Knowing your headquarters from your hindquarters

My son is a military chaplain, currently stationed in Okinawa.  In this week's newsletter, he shared the following message with his readers.  While intended for a military readership, I think it has general appeal and share it herewith.

During the American Civil War, General John Pope—whose army in the west had seen more success than its eastern counterpart—was transferred by President Lincoln to command of the Army of the Potomac. Shortly after taking command he gave a rather impassioned speech to his troops extolling his successes, and in the process highlighting their failures. To illustrate that he planned for the Army to be always on the move he stated that his headquarters would be in the saddle. His men would later quip that their commander had “his headquarters where his hindquarters should be.” To not know one’s headquarters from his hindquarters has remained, in various forms, an expression describing a man or a woman confused about something that should be obvious to him; after all it’s obvious to us. Or is it?

We modern people have done such a terrific job of busting up stereotypes and taboos, of breaking rules and eliminating boundaries, and blurring distinctions, that we have become confused about the kinds of things that were once obvious and incontrovertible. Even what it means to be a man or a woman has become a source of confusion —gender confusion. G.K. Chesterton warned in his 1929 book The Thing not to tear down a fence or a gate we think is useless. “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” Stereotypes, taboos, rules, boundaries, and distinctions are fences that have been erected over generations of hard-earned experience, and many are right to be torn down. However, many more are best left standing where they are, and a thoughtless, impulsive, self-serving society has failed to make the measured judgement required and simply tears down whatever stands in the way of its desires.

Often judgement is cast aside because of Jesus’ own words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” We hear these words and believe ourselves commanded to reserve judgment and refrain from characterizing things as right or wrong. We demur behind a wall of relativism saying, “I can’t tell you what’s right for you.” And if we were to read no further into the Gospel of Luke, maybe this would be the correct conclusion. But Jesus didn’t stop there, He went on to say, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.” All of us need to be taught by someone who knows, and those who know—who have learned before we have—have paved roads of knowledge for us, with road signs to direct us, and gates and fences to protect us. We disregard or destroy them at our own peril.

In addition to His warning that the blind leading the blind is disastrous, Jesus gives another admonition, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?” Stop there and again we get the wrong impression -- that we should be worried only about ourselves. But Jesus then says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.” Jesus doesn’t mean to disregard our brother’s speck simply because of our plank. We have to remove our obstacles to truth, our own selfishness, pride, and self-serving choices, and be willing to become more like Jesus, our teacher. When we are more comfortable around the Truth, then we will be able to see how best to help our brethren following behind us. But how do we know?

Jesus gives us a hint as to how to tell what’s true, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." As obvious as distinguishing the headquarters from the hindquarters, you can’t get apples from a pine tree. Men and women are different. Right and wrong are the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not show love for each other by pretending otherwise. When we are not certain what kind of fruit a tree (or act, or person) will bear, we can reserve judgment and seek the guidance we need to remove the plank from our vision. But most times the fruit is obvious, and we need to have the courage to defend the fences our forefathers erected for our protection out of wisdom and love for us, lest we put our headquarters where our hindquarters should be. 

Deep and Wide

It's not exactly a theophany, but God spoke to me this morning in an unusual way.  I was reading my morning devotions -- as usual -- using the books and web sites I visit each day.  But my first web site grabbed me in an unusual way.

My initial reaction was negative:  "Oh, no.  I can't get away from politics, even during my devotions."    That was because the writer began with the Affordable Care Act and a paper she had read.

"Oh, great!" I said to myself.  This devotional reading is based on an academic paper, not on the Scriptures.

But habits being what they are (and being compelled to finish any reading I begin because of my OCD), I read the entire piece.  And God spoke to me, humbling me as He said, "I can use any means to speak, but you've got to be open to listening."  Maybe I was more sensitive to this message today because in my Corps Officer's sermon yesterday, she said "In order to hear God, you've got to be open to listen to whatever He says and however he says it."

