the history section (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Acts). We can also go the poetry section (Psalms, Ecclesiastes). We can go to the literature section (Ruth, Jonah, Joseph in Genesis). You can find plays (Job). The modern fascination with “post-apocalyptic” movies and stories finds a counter-part in Revelation and the last part of Daniel.

Whenever we leave on a long journey, we want to take certain things with us. Before leaving on the trip, we have to pack. We haul the suitcase down from the attic (or up from the basement), open it on the bed and ponder the age-old question: What to bring?

How you answer that question has everything to do with what kind of trip you are going to have. Leave out something important, such as an umbrella or an extra sweater, and you will be miserable if the weather turns raw. Pack something unnecessary, such as a pair of snowshoes for a trip to Hawaii, and you will do nothing but complain about how heavy your bags are. Some items that go into the suitcase are necessary equipment. Others are merely baggage — dead weight that impedes progress.

When the author of II Timothy writes that the purpose of studying the Scriptures is that his readers may be “equipped for every good work,” he means something very similar. The Bible is an eminently practical document. It is like a traveler’s guidebook for the strange land that is the human soul: It teaches us things about God and ourselves that we could never discover in any other way.

Here are four metaphors that each suggests a way of viewing the Bible. I acknowledge some indebtedness to Marcus Borg for the first three.

First, the Bible is a finger pointing to God. Nothing that points to God is asking us to believe in it but in that to which it points. Being a Christian does not mean primarily believing in the finger, but believing in the God to which the finger points. In a similar way, as Mary Lathbury's well-known hymn, "Break Thou the Bread of Life," puts it, "Beyond the sacred page, I seek thee, Lord."

Second, the Bible is a lens through which we view God. For me as a follower of Jesus, what clarifies my vision is the Bible is the original witness to the revelation of God. This revelation occurred first to a family, then to a people, and eventually to a nation called Israel. I know this because God has offered a final and definitive revelation in Jesus. We see here the love and grace of God. We see here that we are sinners in need of that grace and clarifying vision. Granting the difficulty we have in reading the Bible, it remains the clearest view of God we have.

Third, the Bible is a sacrament or means of grace, something like communion, to enhance our experience of the presence of God. Communion does not ask us to believe in the bread and wine, but to let them act as a kind of go-between to deepen our experience of God. The Bible is a go-between in the same sense.

Fourth, the Bible is, as Peter dubbed it in one of his letters, "a lamp shining in a dark place" (II Peter 1:19). A lamp does not eliminate all darkness, but it enables us to find our way through it.

 

If we let it, the Bible will slowly (sometimes suddenly) alter the way we view our lives and our world, and therefore lead to a change in our lives.

Gaze of the Full Body Scan

When we went to Florida recently, we went to Fort Wayne and flew to Punta Gorda, FL. These are small airports. Flying on Allegiant Airlines, we received a pass that allowed us to go through a different line. We had pre-approval. We did not have to go through the standard security procedures. Of course, being small airports, it was not much trouble anyway, but it was nice not to have the inconvenience. In particular, it was nice not to have the indignity of the gaze of the full body scan. I try not to think about the stranger who can see beneath your clothing. Yet, if I do, I realize that we have good reason to respect the privacy of each other.

All of us, even the most gregarious and outgoing among us, have some limits on how much of our unique and very personal selves we want to divulge. Some people seem to have no filter between what they think and what they say. Most of us, though regularly withhold thoughts, emotions and details about ourselves until we establish a certain level of trust. Most of all, we want it to be our choice. “I’ll share with you when I’m good and ready, but not before.” The gaze of a full-body scanner thrusts a forced, one-way intimacy on us that is uncomfortable at best and useless at worst.

The airport scanners represent the valiant attempts of officials to keep the flying public safe. The terrorist can still hide thoughts and intentions. If they could develop a scanner that could probe passengers’ thoughts and intentions, they might have a better chance. We might be able to insist that someone’s body is clean and cleared for takeoff, but we cannot discern the motives and plans of those boarding. Airport officials would like to have what belongs only to God: complete understanding of another human being’s psyche. The scanner will not provide that.

Someone will find a way to fool the machine. A terrorist will develop a technique to foil the intent of this device. One human can deceive another; it happens all the time.

We cannot avoid the gaze of God.

Augment Reality

I like new technology. I am rarely the first to try it. I like others to work out the bugs. However, if I think it will be useful, I usually will try it.

One idea has been to put on a pair of glasses and suddenly see streaming information about what you are looking at.

Your special glasses will tell the cost of the camera and its specifications. If you are sightseeing, you will get historical background on the landmark in front of you.

The name for this technology is “augmented reality.” Some of the fun things done with it is pokemon go, but the business application is what fuels much of the economic interest. Lately, I have seen this technology as an app on your smart phone. It will offer your information about the world as you presently engage it.

