Cui Bono ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The Church in America has so long understood "conservative" as an approximation of "good," in its theological thinking and its thinking about human government, that the Church has come to believe it's so.  Infinitely worse, the Church has come to act as if it's so.

It's an amazing thing.  Those who say they believe that God's word is sovereign law...that He Himself Alone IS Good, and Alone determines and judges what is good and evil...believe that what is "conservative" is "good:" and act in that belief without God's least attestation that it is so.

That moral substitution has taken strongest root in the Church' theological and political thinking...the very parts of our operative thinking which Christ, our God and our King, claims are His.

How could this have happened ?  Cui bono ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

An Appreciation: Kenneth Boulding

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I think I first ran across Kenneth Boulding's writings doing research for a paper in a library-school class.  His insights went quite beyond the scope of whatever my paper was about, and I had to rush on and finish the paper.  But I went back to read more of Boulding afterwards, very surprised I'd never heard of someone who seemed such a seminal thinker.

I remember mentioning some of Boulding's ideas to my friend Mike Baker, who lived in Colorado Springs.  To my astonishment, Baker had met him a few times at Quaker meetings.  Boulding was still alive at the time, and teaching at the University of Colorado. His faith was central in his thought throughout his life, and he was a dedicated Quaker and proponent of peace.

Boulding repeatedly took public stands for peace.  When the Edinburgh Friends meeting petitioned the Prime Minister in 1936 to disclaim the "war guilt" clauses of the Versailles Treaty in the interests of a more just peace with Germany, Boulding, a new professor at the University, was chosen to draft the document.  His Wikiquote page says he "... regarded his involvement in the founding of the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the International Peace Research Association as important lifetime achievements" (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kenneth_Boulding).

Though he became one of the leading economic theorists of the twentieth century, Boulding's undergraduate work had been cross-disciplinary, in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.  His thinking remained cross-disciplinary throughout his life.

Even as he rose to the top of that field, Boulding criticized "economics" for its autonomous purview.  The trouble with economics, he wrote, is that “economics deals with the behavior of commodities rather than with the behavior of men.”  (He also memorably criticized "pure" economics with his observation that "Mathematics brought rigor to Economics. Unfortunately, it also brought mortis.”)

His lifelong effort was to lay a foundation for models that would allow us to integrate our thinking about man's political and social behavior with economics.  In that effort, Boulding became an early practitioner of, and influence on, systems-theory and what we now call cybernetics.

In his last book, Three Faces of Power, Boulding brought together his thoughts about the structure of human power.  He saw "threat" power as directive, the decision-making power of societies, primarily through politics and institutions.  Supporting it is the "economic" power of society's production and exchange of commodities, by which it supplies its material needs. 

Boulding's third power he called "integrative," the power of relationships.  In his thinking, it is the context in which human power originates, and for which it operates. He wrote that “integrative power [is] the ultimate power…[and} the most fundamental form of integrative power is the power of love.”  (Three Faces of Power, pp. 109-10).  That sentence captures perfectly the deeply humanitarian and deeply Christian essence of all of Boulding's thought.

Boulding's own work was notable for the integrative power he valued.  He was twice nominated for the Nobel Committee's consideration: once for his work in economics, and once for the peace prize.
   
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

What Happened, America ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

When he was informed just before a 1968 campaign rally that Martin Luther King had been assassinated, Robert Kennedy told the waiting crowd the news, and made a heart-felt extemporaneous speech.  In that speech, he said,

"What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness, but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice towards those who still suffer within our country…”

Kennedy put into words what all of us desired for America in 1968, that our country would live in the spirit of Jesus’ teachings.  But many Americans  today ridicule that kind of talk as unrealistic, just "p.c." garbage spouted by "elitists" and “liberals" like Kennedy.

Todays' leading politicians are contemptuous of that kind of "political correctness."  They also despise "elitists" and "liberals."  Indeed, contempt for righteousness, and hatred for others, is how they say they will "make America great again."

This is not a political change.  This is a profound spiritual change.

How did America lose its soul ?

America's "Christians," who love political deceivers more than Jesus' teachings, bear a large part of the blame, and the shame, for the profound spiritual harm that's been done to our country.

America's "Christians" must repent.  America's "Christians" must deeply repent.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
 

What Jesus Says About Panhandling

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I occasionally listen to a radio talk-show on a local NPR station: a real talk-show, where normal, intelligent people honestly discuss local events and issues without rancor, and welcome call-in comments and questions.