If you've read this far, you may be wondering what He said to me.  Here's the gist, based on the Great Commandment and the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:  Christians are accountable not just to God and to the Christian community, but to the broader community as well.  The writer asks this question:  "How can we focus our faith on being more accountable in doing the work of this world?  I think the readings today point out that in seeking to be accountable to the Gospel, we need to keep focused on the truths revealed through Jesus Christ.  That means being accountable to our neighbors.  Accountability means demonstrating love in seeking truth and equity."  (Barbara Dilly, Creighton U Daily Reflections)

Here I was engaged in a pietistic discipline of daily Scripture and devotional reading with prayers, and I'm being challenged that my holiness cannot go deeper unless it spreads wider.  

I got the same message from Stuart Briscoe ("Devotions for Men") on Thursday.  He was commenting on the Levitical command to leave part of the harvest for gleaning by the poor and said, "you see, there is a very definite link between being holy and picking grapes.  There is also a link between holiness and opening doors for old people, picking up beer cans left in the countryside, caring for AIDS patients, reviewing the way you pay your employees, treating a baggage handler with courtesy, and showing respect to a waiter.  In some ways holiness is not easy.  But in our culture so many people behave so badly that it is not very difficult to stand out, to be separate, to be holy – simply by treating people properly!”

My last post was about how to be a Christian voter in the current climate of acrimonious political interaction.  Dilly spoke to that in this way:  "Defining a shared set of values and a coherent vision for the future is very difficult.   One thing does seem to be certain, and that is the vision must include the value of accountability to society for every American."

Part of my frustration in this political climate is the sense of powerlessness to influence the culture more broadly.  I have seen many posts on Facebook that promise (as I have done) to pray for our country; it sometimes seems as if that is all Christians can do.  But I was challenged by my devotions again this morning to do all that I can to emphasize Kingdom values in my daily interactions with my neighbors and to do all that I can to help our country's leaders arrive at a coherent vision that is rooted in God's Word.

Thank you, Lord, for speaking to me again today.

How to be a Christian voter

Let me confess right at the outset that I do not purport to know how to be a Christian voter.  That is, I do not have simple answers to how my faith informs my vote for specific candidates.  Christian leaders are not always helpful.  I am a brother in Christ to Rev. Franklin Graham and align with him theologically.  But when he uses the label 'chocolate' to refer demeaningly to our President, I take offense and fear that he is damaging the cause of Christ.

On the other side of the political spectrum, I am impressed with the clarity of "Sojourners" ministry and align with the heart of Rev. Jim Wallis.  But I fear that evangelism has been replaced by social action and political advocacy.

I watched the Presidential debate Monday night.  Other than a brief discussion of tax policy that cited dueling economists, there was virtually no serious discussion of public policy.  And even the tax dialogue quickly degenerated into ad hominem attacks.  A Facebook friend commented on the debate's missing policy points, "I'm old enough to recall a time when the views of candidates on selected issues would be published side by side in newspapers for everyone to read, think about, and compare. Unfortunately, we voters don't have the advantage of very much of that kind of unbiased, simple, direct, uncluttered information in this supposed Information Age."

I have always voted on the basis of the candidate's public policy stances.  I voted for Jimmy Carter, not because he was a born-again Christian but because Gerald Ford seemed to lack knowledge of foreign affairs.  I have no-one to vote for this year; my vote will be a "least among evils" vote.  Part of the reason is that none of the candidates (not even Gary Johnson) have given me articulate policy positions that merit my support.

Notice, too, that we have not heard -- nor will we -- any discussion of abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, bathroom privacy, etc.  Strangely enough, I think that's a good thing with the way the discussion of issues such as racial conflict has played out.  The dialogue has not been elevated, it has sunk to lows I could not have anticipated in Presidential politics.  How does a Christian speak into this situation?