A great example is the endless number of smartphone apps that allow you to use your phone as a viewfinder, holding it up to the street in front of you to see restaurant ratings hung virtually beneath a venue's actual awning or directional arrows virtually lining the street ahead of you, pointing to the nearest metro-stop.

Nevertheless, it is about to get better. The latest developments suggest that we will soon live in a world where GPS directions to grandma's house will no longer be on a display in your dashboard but appear as signs on the side of the road through technology embedded in your windshield.

Likewise, the Google Glass Project has launched, providing one with an augmented reality display within one's field of vision via a pair of hip and modern eyeglasses, adding informative graphics, and more, to everything one encounters. Very soon, life in this world will be layered with more information, opportunity and power than we have ever imagined.

As always, the question before us as users is what we will do with this information.

Information is critical, but we need more than information. We need some beliefs and values that help us assess the information. Of course, as a preacher, this might lead to a message about how people who love Jesus and walk in the Spirit, people who pay attention to the Bible, and respect the way God has worked through the traditions of the church, might “augment reality” in a way that offers the healing and liberating gospel to others.

Licensing: With Historical Reference to Marriage and Clergy

I invite you to reflect with me about the importance of the license.

Various levels of government issue licenses for almost everything. It makes some sense, of course. It offers some legitimacy to the businesses with which we deal on a regular basis. Yes, you want your restaurant licensed. Lawyers, doctors, and teachers need some type of license. We get all that, I think. We live in a complex world. Licensing can help us wind through the complexity with a little more confidence.

An important license for most of us is the one that lets us drive. Early in your life, the driver’s license is a rite of passage, declaring you are on the way to responsible adulthood. After all, the license is not a rite, but a privilege.

Think of the licenses you might accrue in your life. Hunt, fish, software, business, pets, and marriage, all might require a license.

           

The marriage license has become quite a political matter today. I do not want to explore that issue. However, I like history. I discovered a little account of the wedding ceremony that I found interesting.

Before the government issued marriage licenses, there were marriage banns. "Bann" is a Middle English word for "proclamation." Before the invention of marriage licenses, the minister or priest would make an announcement in the parish church, noting the names of the two parties to an upcoming marriage. The priest would continue with the following question from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer: "If any of you know cause or just impediment why these two persons should not be joined together in Holy Matrimony, ye are to declare it." The law required three marriage banns, with the third proclamation occurring in the early part of the marriage ceremony itself.

For soap-opera writers and romance novelists, the third bann presents a nearly irresistible dramatic opportunity to throw a wedding ceremony off the rails. The most famous such incident occurs in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, when Rochester's brother-in-law reveals that the wealthy landowner is still married, and keeps his insane wife confined in the attic of the manor house.

Contrary to numerous movie and soap opera plot lines, marriage banns were never intended to test the integrity of a couple's emotional commitment. There is only one last-minute objection that could cause cancelling a wedding in this way -- as occurs in Jane Eyre. It is a purely legal obstacle: The revelation that one of the parties is married to someone else. In the years before government-issued marriage licenses, when the only marriage records were parish registers, marriage banns were the best defense against bigamy.

Although wedding banns disappeared from church service books nearly a century ago, they still turn up in soap opera and movie scripts with some regularity as a plot device.

Licenses demonstrate that some official agency has at least recognized and approved us as being technically competent to work or recreate safely and effectively.

Then we read in II Timothy 2:15 that we need licensing from God in order to perform certain Christian duties. Really?

Clergy require licensing from some religious body. The personal call from God is vital, of course. Yet, we as individuals need the confirmation of the Body of Christ that God is calling us. To reject the need for that confirmation is a potential sign of arrogance. In the United Methodist Church, we have licensing for all levels of preaching, serving, sacraments, and ordering the life of the church. Many of the licensing is for laity to serve in various capacities. Such licensing means that one has gone through the proper training. It shows some humility to submit oneself to the process that others have designed, sometimes for reasons you cannot fathom. The license is not a right, but a privilege.

As I said, I like history. I came across an article that revealed some of the early history of the freedom to preach in America.

A state government in America charged one person for preaching without a license. His name was Francis Makemie (ma-KEM-ee), and he was one of the first Presbyterian ministers in North America. Already famous for founding churches throughout the Middle Atlantic colonies, Makemie received an invitation in 1707 to preach to a group of Scottish settlers on Long Island. That was where the itinerant preacher got himself into trouble with the law. The Royal Governor of New York -- Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury -- was a staunch Anglican. As far as he was concerned, because New York was an English colony, it had but one recognized church: the Church of England. Friends warned Makemie about Cornbury. They advised him not to lead worship services on Long Island, but he went ahead and preached anyway. Cornbury had him arrested, along with an associate, John Hampton. The charge was "preaching without a license."