The subject today was a proposed anti-panhandling ordinance.  And of course the host and all of his guests referred to their personal experience with panhandlers.  We've all had personal experience with panhandlers.

Not that any of the panelists were anti-panhandler.  No one said they'd ever felt threatened or harassed by panhandlers; and all agreed that the proposed ordinance was primarily intended to ensure the free flow of traffic, on both streets and sidewalks.

What most caught my interest was the panelists' discussion of how they reacted to panhandlers.  They all agreed that many were people who needed some help through a difficult time.  And no one doubted that some panhandlers chose to beg rather than work.

All the panelists (whatever "liberal" or "conservative" attitudes they'd evinced in discussing the ordinance) said they sometimes gave money to panhandlers.  And for all of them, their decision to give or not give was based on their perception of how "deserving" the panhandler was: their best guess whether s/he was genuinely a person who needed a little help in tough circumstances...or a "mooch," taking advantage of other people's good intentions.

I was thinking that Jesus' saved us making that difficult call.  His command to "give to everyone who asks of you" (Luke 6:30; also Matthew 5:42) pretty well covers it.  But in spite of Jesus' command, I've heard many Christians agonizing over whether they did the right thing or not by giving money to a panhandler.

When I hear Christians dealing with that question, there's always some of the same concern that the radio-panelists had, whether the panhandler is "deserving" or not.  But it's not a concern Christians should have.  Jesus sets His command in the context of God's grace, "... so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Jesus says God gives His gifts to deserving and undeserving people, and his sons do likewise.  His Son Jesus said His Own purpose was to do what He saw the Father doing.  Giving to all who ask is an opportunity for us to be a son of God, like Jesus was.

It's always impressed me that God is Creator and Ruler of time, as well as of the space of Creation.  My experience is that He rules very directly and very personally in our lives daily by His rule of space and time, in the opportunities he creates for us that way.  (And don't we actually rather trivialize God if we only credit Him with spectacular works like the Grand Canyon, and not the everyday circumstances of our own lives ?)

We all can think of incidents in our lives when, if we had not been at the exact place at the exact time we were...if we had started from home two minutes sooner than we did, or not impulsively dashed into the hardware store on our way to the library...our lives would have been different, perhaps dramatically so.  God's rule of time and space in our lives creates opportunities for us, often opportunities to meet people we might otherwise never run into.  We've all heard stories...or perhaps lived them...in which such an unlikely "chance" meeting results in a marriage, or business-partnership, or lifelong friendship.

I don't have anecdotal evidence any of those things have resulted from an encounter with a panhandler (though they may have).  But every person we ever meet, however briefly, is a unique spiritual being of God's creation, in whose heart He has set eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11).  Meeting one...even one who is panhandling...is a one-time opportunity God has commanded time and space to create for us.  And Jesus says the greatest opportunity we ever have is to show ourselves sons of our Father.

Christians have no reason to agonize over whether someone is "deserving" or not.  Nobody is.  And the religious-sounding argument I often hear, that "God wants us to be good stewards of what He's given us," often betrays the idea that what He gives us, He gives into our command.  He doesn't.

Our faith is that Jesus is in command.  And Jesus commands us to give to everyone who asks.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Patrick Hawthorne's "Has the Separation Begun ?"

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Sometimes it takes me a loooooong time to see simple things.  Sometimes I even need some help.

Patrick Hawthorne, a blogger in Shreveport whom I sometimes read, helped me with this one in his post "Has the Separation Begun ?" (https://servinggrace.com/2017/10/13/has-the-separation-begun/)

Even so, I had to read it twice to get it: once last year when he posted it, and then this week, when God again (after He'd given me  a year's more instruction) highlighted it again.

Patrick's scripture was Ephesians 5:27: “…that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”

Actually, I should say Patrick's mom helped me, as she helped him, to an understanding.  When he was discussing that scripture with her, she (paraphrased) asked him, “Did you know that the spots and blemishes of the Church are people?" and directed him to II Peter 2:12-13:

“But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you..."

When the Church is presented to Jesus as His Bride, she will have no spots or wrinkles: the corrupt and deceived people who had attached themselves to the Church will have been removed.

