Manipulation and Ideology

One fact of manipulation is that those who succumb to it become something less than their authentic self. To adapt as our own a manipulator's thoughts requires that we to abdicate that portion of our freedom central to our integrity: the freedom to examine ideas and events by our own understanding, and make our own decisions for ourselves.

One fact of ideology is that it institutionalizes manipulation.

At Communion Yesterday

It was God's world-changing wisdom to appear on earth in the flesh of our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ.

It is God's continuing wisdom to appear on earth in the flesh of the beloved brothers and sisters we join with in Christ this day.

Miscellaneous observation

It's said that behind every great man is a woman. Undoubtedly, she's there reminding him, "You ain't so great."

Freedom, and Irony

Ironic . . .

That the people among us who scream loudest for their "freedom" are the most fearful among us. Fearful of losing the "freedom" they think is theirs, they are vigilantly fearful of anyone and anything they believe might take it away.

They are fearful of immigrants, of their own government, of gays, of Muslims, of "socialists," of illegal aliens, of "the media," of Obama, of crime and of laws . . . especially of gun-laws, because they believe their only protection against all their fears is being able to commit violence on anything and anyone they think might threaten their "freedom." For them, as for Chairman Mao, ultimate power in society grows from the barrel of a gun.

In America today we are surrounded by masses of fearful people, who hate to the point of violence anyone and everyone whose race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or political opinion is different than their own. They also have a overwhelming fear of being a minority, a few righteous right-thinkers on the verge of inundation by a flood of hellish enemies. In that fear, they are wrong. There are far too many of the fearful for them to masquerade as a minority.

Ironic . . . that their rallying-cry is always "freedom" (and usually, "MY freedom.") No one whose life and mind and spirit is as consumed by fear as they are, is free in any way.

Ironic . . . that so many of this deluded crowd call themselves "Christians" . . . yet don't believe Jesus, that they've been freed by the Son . . . from all their fears of all their enemies . . . and are now "free indeed." (John 8:36) The "Christianity" of these fearful produces no disciples praising God from a jail-cell for their freedom. It produces instead "disciples" who fear, and curse, and threaten with violence, all the "enemies" they believe might take from them their illusion of worldly "freedom."

God forgive the American Church ! Christ, free Your people from their illusions !

Reaganomics

Brother Onesimus recently posted an interesting graphic comparing tax-rates during Presidential administrations of the last 40 years.

https://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/cost to the poor for rewarding the rich?

I'm woefully ignorant about economics. All I can say is that, subjectively, the U.S. economy seems neither as stable nor as equitable as I remember it being before Reaganomics.

I do know that Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and disciple of Ayn Rand, testified to Congress after the economic crash of 2008 that the theory he'd pursued the past 20 years was "partially" wrong, and that, "The whole intellectual edifice...collapsed in the summer of last year.” Greenspan doubtless knows infinitely more about the subject than I do; but his mea culpa does seem to coincide with many of my subjective impressions.

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0

The signature policy of Reagan's governing philosophy was what he called "de-regulation." Government itself being (as he famously proclaimed in his first Inaugural Address) "the problem," it followed that citizens would be best served by government ceasing to "interfere" in their lives. In economics, the premise was that "the market" would sort everything out, and produce a more stable prosperity than government regulation ever could.

(It's worth noting that the Reagan administration instituted "de-regulation" in many other areas previously under federal oversight: environmental actions, air-traffic control, broadcasting, education, housing, food-safety, civil rights law, etc. Again subjectively, it seems we've seen dire consequences in those areas as well.)

What I have to come back to, as the "intellectual edifice" of Reaganism in toto, is its counter-scriptural foundation. Reagan's conviction that "government IS the problem" seems to flatly contradict the teaching that governing authority "...is a minister of God to you for good." (Romans 13:4). His policy of "de-regulation" flowing from that anti-government stance seems the opposite of God's mandate that rulers "...bring wrath upon the one who practices evil." (ibid)

Subjectively, those anti-scriptural teachings have done the U.S. and its citizens a great deal of harm over the last 40 years. That harm continues today in the beliefs of Reagan's followers.

The Problem With Donald Trump

What bothers most people about Donald Trump is his arrogance. Or maybe his demagoguery. Or I should say, "what bothers some people about Donald Trump."

Quite obviously, what the crowd of his followers like about Donald Trump is his arrogant demagoguery.

But there's a bigger problem with Trump's mindset that makes him completely unqualified to be President.

Trump's pronouncements about what he'll do as President should be a warning. They betray his belief that being President is like being a hard-charging business executive: tell underlings what they should do, and they'd better damned well do it...or else.

I think most of us know being President doesn't work that way. I'm quite surprised Trump doesn't. Maybe he hasn't been paying attention.

But Trump's biggest problem is that America's government was set up to NEVER work that way. More than anything else, the founders tried to protect America from one-man rule. That's why our Constitutional government has the toughest legislative, judicial, and popular-vote "checks and balances" they could devise against arbitrary executive power.

Of course, the founders' reference-point of executive power was George Washington. I'm sure they never could have imagined a President like "The Donald" . . . but I'm grateful their foresight formulated our governmental system to make sure there'd never be one.

Ted Cruz

NPR interviewed Ted Cruz this morning. We can't help hearing politicians' sound-bites on the news, but I usually try to avoid listening to that level of "information" as much as possible. So today was the first time I've heard Cruz talk at length, and I listened with interest to form an idea of the man.