Authorities hauled Makemie before the governor for trial. In his defense, he cited Parliament's 1688 Act of Toleration, by which King William and Queen Mary had established religious freedom. Cornbury was not impressed. That law applied to England only, he declared, not to England's colonies in the New World. He threatened to throw Makemie into jail if he did not post bond for "good behavior" -- including, specifically, promising not to preach in New York. Makemie refused, invoking the name of the queen -- who, he went on to say, had clearly not limited his religious freedom as severely as the governor had. By implication, he was asking the governor if he thought himself wiser than he thought the queen. The governor had no choice but to sign an order for the prisoners' release. On his way out, Makemie asked the court clerk to show him the specific law that limited the Act of Toleration to England alone. The clerk held up a law book, but when Makemie offered to pay him to write out a copy of that paragraph, the clerk refused. There was no such paragraph, and Makemie knew it. The governor called out to the Presbyterian minister, as he was leaving, "You, sir, know law." It was a grudging gesture of respect. The acquittal of Makemie and Hampton established an important legal precedent for religious freedom.

Licensing is important. We need the confirmation of the calling from God from the Body of Christ. In it all, our concern is simple in that we want to present ourselves for approval from God.

Multi-tasking or Setting priorities

If much of your work is on the computer, you have probably grown accustomed to having more than one window up at the same time. As you work, you may get email notifications that you need to check, a notification from Messenger, and the phone may ring with an important call. If your boss shows up at the door, you stop what you are doing and focus.

You may feel exhausted at the end of the day. You might think you did not accomplish much. However, you are a multitasking champion. Such is life in the 21^st century. Are you able to multitask? Answering such a question positively on a job resume will help. Some people have suggested that multitasking is good for the brain.

Studies of the human brain have long fascinated me. Some of you might remember studies of the Left and Right brain. On the physical side, I find it fascinating that we are able to do so much with the firing of the neurons in the brain.

Is multitasking so good for the brain? Sandra Bond Chapman[1], director of the Center for BrainHealth, does not think so. In fact, it is quite the opposite.  

"Multitasking is a brain drain that exhausts the mind, zaps cognitive resources and, if left unchecked, condemns us to early mental decline and decreased sharpness. Chronic multi-taskers also have increased levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, which can damage the memory region of the brain." 

It looks as if the brain has a design that involves doing one thing at a time. What feels like "multitasking" is actually more like mentally switching from one thing to another since it is impossible for us to do two things at once. If you are talking while driving, whether with someone in the car or the phone, you might blow past your exit or drive 20 miles without remembering how you got there. That frequent switching back and forth from task to task actually makes you less efficient, less focused and less productive because you are only thinking about those things on a surface level.

The solution, according to Dr. Chapman, is to focus on one thing at a time. She calls getting things done sequentially "Single-tasking," focusing completely on one task before moving on to another. When we are able to filter our thinking to focus only on what is most important at that moment, we can experience increased productivity and enhance our ability to think strategically. Our brains can become more efficient and our output of higher quality when we devote all of our mental resources to what really matters.

We may multitask because we are not able to set priorities for the use of our time and energy. It requires some attention to yourself and to your situation to assess what truly matters most right now, and do that. This process begins to sound like much that we learn in spiritual formation.

In any case, if the design of the brain is toward focusing on one thing at a time, we might expect this principle to show up in our spiritual formation as well. After all, we believe, do we not, that the whole person is connected -- body, mind and spirit -- to God? Nevertheless, like the rest of our lives, we are often prone to spiritual multitasking. We can slip into thinking that keeping busy and gathering more information in matters related to church and Bible are signs of spiritual maturity. Churches tend to add more and more activities to the schedule. Some devout people feel like they are failing spiritually if they are not involved in multiple programs for learning and mission. It is easy for us to become distracted, exhausted and burned out trying to multitask great things for God.

---

[1] Chapman, Sandra Bond. "Why single-tasking makes you smarter." Forbes Website. May 8, 2013. forbes.com. Retrieved April 1, 2016.

 

Presidential Election 2016 October

This has been a difficult election cycle for me. I have never been so disappointed in both political parties. I have tuned out of the "hot medium" of television and radio for several months, and this has led to a much happier few months. I have kept up with the political process through the "cool medium" of articles, reading articles that I think have tried to offer some perspective on the nature of this election cycle. Jeff Jacoby says that if character matters at all, both candidates would be a moral disaster.

I am quite disappointed in the political class of both political parties. I believe the country faces some important challenges. In reading some presidential biographies, I think one could make a strong case that the political class failed the country during the Jackson Era, largely because of the dominance of Jackson and his circle. Its failure led to the Civil War. The political class can fail is my point, and the result can be disaster.