I can't think of any scriptures that more clearly point to the "dividing" of the Church that God's had me meditating on.  The spots and blemishes are people currently in the Church, who will be removed from the Church.  The people of the Church will be divided: some will stay, and some will go.

In his graciousness, I doubt God will drive out those who leave, anymore than He condemns people to hell.  As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it."

I have to think the "spots and blemishes" God removes from the Church will similarly choose it for themselves.  I have to think the evil-speaking, corrupt, carousers and deceivers, the unrighteous who presently infest the Church will...by God's will, and with His affirmation...willfully separate themselves from the Church.

So it was in Jesus' earthly ministry: He had to deal with people who were "spots and blemishes" among those "who had believed Him" (John 8:31-59).  There was no angry command that they "Get out!!," and no need for the whip He had used earlier on the money-changers in the Temple.  He simply revealed what was in their own hearts, for that was what made them "spots and blemishes."

Jesus said their hearts showed satan was their father: that their love of lies and murder was proof they were satan's own  (v. 44).  By the end of the conversation, they had angrily rejected Him, rained insults on Him, and were ready to kill Him...which was exactly what He'd said was in their hearts.

Ideally, those who who are the "spots and blemishes" on the Church today would similarly find themselves uncomfortable (at the very the least) among people who follow Jesus because they love Him and want to hear His words.  When He says that satan is "the father of lies" and "the murderer," and that those who are satan's children show it by their love satan's ways, how could they not realize He sees, and is revealing, their hearts ?  Doesn't Jesus' word, like His sight, still pierce to men's hearts ?

But the "spots and blemishes" among us feel entirely comfortable in today's political "Church."  Why should they leave ? Their love for lies and murder (which Jesus defines in Matthew 5:21-2 as angry contempt for others) are acceptable among many: are indeed laudable marks of loyalty to the liars and murderers whom the political "Church" follows.

The people whom Jesus recognized as "spots and blemishes" will be cleansed from the Church of which He is the Head.  I can only expect...and hope...that a "Church" like today's in America, so completely turned from Christ that it embraces the ways of the enemy, is due a very great cleansing.

I hope any readers who have been carried by their politics into satan's anti-Church will examine their hearts, and turn back to the Church God is preparing His Son, holy, and without blemish.

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming quickly.'  Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
(Revelation 22:20.) 

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The Counsel of the Wicked

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the way of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!     (Psalms 1:1)

Tariq Aziz was Foreign Minister for Saddam Hussein.  He was spokesman for Iraq's dictator, and represented him at the U.N. and in meetings with other nations.  His thoughts and his words were always, reliably, exactly those of his boss.

It amazed me when I learned that he was born and raised a Christian, and remained a member of that (in Iraq minority) faith all his life.

When I learned that about him, I remember thinking, "How could a Christian willingly serve such an evil man, repeating his lies and justifying his murders !?!?"

So my view of Sarah Huckaby Sanders had been formed long before I saw her directing a presidential press-conference.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Attacking Truth, Again . . .

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Was Jesus playing word-games when He said "...I AM...the Truth..." (John 14:6), or was He telling us Who He IS ?

If we believe Who Jesus IS, what does it tell us about those who daily ATTACK Truth, such as in this link:

"Truth Isn't Truth"

And what does it tell us about those who say they love Truth, but follow those who attack Truth ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Vietnam Yet Again: Thinking Honestly

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Still thinking, thinking again, about Vietnam...thinking how much it still reveals about people, in their views of the war.

I'd asked a brother at church, who'd been in Vietnam, if he'd seen Ken Burns' documentary on the war.  He had, and said it focused too much on the Vietnamese, and on the Americans who protested the war, creating too much sympathy for them.

When people tell me things I find it hard to believe they believe, I usually listen quietly...because I'm too stunned to respond.  So I listened to him, as he continued with the claim I've heard many times: the protestors and the media made America lose the war.

I still find it incomprehensible that people believe that, or ever believed it.  That idea was put about by Richard Nixon, as his excuse to take any blame off himself for losing the war, simply because our part in the war (which he rightly saw as not a "victory") ended during his administration.  The historical record shows that Nixon had an abiding fear that he would be seen as "the first American President to lose a war:" he talked about that fear often, in public and (we know from the Watergate taps) in the privacy of the Oval Office.

Nixon shouldn't have worried.  There were many reasons the United States did not "win" the war in Vietnam: if by "win" we mean the United State stopping North Vietnam from reuniting the country under Communist rule.  None of those reasons originated with Nixon.