He is certainly argumentative. By that I mean a person whose guiding personal motivation is quite obviously to be right, on his own terms. By that I mean a person whose guiding motivation is not objective truth.

It was clear too that his pronouncements all came from a primary operative belief (probably what he'd consider his "truth") that government is evil. Somehow the illogic of that Reaganite principle never deters some politicians' ambition to part of that evil, if they can be in control of it.

None of us in the general public can know what Cruz is like as an individual. I suspect that, like many politicians, his public persona IS to a large extent his personhood. But as a public figure and a politician, the only terms on which I'm able to evaluate him, I wish Cruz "bad cess." His disregard for truth tells me what spirit he operates in: contrary the Spirit of Jesus, Who IS "the Truth." His hatred for government likewise tells me that Cruz is, in scripture's terms, a rebel and a "man of lawlessness." It would be a curse on our nation and people to be led by such a man.

I'm sure his spin-doctors and many of his followers would assert that Cruz is somehow a "Christian:" that is, after all, the politically-correct requirement for all of today's Republican politicians. Cruz' supporters are welcomed to their opinion . . . or the opinion "spin-doctors" craft for them. I say being a Christian means loving Truth and forsaking evil ways, in public or in private life. Cruz doesn't meet that standard.

politically-correct heroes

One of the most persistent themes on facebook these days is that members of America's military are "heroes:" explicitly or implicitly, ALL heroes.

The King James Bible translators used a word in Philippians 3:8 that Christians seldom cite anymore. But what better place to use it than of facebook ? So I say; facebook's repeated tributes to America's military heroes are absolutely "dung."

It's simply dishonest use of language. The only honest use of "hero" is for someone whose valor greatly exceeds the norm. Those who "greatly exceed" in any group or endeavor are very few: by definition. Declaring every member of America's military a "hero" makes no more sense than declaring every student in our favorite school a "genius." Pride is speaking...not Truth.

That proud dishonesty has become the politically-correct "thinking" for many on facebook. I upset an older woman there by comparing the armed, self-appointed, "militia" who showed up uninvited at Ferguson, Missouri,'s riots, to publicity-seeking agitators like Al Sharpton. Her angry response was that these armed "Oath Keepers" were ex-military . . . therefore "upstanding" men, with honorable motives..."heroes."

Here's the truth: there are certainly heroes in the military...people who "greatly exceed" the requirement, whether in combat or other missions. But by definition, exceptional people are few in any group. The vast majority of our military are decent people, who do their jobs well; some, very well. There are also as many bullies, thieves, goldbricks (which term originated in the military), manipulators, back-stabbers, and jerks in the military as there are in any other large, diverse, group of Americans.

That observation won't suit facebook's current "political correctness:" but it's true. Just ask anyone who's been in the military.

Jesus Divides the Sheep and Goats

“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

We all know these words of Jesus. We all say, "Amen, Lord !!"...for we're all certain that we are among Jesus' sheep. But the Shepherd's flock includes both sheep and goats. The time comes to separate the one from the other.

This is Jesus' unique statement of the absolute moral clarity by which He judges men. "Unique," because it appears in scripture only this one time: yet I don't doubt it's imprinted on the heart of His every follower. It's the Spirit's wisdom we should measure ourselves by Jesus' measure.

We should measure too all teachings that come before us. The teachings we choose to receive into our hearts are the operative beliefs on which we will act.

What then of todays' "conservative" teaching that we do the poor, the hungry, the sick, immigrants ("strangers") harm when we show them mercy ? Helping such people only makes them "dependent" on others, say the politicians, and encourages their laziness and irresponsibility.

It's commonsense, politicians say. And very many who consider themselves Jesus' sheep echo, "Indeed, commonsense."

So we measure. Does the political doctrine that it's a bad thing to show mercy to those in need teach us to act the ways Jesus' commends in His sheep...or the other way ?

Thank You, Jesus, thank You, Spirit for Your wisdom of moral clarity ! Amen !!

Quote: The Kingdom and The World (John 18:33-38)

"Some might read the popular phrase ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ and mistakenly think that Jesus meant, ‘My kingdom is not in this world.’ But Jesus was talking more about essence than location. In other words, he was talking about the ‘real world.’

"Jesus said this while on trial for insurrection. His kingdom had finally collided with the kingdoms of Herod and Pilate…Jesus had, for the most part, stayed on the fringes of public life, insisting that the kingdom he preached and represented be undetectable to the powers. But now he had paraded into the center of power, flipped over its tables, and hosted a public and critical teach-in, creating the conditions for his arrest.

"Jesus didn’t mean that his kingdom has no interaction with or claims to make about the world. Jesus even insisted that his whole life was a thrusting of truth into the world, affronting it. Nor did Jesus mean that his goal was to get people ready to die and go to heaven—as if the earth were just a waiting room for the afterlife. The people who were working for Jesus’ execution understood that his identity wasn’t just an abstract theological heresy…His claims had political import…the titles of King, Messiah, and Son of God (all used in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ trials) were claims competing against the emperor in Rome.

"When Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world,’ he wasn’t saying that his kingdom is apolitical; rather he was saying how his kingdom is political. He clarified his statement right after he made it: the essential difference is that in my kingdom, we do not fight to maintain the kingdom."

-- Shane Claiborne, "Jesus for President,” pp. 109-10 ("he," "his," "him" [sic] throughout)