Nothing I write here has the design of offending those who are enthusiastic for either Hillary or Donald. For the reasons offered below, I cannot join you in your enthusiasm. To state the obvious, those who do not like Trump do no favors to the "stop Trump" movement when they engage in violent behavior. Personally, I think the language of his opponents contributes to this. Calling him racist, misogynist, and fascist stokes the fires of violence, even if such charges may have an element of truth in them. When opponents are willing to pay persons to engage in such rioting at Trump events, it solidifies those who are for Trump that they are on the right track. For the reasons offered below, as much as I dislike Donald, I dislike Hillary just as much.

We have two candidates who have high negatives. Apparently, if you have high negatives, the political strategy is to focus on the negatives of your opponent. The strategy is that as bad as people may think you are, the other candidate is worse, so you are willing to cast a vote on that basis. We can expect, therefore, a lot of negative campaigning over the next few months. American primary goers and superdelegates have opted for the two candidates with the highest negatives.

I am going to have four sections to this blog. The first will share some of my general philosophical commitments regarding governance. For me, it is important, in the heat of a campaign, to think and pray through your basic political commitments. The second will focus on Hillary. The third will focus on Donald. The fourth offers an interesting reflection on the political landscape.

First, I offer some political Perspectives
I am a political conservative. You can read more in my comments for July.

Second, reasons to vote Against Hillary

As a political conservative, I will disagree with Hillary on policy matters. I know, she is United Methodist. Still, I cannot travel with her on her political journey at all. Here are some reasons to vote against Hillary.
1. Hillary scares people, for which read Mona Charen for a brief reminder of what she has done to cause this reaction. Wesley Pruden
2. She defended Bill's sexual abuse of women and destroyed women who dared to tell the truth, for which see Washington Examiner article, Rich Lowry for a brief discussion of details, Larry Elder ponders why Hillary has never been asked publicly about her role in the scandals, Joe Scarborough says that times have changed, with her past behavior coming back to haunt her, Camille Paglia agrees and discusses details, Suzanne Fields, Victor Davis Hanson.  Donald Trump produced a video that pulls no punches.John Kass deals with the NYT hit piece on The Donald and why it is ineffective. Of course, he is referring to Hillary's husband. If I can find a less polemical article, I will replace this one, but for those who need a reminder. Nancy French has offered 11 of the top Bill Clinton sex stories. If she is this wonderful woman Bill described at the convention, maybe he could enlighten us as to why all these affairs. Juanita Broadrick has publicly offered her account of Bill raping her twice. Here is another account.
3. Hillary has no actual accomplishments and is not as qualified as she looks on paper: Jonah Goldberg  Thomas Sowell George Will Cal Thomas Daniel Gallington Fred Barnes
4. Hillary was not an effective Secretary of State:  Herb London
5. She failed in Libya: Jennifer Rubin George Will Michael Barone Pat Smith, mother of one of those murdered by Islamic militants, the movie 13 Hours.
6. She lied to the families of those killed in Benghazi and to the American people regarding a video in America that led to the attack, for the political reason that Obama had a campaign meme that al qada was on the run: Bob Tyrell and Andrew Napolitano explain in a reasonable way the trouble in which Hillary finds herself. Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal. John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails. John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi. Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing. Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary. He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary.
7. She lied about her email server: Jonah Goldberg  Rosland S. Helderman Jonah Goldberg In essence, Hillary is unreasonable, a non-criminal liar, and extremely careless with national security documents. Kathleen Parker  (video of her lies)
8. The corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation and their use of it for their personal wealth and only 15% going to charities: Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article, Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article, Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece, John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions, Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena.

9. In terms of this type of lying, read M. Scott Peck, "People of the Lie."
10. Her propensity is toward military involvement while her opponent is less so: Thaddeus Russell.