There were Vietnamese reasons America "lost" the war: the corruption of every South Vietnamese government the U.S. supported, for example, and Vietnamese nationalism.  There were American reasons: Robert McNamara later especially singled out the false "domino theory" thinking by which Presidents Kennedy and Johnson entered and conducted the war.

Nixon shouldn't have worried.  President Johnson and Robert McNamara, who'd had charge of conducting the war before him, had both privately come to the conclusion that the war couldn't be "won."  They were both aware that America was already "losing" the war when they turned it over to Nixon, so they could hardly have blamed him for the inevitable "defeat."

There's no honest reason to judge Richard Nixon "the first American President to lose a war," as he feared.  But the historical record shows that Nixon too, very early after he took charge of the war's conduct--if he didn't know it before--realized the war would not be "won," and could not be "won."  

So what should be our judgement, historical and moral, of a man willing that thousands of people die for no purpose but to protect his self-image ?

The claim that "the media and war-protesters caused America to lose the war" was likewise Nixon's hypocritical defense of his image.  Nixon knew, as did most of America, that the war would not and could not be "won:" but he needed a scapegoat to blame for the inevitable "defeat," lest he be seen as "the first American President who lost a war."

Nixon's reason for telling the lie is clear, and the historical evidence is clear that he knew it was a lie, when he told it.  What baffles me is why so many members of the "American public," the target of his deception, believed it.

What baffles me even more is why so many continue, long after Nixon's beyond telling them the lie, to deceive themselves to believe it ?  How do they do it ?  To believe that lie, people must convince themselves that except for "the media and anti-war protestors," the United States would have "won" the war in Vietnam: a premise that was in Nixon's time, and is even more clearly now, nothing short of delusion.

It all comes down to the same question I've wrestled with all my life: why do people believe a lie ?

The only answer I've ever been able to arrive at is "because they want to."

What seems to me the wisdom of that answer is that what a person most deeply wants shows who he most deeply is.  On Vietnam...or anything else...there are people who want to believe the truth, and people who want to believe a lie.

For anyone who takes seriously Jesus' identifying Himself as "The Truth" (John 14:6; and His identifying satan as "the father of lies" in John 8:44), what we want, truth or lie, is ultimately a spiritual question.  And it is the ultimate spiritual question.  Amen.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Any Takers ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

For anyone familiar with Revelation's scriptures about what the end-time's "man of lawlessness," or "anti-Christ," will do when he comes to power, this news-story should ring a bell.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45034092

I continue to doubt this current president could be the anti-Christ (though, as someone said, Christ is certainly "The Anti-Trump").  My understanding of scripture is that anti-Christ will be a highly intelligent and charming fellow.  I doubt the current president can change that much.

I doubt too that the current president will act on his whim-belief that Americans should present a photo-I.D. to make a purchase.  To do so, he'd have to admit they currently don't, and he's shown he's incapable of admitting he's ever been wrong in any of his assertions.  Ten angels swearing on the Bible would not convince him that Americans are not required to show I.D. to make every purchase, after he himself said they are.

His ordinary followers know his assertion is a lie; but they always choose to self-delude so they can believe his lies.  It will be interesting to see what they do.

Most of them are anti-immigrant anyway, so they may actually convince themselves it would be a good thing that everyone making a purchase be required to show I.D., as a means of weeding out the "illegals" among us.  To do so, they would have to admit the current president is wrong, and that no such requirement now exists.  But his followers have demonstrated they're capable of incredible mental gymnastics.  I'm sure if they had to admit he lied, so they could say he's right, they could do it.

But in the meantime, the current president has put the idea of requiring I.D. to buy and sell (Revelation 13:16,17) out there.  It's now in people's minds, and in public discourse, available for any future deceiving "leader" to pick up on, and put into law.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Avoiding the "Christian" Politics Deception

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

My biggest problem in blogging is that I over-analyze things: over-analyze most frequently where they come from, since I'm convinced the origins of ideas, as well as of people, gives us a unique insight into what they are.

That becomes a problem when overly-analyzing takes the edge, and the point, off an observation.
So I've consciously refrained from doing so with this observation, and just saying it.

The only protection we have against being deceived by "Christian" politics and politicians is being a radically committed Christian ourselves.  The real thing is the only thing that reveals the false.