Positions taken by evangelical Christians in political forums are often labeled as bigoted or uninformed.  It is also possible that attempting to influence the society through partisan politics has backfired.  That is, "evangelicals" are merely a voting bloc that Donald Trump courts and Hillary Clinton labels 'deplorable.' I want the word to mean "one who loves." ... one who loves God ... one who loves his neighbor ... one who loves and serves the unlovely ... not "one who votes for Republicans."  We should be salt and light in the world, not sandpaper.

In our zeal, we sometimes work against our own interest, rather like evangelical pastors in my first appointment who organized demonstrations against the downtown theater that was showing pornography.  They did not succeed in closing down the theater.  But they did succeed in calling attention to its existence and increasing their box office receipts.

I commented on the Facebook post as follows:  "Perhaps among the lessons learned from this debacle is that Christians should not expect government to do what only the Gospel can do. Moral issues have been absent from the discussion, so we no longer expect our leaders to use the levers of power to accomplish behavior change.  It may be a fruitful time for the Gospel -- or it may move the Church to irrelevancy as it has in most of Europe. I'm praying for revival."

Like I said, I don't know how to be a Christian voter in 2016.

Jesus weeps

I wonder if Jesus looks at Charlotte NC and other US cities as He did Jerusalem when He said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ... how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.  Look, your house is left to you desolate."  (Matthew 23:37-38)

In the quarter century since Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles policemen, we are still asking his plaintive question, "Can we all get along?"  It is deplorable -- yes, I used that word deliberately -- that we are once again facing off with one another over the subject of race.

I am tired of the political posturing and readiness to lay blame.  I know it is a highly charged presidential campaign and every event is viewed through the lens of its political impact.  But with news media giving air time to every point of view, no matter the credibility of the speaker, it seems that we are being driven to take sides.  One is either a supporter of Black Lives Matter or of the police.

Balderdash!  Although I acknowledge that BLM is prone to excess and confrontation, we should not be deafened to the legitimate fears and concerns of African-Americans because we find their most vocal movements objectionable.  Similarly, recognizing the immense dangers faced by police officers should not blind us to the reality that snap judgments made in stressful situations are heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including perceptions based on prejudice and experience.  (No, I do not mean 'racism.')

In the current climate, the same statistics are used by opposing sides of the argument to prove that a) black men are killed by police disproportionately to their percentage of the population or b) black men are killed proportionately to the rate at which they commit violent crime.  Both a) and b) are factually true.  So what?  How can we find a point of agreement that leads us to healing and solution rather than further divide?

As a follower of Jesus, how should I respond?  I would love to hear from the clergy in Charlotte NC who have been on the front lines to intercede between the police and irate protesters.  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Jesus' crucifixion was pursued by the political leaders of His day; the Sanhedrin's political power was threatened by Jesus' popularity.  I am fearful that the racial conflict we are seeing, embedded in a nasty political climate, will result in people of faith finding themselves on opposite sides rather than joining hands in a community of healing.

For most of my adult life, I have worked and lived in places that were predominantly white.  When I have been in more racially diverse environments, I have been enriched by reminders of lessons learned as a child when the neighborhood I lived in changed from all white to all black, except for the Hostetlers and the Levinsons ... of lessons learned riding a bus to school with kids just like me except for the color of their skin ... of lessons learned riding through neighborhoods ravaged by riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on my way to college classes.  But in the final analysis, those are lessons learned cerebrally rather than viscerally.

I have never been stopped for 'driving while black.'  I have never had a white woman clutch her purse in fear as I walked by.  I have never been assumed to be a gang member or a drug user simply because of the clothes I wear. [My children would howl in laughter at the thought.  I probably embarrass them by dressing to the other extreme.]  These are lessons learned viscerally by countless African-American males.

Is there a point to my meandering musing?  I guess it would be to wonder if God is calling me to some specific action to "put my money where my faith is."  I want to part of the answer, not part of the problem, but I don't know how.

I shall continue to pray for those acting redemptively in Charlotte.  I shall continue to pray for healing for our nation and for this Presidential election to have positive results for our nation.  And I shall look for ways to speak and act as Christ would have me do.

I have tried not to sour my temperament by participating in the vitriol that has infected this year’s campaign for President.  What happened to the civility and mutual respect that once characterized public discourse?  For crying out loud, the University of Chicago made news by simply announcing that ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ should be unnecessary on a college campus that celebrates the free exchange of ideas.  This position was newsworthy because it has become commonplace to attribute hurtful motivation (and actual emotional harm) to the articulation of ideas with which one disagrees.  College campuses have published lists of words, phrases, and questions that are now considered “microaggressions.”

In his 1984 book The Naked Public Square, Richard Neuhaus bemoaned the disappearance of religious conversation from public discourse due to a one-sided application of the First Amendment.  We are seeing an extension of that trend into other arenas of thought as a humanist orthodoxy dominates academia, journalism and government.  If your religion teaches that abortion is wrong, then your religion has to become enlightened.  If your understanding of economics suggests that more people will be harmed than helped by, for example, raising the minimum wage, then you must have a loathing in your heart for low skill workers.  If you believe that immigration laws should be enforced and applied fairly and evenly, you lay yourself open to accusations of bigotry.

I mourned the death of journalism several years ago.  I no longer expect straight news reporting from any news source.  Among the signs of journalism’s demise was the corrupting of the language by using adjectives and adverbs – or value-laden nouns and verbs -- to “color” the story.  One sees this in the coverage of political rallies; a reporter is not content to simply report what the candidate says, but feels obliged to report tone and body language.  Such observations are highly subjective and tilt the coverage toward the perception of the reporter.  Was he/she intense? … passionate? … angry? … persuasive?  Pick your choice depending on what you think of the candidate.

Secretary Clinton opened a can of worms when she used the label ‘deplorable’ to describe half of Donald Trump’s supporters.  It is one thing to say, “I deplore racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia.”  But to call millions of Americans ‘deplorable’ on the basis of a personal judgment that they hold such views is quite another thing.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote a column titled “Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist” in response to criticism of Secretary Clinton. I read it with great interest.  He cited research into racial attitudes in making his case.  But in my view, he missed two key points:  first, the research would point to approximately one-third of Clinton supporters being racially prejudiced; second, the leap to the word ‘racist’ is not supported by the facts cited.

Milbank concluded his column as follows:  “Trump, on stage, rejected any notion of racism, saying people who want secure borders ‘are not racists,’ people who warn of ‘radical Islamic terrorism are not Islamophobes’ and people who support police ‘are not prejudiced.’ But moments later, he repeated the campaign slogan he borrowed from an anti-Semitic organization that opposed involvement in World War II.  ‘America First – remember that,’ he said. “America First.’”

So Milbank would have us believe that a form of patriotism that puts America First is rooted in anti-Semitism and therefore its use is a prima facie rationale for labeling its user a racist.  That is absurd.

Will this campaign cause me to mourn the death of the English language to carry meaning apart from the filters of the sender and the receiver?  I have long ago consoled myself with the realization that the suffix ‘-phobia’ is now used to connote ‘hatred of’ rather than ‘fear of.’  If we can now label someone or some group as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. based upon a public policy position, then the public square is not only naked, it is nihilistic.

One passing thought in conclusion:  I have observed that those who tend to use the word ‘xenophobic’ are themselves heavily xenophobic.  The word is used by most speakers to mean exclusively “fear of people from other countries.”  But the word itself means “fear of that which is foreign or strange.”  The attitudes of those who use the word seem to include fear of those whose faith guides their daily lives, who do not live on either coast, who enjoy hunting and fishing, who drive pickup trucks, listen to country music, and love NASCAR.  These are the kinds of people who are “other” to many in academia, media and government.

Words mean things.  At least, they used to.

Living in Oregon

We enjoyed two-and-a-half years stationed in Portland OR.  We loved the unique culture and the quirky way of life.  "Keep Portland Weird" was a proudly trumpeted motto.  When I saw this piece, I had to acknowledge its truth.

I have highlighted the ones that struck closest to home for me.

THIS IS WHAT JEFF FOXWORTHY HAS TO SAY ABOUT ‘LIVING IN OREGON’…

• If someone in a Home Depot store offers you assistance and they don’t work there, you live in Oregon.
• If you’ve worn shorts, sandals and a parka at the same time, you live in Oregon.
• If you’ve had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed the wrong number, you live in Oregon.
• If you measure distance in hours, you live in Oregon.
• If you know several people who have hit a deer more than once, you live in Oregon.
• If you have switched from ‘heat’ to ‘A/C’ and back again in the same day, you live in Oregon.
• If you install security lights on your house and garage but leave both doors unlocked, you live in Oregon.
• If you can drive 75 mph through 2 feet of snow during a raging blizzard without flinching, you live in Central, Southern or Eastern Oregon.
• If you design your kid’s Halloween costume to fit over a 2 layers of clothes or under a raincoat, you live in Oregon.
• If driving is better in the winter because the potholes are filled with snow and ice, you live in Oregon.
• If you know all 4 seasons: almost winter, winter, still winter, and road construction, you live in Oregon.
• If you feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash, you live in Oregon.
• If you know more than 10 ways to order coffee, you live in Oregon.
• If you know more people who own boats than air conditioners, you live in Oregon.
• If you stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the “Walk” signal, you live in Oregon.
• If you consider that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain, you live in Oregon.
• If you can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle’s Best, and Dutch Bros, you live in Oregon.
• If you know the difference between Chinook, Coho and Sockeye salmon, you live in Oregon.
• If you know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Clatskanie, Issaquah, Oregon, Umpqua, Yakima and Willamette, you live in Oregon.
• If you consider swimming an indoor sport, you live in Oregon.
• If you know that Boring is a city and not just a feeling, you live in Oregon.
• If you can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food, you live in Oregon.
• If you never go camping without waterproof matches and a poncho, you live in Oregon.
• If you have actually used your mountain bike on a mountain, you live in Oregon.
• If you think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists, you live in Oregon.
• If you buy new sunglasses every year, because you cannot find the old ones after such a long time, you live in Oregon.
• If you actually understand these jokes and forward them to all your OREGON friends, you live or have lived in Oregon.

General Knowledge

Over this Independence Day weekend, there have been several news stories about the sad state of knowledge that exists among college students today of our American history.  There have recently been other stories about removing classical literature from English courses, etc.  It seems as if our self-taught great-grandparents had a broader and deeper knowledge base than many of today's college students.

Imagine, if you will, an examination such as the following as a "capstone" test to evaluate the breadth and depth of knowledge.  (I admit, it's overdrawn; but it's still fun to consider.)

COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION

Read each question carefully.  Answer all questions.  Time limit:  6 hours.
Begin immediately.

History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.

Chemistry: Reproduce from memory the entire periodic table with all known values of physical constants to the limits of their uncertainties. For each element, discover enough new properties to correspond to each Greek and Arabic letter not in current use as symbols for physical constants. Use your data to formulate a new theory of science.

Medicine: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until you work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.

Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English Parliamentary System. Prove your thesis.

Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.

Psychology: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisis, Rameses II, Gregory of Nicaea, and Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.

Engineering: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In 10 minutes, a hungry bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel necessary. Be prepared to justify your decision.

Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy and the Wave Theory of Light. Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.

Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects if any.

Epistemology: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your stand.

Physics: Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an evaluation of the impact of the development of mathematics on science.

Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.

Ecology: From readily available starting materials (i.e., "I think, therefore I am," and hydrogen), devise a total synthesis of the planet Earth down to the most subtle chemical detail. Discuss barriers that you would encounter in carrying out this synthesis and how you would overcome these barriers.

Cosmology: Define the universe. Give three examples.

General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.

Extra Credit: Find the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.

Source: Chemteam Final Exam