11. The mess in Middle East, the rise of Islamic Militancy, and the rise of ISIS occur on her watch as Secretary of State: Josef Joffe, Catherine Herridge Jonah Goldberg Wesley Pruden
12. She was part of an administration that will not identify Islamic militancy as an enemy of America and the values of a democratic society: Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando (Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnuru ), Nice,  The Religion of Peace is a reliable site as is The Counter-Jihad Report.
13. She is part of political party that seems to hate conservatives more than terrorists: Mona Charen ponders whose side he is on; The Hill Michael Barone
14. Willing to distract from focus on legitimate enemies, like Islamic militancy by focusing on political opponents with the use of homophobia (Orlando), Gun Control, or how bad America has been in the world.
15. Florida has become a Jihad playground: Michelle Malkin
16. Islamic militants are engaging in genocide in the Middle East, but the instinct in America is for some to blame Christians and America.
17. Hillary voted for the military action against Iraq: David Harsanyi
18. Under her watch, Iraq went from strength to weakness: Robert Gates
19. Her desire to bring more refugees to America rather than provide a safe place closer to their home in Syria: Jonah Goldberg Rich Lowry Mona Charen
20. Iran remains an issue with you:  Rachel Marsden Stephen Moore (class division) James Shirk
21. Economic growth of 2% is simply not sufficient: Stephen Moore Ben Shapiro Ken Blackwell David Horovitz Peter Morici Charles Krauthammer Donald Lambro, Fred Barnes and Cal Thomas(analysis of her economic speech) Robert J. Samuelson
22. You do not like her soak the rich tax policy: Robert J. Samuelson Walter Williams Glenn Kessler challenges her contention that tax cuts caused the financial crisis of 2008.
23. You do not think the Koch Brothers are evil: Jonah Goldberg
23. Her flip-flop on the TPP (free trade) means she will lie to win the support of some and then continue the deal when in office: Jonah Goldberg
24. The Supreme Court is already too activist for the progressive agenda and Hillary would make it even more so.
25. You do not think it right to say that GOP opposition to Planned Parenthood, due to partial-birth abortion, is akin to terrorism: Carly Fiorina Mark Halperin Joy Overbeck (about founder of this organization and the praise Hillary gave her)
26. You think that if she is against the "war on women" by the GOP, she should at least pay women as much as men on her own staff: Newt Gingrich  Mark Halperin
27. You think women have been disadvantaged during the Obama years: Stephen Moore
28. She flip-flopped on immigration: Matt Vespa and Video on Youtube

Reasons to vote for Hillary:
1. She is a woman.
2. You hate Trump.

Some general articles that I still find interesting:
The top 1 percent accounted for 14.6 percent of pretax income in 2011 and paid 24 percent of federal taxes. Clinton would raise total taxes 1.1 trillion over the decade, with 3/4 coming from the upper one percent. Sanders tax package would raise a staggering $15.3 trillion over a decade. Most taxpayers would be hit. It would make more sense if Hillary would calmly re-state the traditional Democrat Party line and let Bernie promote his socialism.

Carl Rove compares the message of President Clinton and the message of Hillary, and finds the latter wanting. examines her record, and finds its failures not balanced by successes. 

In July, Rush Limbaugh gave a surprisingly good analysis of the view that Republicans are the extremist party in America.  I say surprising because he presents that view quite well. Of course, his view is that the Democrat Party is the extremist party. If you read this article fully, you will get exposure to both.
In May,  Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing the Democrat Party. 

Hillary seemed to get into demagoguery when she accused Republicans of wanting to keep people from voting. In supporting a lawsuit against Ohio, for example, she failed to note that New York has only one day to vote, while Ohio has a month to vote. Bill Murchison discusses this matter. Mona Charen calls it the "They hate you" strategy.


Third, reasons to vote against Donald Trump

To paraphrase the former British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne, what all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass (Michael Barone reference, but appropriate here). I am among those who, at the beginning of the Republican nomination process, said "please no" regarding Donald and Ted. Of course, that did not happen.  David Limbaugh offers why conservatives who respect the constitution ought to have some concerns about Trump, and why Trump supporters should be understanding and sympathetic of these concerns.
Christine Flowers reverses her previous "never Trump" articles and offers the Supreme Court as her reason. George Will continues to focus on the decline of conservativism and the rise of Trump.

Here is the Republican Party Platform. It is 66 pages. In skimming it, I did not find much that surprised me. The "fair trade" element is new, and one that I am willing to re-consider. I remained concerned about trade wars.

Jonah Goldberg notes the failure of the GOP convention to unite the party. In other conventions, enough commonality existed among the candidates. The convention provided a time to unite. With the non-appearance of Bush, McCain, Romney, Cheney, Jeb, Kasich, and I am sure others, this convention failed. I am listing speeches by some family and people who knew him because of the willingness so many have had to go toward ad hominem attacks. I think these persons show that trump does not have horns, a tail, and pitchfork. I was particularly struck by accounts of him as an encourager and cheerleader. I saw some of that in his speech. Melania Trump gave a fine speech in favor her husband. However, about 50 words were lifted out of Michele Obama's speech. After that, much false outrage ensued on the internet. I say false because many of these same persons will be all in for Hillary. I can think of few people who have lowered political discourse more than she has done, including her recent lying to the American people about emails and lying to the family of those who died in Libya. Meredeth McIver said that as a staffer, she took down some notes over the phone that Melania gave to her. Melania said she liked some of the things that Michelle said in her speech. However, she took responsibility for not checking the speech and citing it. Rudolf Giuliani prosecuted the case against Hillary. Gov. Christie also prosecuted the case against Hillary. He gave a speech that had some controversy as the crowd shouted "Jail her." For those who have a concern about this language, Jonah also has a brief defense. Scott Walker delivered a powerful message. Donald Trump Jr gave what most think was a good speech for his father. The same with Eric. Mike Pence gave a solid speech, much more traditional than most of the speeches. It contained a solid conservative message. Ted Cruz was his normal, isolated, arrogant self. He did urge people to vote their conscience. He admitted the next day that he did not endorse because of what he said about Heidi and his dad during the election. If he had wisdom as well as intelligence, he would have done what Jeb, Kasich, Carly, Rand Paul, and others had done, and stayed home. At the same time, most of us have had the experience, in dealing with an opponent, to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I wonder if that is what happened here. In any case, the obvious glorying in the spotlight by Ted might have led Republicans to unite. No one likes a sore loser. Red State is a NeverTrump conservative organization. It was behind Ted Cruz, including what he did on Wednesday night. One article stresses why they persist. As the article puts it:

he wasn't willing to sell his family out for a political party. He wasn't willing compromise his beliefs by joining hands with a man who is an enemy of everything conservatism stands for. He wasn't willing to stand and be counted with the army of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers, and other such filth that run with Trump's cabal. He wasn't willing to make a mockery of his faith in order to push a political cause nor blaspheme his Savior by paying homage to an amoral charlatan.

Since I have not been a Trump supporters, and these things have bothered me as well, I feel no need to defend. I remain concerned. As noted above, though, I have similar types of concerns about Hillary. Am I naïve? I know I can be. However, listening to the accounts from his family and friends, I have to make a choice of whom I trust more. Here is a good example of what happens when you have conflicting witnesses to the character of a person. It becomes especially troubling when you have people on both sides that you respect. Is it sour grapes on the part of Red State, Jonah Goldberg, and Erick Erickson, since their Cruz did not win? Do they have an insight into the soul of Trump that his friends clearly do not have? I stress that the things to which the article points trouble me. The idea that David Duke, for example, would like anything I said would make me go through some self-examination that I do not see Trump doing. Donald Trump gave what I thought was a powerful presentation of his position. It was nationalist and populist. I doubt that I have ever heard a relatively full presentation of his position. Contrary to some I do not think that concern for who is coming into the country is xenophobia, whether from Mexico or from Arab countries. I appreciated his comments on the gay community. In fact, the convention has made clear respect for the diversity of this nation. Trump has made a special appeal to the inner cities. He is concerned that our government seems to have little concern for who comes into the country, even if they are dangerous people. He gives full-throated support to those on the front lines of the security of the people. He is concerned with foreign entanglements such as treaties and military involvements, that do not bring an advantage back to the United States. I remained concerned about his vision of trade with foreign countries. Depressions, including the Great Depression, begin with trade wars. However, it fits with his nationalism. I am willing to re-examine by views on this. In particular, I find it at least puzzling that you need hundreds of pages to say that nations have free trade. If it really is free, should it not take a line or two? It begins to look suspiciously like favoring some businesses in the respective countries over others.

As with Hillary, so with Trump, people react to him to him at a personal level.
1. You just do not like Trump. Before Trump announced, his appearances on Fox & Friends repulsed me. His conduct of the campaign, although he won in the end, seemed bullying and abusive.
2. You think he is racist, hates women, and is fascist. You may think, like Leon Wolff of Red State, that the Republican party now stands for shallow, empty xenophobia, trade policy ignorance, an unserious and uninformed foreign policy, massive hikes to the minimum wage, and the pathological avoidance of personal responsibility. Of course, one must realize that Red State at least acts like a front for Ted Cruz, and Leon Wolff in particular does. Conservatives make the accusation as well as liberals. The danger here is the little boy who cried wolf. If you are liberal/progressive, I hope you can be honest about this. Every conservative in your mind is all these things. I am old enough to remember, George Wallace, Sen Fulbright from Arkansas and mentor of Bill Clinton, and Bull Connor. I now have the witness of his family, friends like Guiliani and Christie, and NBC for hiring him to lead a popular TV show. Adam Gopnick of the New Yorker offers a re-definition of fascism as nationalism. "the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners." My problem with his argument is that he uses the same style of argument as does Trump/Nationalist/Fascist. He uses the term "fascist" to refer to one whom he admits is a "nationalist." Why not just call him nationalist? Obviously, "fascist" magnifies the danger of Trump, raising the image of Hitler and Mussolini. Why do that? Because you want to magnify the danger of Trump and make it easier for the many Americans who do not like Hillary to vote for her. For me, evidence of such charges would be in words and deeds. One can lift anything out of context and make it sound like what you want it to say, especially strung together. I am trying to make a distinction between disagreeing with a policy, such as deporting anyone here illegally or banning all Muslims from coming to the USA, which we can read as a concern for national security and the safety of citizens, and saying the motivation is racism. My hesitation on such charges is that I do not know his heart. My hesitation is that I know people who support Trump and I know they are not racist, etc. Rudy Giuliani is a prime example of someone who knows Trump personally and can give  full-throated endorsement at the GOP convention. My hesitation is that I do not think a reality star like Trump would have been hired by NBC if he were a hated any race or gender, and they would certainly not a fascist. My discomfort, again, is that there are many reasons I have for not liking Trump. Having said all of this, if I come across reasonable articles that are able to point to words, which in the Donald's case will be plenty, and to the actions, I will post them. For example, Leon H. Wolff of Red State, a conservative site, says that Donald will be worse than the 1964 Republicans, in part because Donald is racist. His evidence is the comments about the judge of Mexican descent and his retweeting of white supremacist and openly courting white supremacist votes. Now, the difficulty I always have with Donald is that does such words and actions fall under the stupid things Donald does and says, or does it betray a darker motivation. In any case, Republicans have many Hispanic representatives, two of them ran for President, and will usually get 25-40% of their vote nationally and 40% in Texas. The point is that Donald could be like Goldwater in losing that vote to the Democrat Party. This author has identified why I have not favored Donald and the danger I think he is to GOP and to a conservative view of governance.

3. He is too simple, ignorant, and narcissistic. Daniel W. Dresner writes about the trouble with Trump Charles Krauthammer says the attack on a gold star family may reveal to many how narcissistic he is.
4. Following up one emperor, Obama, with another, Trump, is not a good thing: Angelo Codevilla Thomas Sowell
5. We need maturity:  ThomasSowell Thomas Sowell
6. He is a demagogue: Mona Charen
7. You are a Christian and have a problem with Trump: Mark Tooley  Max Lucado Robert P. George and George Weigel (Roman Catholic)
8. You remain a NeverTrump person due to your personal political conservativism: National Review came out with an edition labeled "Against Trump." People like Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Dana Loesch, and Brent Bozell III are hardly the hated "establishment." Some are for Cruz.
9. Trump will damage the GOP brand and give conservativism a bad name for generations.
 George Will has spoken on this matter. He has updated his concerns. Jeb Bush (July 2016) Thomas Sowell Kathleen Parker Mona Charen (RIP GOP)
10. While Trump is a businessman, he has business practices are not exemplary and his policies are not good economics: Brett Arends Jonathan Hoenig
11. You are for free trade and Trump is not: Rich Lowry Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore
12. You are not with Trump on illegal immigration: Linda Chavez Mona Charen Thomas Sowell  George Will George Will   Helen Raleigh
13. His tax plan will not provide growth: Robert J. Samuelson
14. You do not like the idea of expanding eminent domain: Jeff Jacoby
15. You do not like the "morality-free" zone Trump has created: Mona Charen

You might vote for Trump.
1. Mark Cunningham has written of how Trump has a new way to win.
2. You react to the last 8 years in such a way that Obama explains the appeal of Trump. His policies regarding illegal immigration and terrorism seem weak. Political correctness is becoming oppressive. You view this as bullying opponents into submission and feel the need for a strong and forceful leader to oppose it. You want someone unapologetic in their patriotism and thus obviously loves their country. Elites, defined as Washington DC, Wall Street, Academia, much of the media, and Hollywood, need to stop their bullying of the common person, the person in the street, the middle class. Joe Scarborough Conor Friedersdorf (!) Glenn Reynolds
3. You distrust the government: David Brady and Douglas Rivers
4. You are a conservative, but it seems as if "free trade" deals are short on results: Jim Tankersley
5. You are generally conservative, meaning you know you are not liberal, but some of the traditional stances of the GOP are no longer your positions: Philip Rucker and Dan Balz Alicia Colon
6. You want the GOP to loosen its ties to a strictly conservative politics, especially as embodied in the Bush family and "neo-con" foreign policy: Jonah Goldberg Fred Barnes
7. You are willing to follow talk radio on the "conservative" side who have at least been generous with Trump: Rush, Sean, and Mark
8. Therefore, you have grown to distrust or even hate the GOP establishment, even though conservatives in those districts have elected them and even thought the GOP establishment has many victories in the Senate, House, Governor, and state legislatures since the election of Obama. Michael Gerson
9. Jim Tankersley and Max Ehrenfreund discuss the policies of Trump.
10. Karen DeJong and Jose A. DelReal write about the Trump foreign policy speech.
11. You have a high concern for illegal immigration. You are with Trump on immigration: Rick Noack discusses the New Year's Eve sexual assaults by Muslim men of German women. Terry Jeffrey. Family Security Matters
12. His tax policies are broadly conservative: Larry Kudlow
13. You are an evangelical Christian, you have doubts, but you have decided, along with Jesus in Luke 9:49-50, that one is not against you is for you. This amounts to having more concern for what Hillary will do against the church with the power of government and relying on the promise of Trump to defend evangelicals. Last Chance America Jim Garlow offers his reasons as well.

Here are a few articles I could not classify, but remain of some interest.
 Victor Davis Hanson offers his view of Trumpsters.
Sadly, just because I usually like him, David Brooks offered a ridiculous piece opposing Trump in which his attack was upon those who vote for him as desiring authoritarianism, defined as parents who desire their children to be respectful. This attempt to discover the authoritarian-leaning voter is highly suspect and biased.May 2016 -  Red State had an article that states clearly that Hillary is not better than Trump. Charles Krauthammer says the supposed anger at the Republican Establishment resulted in the nomination of the most liberal of the 17 candidates. Jonah Goldberg, a NeverTrump and NeverHillary person, says Trump could win and explains how. argues that like the legend of Herbert Hoover, Donald Trump, if he won, would have long-term negative impact upon the Republican Party if he won. George Will wonders who will follow Trump over the cliff.  thinks "farewell" to the GOP and commends Paul Ryan. Robert Costa and Philip Rucker say that conservatives are stepping back from the GOP. Victor Davis Hanson has little good to say about Trump, but less about Hillary. Solid article on how conservatives are in a tough place. He also wrote of the myth of progress that is part of the Obama and progressive way of thinking. Denis Prager says the scariest reason that Trump won is that Republicans are not conservatives. "The four most-often cited reasons are the frustrations of white working-class Americans, a widespread revulsion against political correctness, disenchantment with the Republican establishment, and the unprecedented and unrivaled amount of time the media afforded Trump."  Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing both political parties.

April 2016 – Bernie Goldberg makes the point that both Hillary and Trump have the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidates in polling history. George Will, with a twist of irony, says that the Trump campaign may, if it leads to reform of the primary process in the states, turn out for the public good. Ron Danker, a Cruz supporter, explains what Trump saw that Cruz did not regarding conservativism in this election.

 Fourth, and too close, an interesting analysis of the political landscape

If you would like a serious analysis of the political landscape, Angelo Codevilla wrote an analysis in 2010 that is scholarly and I think thought-provoking. The article is not for the faint of heart. It is a long scholarly article. Since I have not referred to it before, I hope you will bear with me. In a more recent article, he summarized his point by saying that "America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites. Ordinary Americans have endured being insulted by the ruling class’s favorite epitaphs—racist, sexist, etc., and, above all, stupid; they have had careers and reputations compromised by speaking the wrong word in front of the wrong person; endured dictates from the highest courts in the land that no means yes (King), that public means private (Kelo), that everyone is entitled to make up one’s meaning of life (Casey), but that whoever thinks marriage is exclusively between men and women is a bigot (Obergefell). No wonder, then, that millions of Americans lose respect for a ruling class that disrespects them, that they identify with whomever promises some kind of turnabout against that class, and that they care less and less for the integrity of institutions that fail to protect them." Of course, all of this leads into the reason why the "Country Class" feels identification with Trump. the Ruling Class's fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate. The ruling class insists on driving down the throats of its opponents the agendas of each its constituencies and on injuring persons who stand in the way. This has spawned a Newtonian reaction, a hunger, among what may be called the “country class” for returning the favor with interest.It actually deserves more reflection by me than what I am giving it here. I offer a discussion with some pertinent quotes for those who might not think they have the time for the article. The "faith" is that they know better than the people. They are the best and brightest, while the rest of the country is largely racist and bigoted. This is bipartisan, but "Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives." They receive solid support from those who self-identity as Democrats. The Republican Party receives solid support from only about one-fourth of its voters. This one fourth you might call "establishment," junior members of the ruling class, but the rest are restless with any of the ruling class. His concern is that the ruling class has become largely monolithic in its thinking, but that America has never had this. "How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them?" "What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat..." "it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class." "Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation's paradigm that "all men are created equal"?" "the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class." They create dependent economics through taxation, spending, and regulation. "our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support." The ruling class wants to change the culture. "The ruling class is keener to reform the American people's family and spiritual lives than their economic and civic ones." "It believes that the Christian family (and the Orthodox Jewish one too) is rooted in and perpetuates the ignorance commonly called religion, divisive social prejudices, and repressive gender roles, that it is the greatest barrier to human progress because it looks to its very particular interest." The ruling class wants to meddle in the affairs of nations: "its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world's Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them." "our ruling class does not like the rest of America." He contrasts the ruling class with the country class, some of which focus on merit, some of which value traditional family, and some of which want to focus on issues at home rather than abroad. "The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance." The country class seeks to use the Republican Party has its vehicle, but has largely failed, the Bush family being the primary means of blocking them. "The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image." "Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents' legitimacy." They are "uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent,