Another New Year means that we’re All Just Getting Older

Another New Year is here.  The old is out!  Good, bad, or indifferent, it’s over.  Indeed, for me, it was good; because, this ending year of 2013, I became a grandfather for the first time.  I love it.  I celebrate it.  It’s great!  I’m a Grandfather!

It also means that I’m reaching the top end of my years.

At nine months, my granddaughter’s years are just beginning; the future is rising before her.  Yes, there’s a younger generation winding up, pressing forward and pushing upward, getting ready to take on the world.

Meanwhile my generation desperately grasps at anything promising to preserve one’s youth.  There is to be no aging gracefully for us.  Our life’s strategy is to think young, act young, look young, and be young for as long as one possibly can in a desperate attempt to stave off aging and ignore the inevitable need to come to terms with one’s mortality.  We refuse to age at all!  Not if we can help it.

Indeed, says the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3:11), God put eternity in our hearts.  Though our bodies are time bound, space bound, limited and finite, our hearts and minds reach beyond such limitations.  The earth, and all its accoutrements, is not big enough to hold our dreams and aspirations.  We want more than hourglass living.  We want life without limit, we want eternity!

Jesus prayed: “Father, the hour has come.  Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.  For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.  Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”  (John 17:1-3, my emphasis.)

Biblical eternal life is not simply a reference to a life-time without end.  It is significantly relational, connected-living forever with God (“quality time”), in Christ.  It is not preserving or extending one’s mortality to the max; it is being transformed from mortality into immortality to live in the presence of God, to enjoy His glory and all that such fellowship with God entails.  It is not aging gracefully it is grace-filled agelessness.  It is the reason why God put eternity in our hearts in the first place.

How then should we approach a New Year and the inevitable mark of time upon our aging lives?  Here are some suggestions.

• Live with an eternal focus in mind.  Have an eternal perspective.  And, from that perspective, deal with the immediate and temporal in light of the eternal.    Life does not end at the point of death.  It is but the passageway into the eternal.
• Accept your present mortal condition as such, so as to die with dignity when the time comes.  In other words, do not extend the dying process unnecessarily by attempting drastic but useless resuscitation efforts of the mortal/dying body.
• Embrace God’s mercy and grace upon your soul and acknowledge your dependency and need of God for your life’s spirit.  You are all too familiar with your imperfections, faults, failures, and shortcomings.  This is why we need a Savior and why Christ the Messiah, was sent to us as Lord and Savior of humanity.  Remember that the absolute power of life over death is in God’s hand, not ours.  So let God be God and run toward God, not away from God.
• And finally, count your time here on earth qualitatively not quantitatively.  The truth is, living a few short years on earth, with love and faith and trust in God, is far better and richer than living a long life with a hardened and bitter evil heart—in the face of its eternal consequence.

And so may you all have a blessed and grace-filled HAPPY NEW YEAR!

We are more than Consumers we are Citizens Building a Nation

I saw a TV ad from Walmart that says, “Get in and get more Christmas.”  Hence, if you want more Christmas, get more stuff from Walmart.  It’s simple and sweet, and altogether missing the point of true Christmas.

Okay, so we all know about the commercialism of Christmas.  It seems a losing battle, trying to keep the true meaning of Christmas.  Why fight it?  Here’s why.

Retailers do not see Christmas shoppers as citizens who are passionately celebrating faith, family, and community; rather they see us as mere consumers.  And sadly that’s how we see ourselves as well.

We are a nation defined by consumerism: I the consumer—an acceptable self-image in our national psyche.  We buy and sell.  We make deals.  We get.  We consume.

And the more we get the better off we think we are.

And we’re never satisfied.

For the consumer, there is no such thing as “enough is enough,” or “be content with what you have.”  Such an attitude is bad for the economy.  What’s good for the economy is to buy, use, throw away, and begin the cycle again, buy, use, throw away, ad infinitum.

Thus, we don’t applaud and celebrate Christmas; rather we purchase and consume Christmas; more stuff = more Christmas!

Here’s the problem.  We are consuming the good earth itself, eating up and trashing our resources, wasting and tossing, rather than investing and building, enhancing and preserving our resources.

Remember the old saying: “Business is business”?

NO!!  Rather, business is people.  Business is constructing life, building community, health and vitality, nurturing family relationships.  The business of business should actually be the building of meaningful and thriving communities, building Life.

Thus, our focus is misguided.  Attitudinally speaking, it seems that businesses are now only in business for profiteering from the addicted consumer.  But what’s the alternative?  As I’ve already said, businesses should be in business for providing meaningful and significant goods and services that enable citizens to build and construct meaningful lives.  There is a slight difference between the two foci, but it makes a world of difference with respect to a business’s fundamental attitude and perspective about doing business.

We consumers need a new self-image.  We should not be content to be reduced to self-serving consumers.  We need to see ourselves as creators, makers, and builders.  But what are we building?  We need to be building strong, stable, and equitable communities that thrive on goodness, justice, and good neighborliness.  We need to see employment not merely as a means toward making money, but as a means of positive engagement toward creative development in constructing a healthy and thriving society, people, and nation.  In short, we should be willing to do hard work, not just for its pay but for its meaningful outcome—other than the accumulation of stuff.

So, how should consumers buy?
Buy reasonably and with discretion.  Buy useful and needful, not just for indulgence and show.  Buy within your means and budget, not just because your debt limit allows you to get more than you can actually afford.  Buy with integrity and honesty; don’t be easily scammed by your own uncontrollable desire to indulge in greedy gain.  Buy with the purpose and intent to build and create, to preserve and sustain, to keep and enhance earth’s resources for present and future generations.

How should sellers sell?
Sell actual value.  Sell quality.  Sell to serve.  Sell not only for the sake of profit; sell for the sake of serving your community.  Sell to provide useful goods and needful services that allow for thriving communities and growing families.  Sell justly and equitably.  Sell to spread the wealth not to steal the wealth.

So, let us no longer think of ourselves as mere Consumers.  We are life builders.  We are constructing families, communities, and long lasting friendships.  We are not about consuming and throwing away.  We are about working to build and preserve what is good, right, and wholesome.

Xmas or Christmas

When a movement takes off—any movement, be it social, political, or religious—and becomes bigger than its original leaders or founders could ever have imagined or envisioned, it often takes on a life of its own and morphs into something not quite the same as its origins or roots.  I’d say that our annual celebration of Xmas is just such an example.

For the vast majority of families who celebrate Xmas from year to year, it’s not about Christ, the Messiah, and the fulfillment of God’s prophetic Word, a promise from God to His people that one day they will see the birth of One who will not only inherit King David’s throne but will transform that throne into an everlasting Kingdom to rule all peoples everywhere.  (2 Samuel 7:8-14.)  Yes, for the vast majority of people that annually celebrate Xmas, it is not about celebrating the Son of David, He whose lineage is traced back to King David of Israel, though he was born roughly a thousand years after King David lived.

Indeed, for most people, Xmas “is for the kids.”  It’s NOT an adult thing.  Most adults that celebrate Xmas do so as a legitimate reason to avoid work and to engage in binge drinking and wild partying, without apology.  That is what Xmas means to most adults.  Why?  Why do people relinquish the joy of Christmas to children and the realm of childhood?

Perhaps it’s because (most) children are still prone to believe that there is a God.  Children willingly believe that there is someone greater than themselves out there, someone who is the source of all that is awe-inspiring and wonderful.  And they are still willing to believe in the idea that there really is “a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow,” that is, a place of magic, where dreams really do come true—we call it heaven.  They innately embrace the idea of heaven, redemption and salvation, and the idea that goodness will one day truly triumph over evil.  In short, they keep the faith and are ever hopeful.

“Get real!” I hear you say, “The kids are in it for the presents.  Forget the promise of a Savior, born of a virgin, born in a manger, Son of David, Messiah who is to be King of kings, God’s Anointed One, and Savior of the world.  Who cares about that?!  They want the goods!  And the more presents they get the merrier they will be.”  True.  I can’t deny that.  But whose fault is that, theirs or ours?  Are we not the ones who turned Christmas into a gift giving bonanza “for the kids”?  Yet, have you ever noticed how so many parents go out of their way to nurture their kid’s belief in Santa?  Why is that?

Parents delight in their kid’s awe and amazement; that twinkle in their eyes, that joy of expectation, surprise and excitement.  If adults were honest, they’d admit that they miss those same childhood feelings, that childhood trust in someone great and mysteriously awesome, even scary, but penetratingly good, kind, and loving, though firmly just and fair.

What many adults don’t realize is that they too can return to that same foundation of hope and expectation, trust and amazement.  Re-embrace the true meaning, spirit, and truth of Christmas.  There IS someone out there, bigger than us.  His name is Jesus.  He is the Christ, the Messiah, who has indeed come to save the world from its own inevitable self-destruction.  There is hope for this terribly unjust, crude and rude world.  Goodness shall prevail.  Evil will be defeated.  And no one shall ever be in want again.  That day will come.  Christmas, the real Christmas, is the first concrete step toward the fulfillment of that promise and hope that we have in God through Jesus, the Christ.

Employees Should NOT be Forced to Work on a Holiday

Tony Rohr got it right!  He’s the Pizza Hut manager in Elkhart, Indiana, that got fired for refusing to keep Pizza Hut open on Thanksgiving Day.  He didn’t want to force his employees to work on this National Holiday that is especially set aside for family time and counting one’s blessings.

Tony Rohr hit it on the nail when he wrote the following, among other things, in his ‘resignation letter’: "I hope you realize that it is the people at the bottom of the totem pole that make your life possible."  Exactly!!

When high and mighty corporate executives make consequential decisions based on dollar calculations only, they often fail to take into account the very real personal impact that these decisions may have on countless employees and their families.  Or, if they do realize that their decisions will significantly and perhaps negatively impact the lives of their employees, one could almost see these same executives responding with a condescending and dismissive wave of the hand, in effect saying something like: “Well, if they want to work here, they have to play by our rules and if they don’t like it, there’s the door.”

Tony Rohr did not like it, and he chose not to play by their rules.  And he was fired for it.  Did he do the right thing?  You bet he did.  He stood up for the little guy.  He sacrificed his own security to stand his ground and make his point: That greedy corporations need to draw back and back down from grasping for more and more money at the expense of employee’s family and home life.

Of course companies need to make money and prosper.  Nevertheless, they need not do so by dehumanizing their workforce—manipulating and controlling their employees as if they are objects to be exploited—simply to enhance the corporation’s bottom line.

There are of course certain professions requiring skilled workers to be on call, if not at work and on site, even during the highest of High Holidays, but that is not the issue here.  Closing a Pizza Hut on Thanksgiving Day neither threatens a person’s health nor places a community’s sense of safety and/or wellbeing at risk.  It’s pure dollar and profit motive to keep it open, nothing less.  Thus, at some point, corporations need to stop thinking only of dollars and begin to think of its people—people count, families count, and living for reasons other than making money counts!  And that is a good enough rationale to close down the store for a day or two during a calendar year.

Tony Rohr, I salute you for having the courage, conviction, and caring heart to stand your ground on principle in behalf of your Pizza Hut employees.  America should not be driven only by money.  America needs to be driven by deeper principles and greater truths than the mere dollar—things like, honest, caring, and respectful relationships, integrity, goodness and kindness, family life, and a wholesome respect for the dignity of all, of whatever social strata or class they identify with.

Corporations, if you only learn this most basic lesson, besides making a good product, there is no doubt in my mind that you will prosper and profit—without needing to exploit, manipulate, or abuse your workforce, especially over the Holidays.

Senate Filibuster Rule Change, NOT Surprising

It’s a no brainer.  I saw it coming, and I’m just a simple Main Street American.

The Republicans are hopping mad, with an attitude that basically says, “Now you’ve really done it!  Just you wait, you’ll get yours!  Wait until we’re in control, then you’ll see.  You’re going to be sorry for this.”  What is irksome is that they act as if they themselves are completely innocent; as if they are doves come straight from heaven itself.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

They accuse the president of power grabbing by this Filibuster Rule change.  Yet, it seems to me that much of the Republican action, in both Congress and the Senate, have been nothing but about power maneuvers—asserting power, blocking power, and manipulating power.  Of course, the democrats are no less guilty, or are they?  It is the Republicans who have way overused the Filibuster that drove the Democrats to finally say, “Enough!”  It often seems as if the Republicans would have only their way or no way at all—remember they were the ones willing to shut down the government to get their way and it didn’t work.

Of course, government is always about power.  Fact is, throughout history, be it Alexander’s Greece or Caesar’s Rome or the Czar’s Russia or Queen Victoria’s British Empire, whatever the form of government, it always comes down to a question of power—the power to rule, to lead and command, to decide the fate of a nation and its people—not to mention the power to tax, to accumulate and spend an empire’s wealth or to keep it in the hands of a selective and privileged few.

Good ole Abe Lincoln told us that our government is “For the people, by the people, and of the people?”  Distributed power, shared power, people power.  It sounds nice, even inspiring; it makes one feel proud to be an American.  But in today’s context they sound more and more like fine sounding words with no substance—a taste of honey on one’s tongue, going sour in one’s stomach—wishful and idealistic in the face of hard reality.

Abraham Lincoln referred to the American system of self-government as a Great Experiment, especially under the shadow of the Civil War.  Would it work?  Will it stand the test of time in the face of severe division and disagreement?  After the North won the Civil War, we thought the Union had been saved.  It survived.  The question is: Will it continue to survive?

“Houston Washington, we have a problem!”  Everybody—Left, Right, and Moderates alike—everybody agrees that Washington is extremely dysfunctional today.  Is that a nice way of saying that our precious system of self-government – for the people, by the people, and of the people – is broken?  And if it is broken, can it be fixed.  And if it is fixable, how do we go about fixing it?

Yes, this is the real world.  Reality bites.  Our ideals seem to be losing ground in the face of Reality, and losing it fast.  For example, we are fast becoming a government of power and wealth—for the wealthy, by the wealthy and of the wealthy.  And the wealthy will take and take, and give little in return.  Am I being too hard on the wealthy/powerful?  Consider the last economic financial crisis that Wall Street and the Bankers got us into, from which our nation is still trying to recover.  The very people that were the cause and source of our economic downturn are the ones that walked away form it Scott Free, unscathed, and with profit in pocket.

Yes, in my humble opinion, our government IS in trouble, and it is about power.  But the power plays and power grabbing that is going on, runs much deeper than a mere Filibuster rule-change reflects.  I believe that this change is a symptom of a much deeper sickness within our present government system.

Republicans overused the Filibuster.  That’s a fact.  The Democrats have now made a counter move.  So, watch and see.  The Republicans have the next move.  No doubt, they will be just as culpable, if not more so.  Yes, let us wait and see.  Washington is ill, feverish even.  And apparently there is no cure, no medicinal balm from Gilead to ease it back to health.  All we can do now is sit and wait, watch and pray for the fever to break and hope that the body’s temperature will return to normal.  Time will tell.

Obama Care-Less?

The official term for “Obama Care” is the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” or “The Affordable Care Act.”  Early on, Obama’s opponents called it Obama Care and the name stuck.  It was meant to be demeaning, to minimize its value.

As to its deployment, no one is happy about its initial startup.  It’s been a mess.  What’s worse is that many who stand to pay more, and/or will lose their present individual health care plans in the face of Obama Care’s implementation, are angry and upset about it.

There are actually two issues with regard to Obama Care.  The first is one of substance and intent.  Obama Care was/is meant to make health care more affordable and obtainable to the many who, under our present insurance health care system, are otherwise unable to obtain adequate health care coverage (as for example because of prohibitive pre-existing conditions).  And, it intended to do this by spreading the cost around more equitably.   It’s a simple idea.  However, introducing structural and procedural changes to an already existing complex health care system is far from simple and inevitably cumbersome.

Opponents obviously reject the substance and intent of Obama Care.  Apparently they like the present health care system as it is, for their only aim seems to be that of destroying Obama Care without offering any constructive alternative in its place.

The second issue is its implementation and application, getting Obama Care up and running.  As we all know, getting it going has been a disaster.  So much so, that even those who supported the idea of Obama Care in principle are ready to throw in the towel and change it at a substance level.  Obama Care is definitely in trouble.

But who cares?  Or, why should we care?

Well, for decades now, we Americans have seen the cost of health care rise and rise and rise, far outpacing any normal cost of living and/or inflationary increases in our economy over the same period of time.  More and more average Americans were seeing their health care benefits dwindle and/or its cost rise beyond affordability.  Many more were becoming caught in the net of insurance carrier’s restrictions and prohibitions.

Thus, it wasn’t too long ago that we Americans (Democrats as well as Republicans) sent a message to Washington: “Our health care system is broken and we want it fixed!”  We wanted something better, something more accessible, and something more equitable in terms of coverage and availability and service.  Have we lost sight of this need and desire of ours?

Obama Care came along because Obama heard and listened, and tried to do what was right and best for all Americans respecting our national health care system—considering political, economic, and social realities.  The question is, do we still care?  What do we really want?

Do you agree or disagree with the following:

We want health care coverage and health care services to be obtainable and affordable for all Americans, not just for a privileged well to do few.

We want the cost of health care coverage and its services to be fairly distributed and justly administered and to stay well within normal annual cost of living increases.

We want freedom and flexibility—to choose our own doctors.  And we want the power to determine health care needs to stay in the hands of medical doctors, rather than transferred over to health insurance company bureaucrats.

We want our health care system to be straightforward, just and fair, convenient and easy to use, and beneficial for all.

Is this not what we want, what we care about?

If Obama Care is not a step in the right direction, what is, what will be, and how and when will we take the necessary steps to get where we want to be, in terms of quality health care provision for all Americans?

Rule of Law + Law of Love = Tough Love

We’ve all heard about “Tough Love,” but why does love have to get tough, what is it?

All healthy relationships require two things: (1) boundaries or limitations, that is, a certain amount of respect for imposed rules and authority, and the acceptance of the external discipline and control that comes with it, out of respect for the other—Law.  And, (2) freedom to BE, independence from external control or excessive rules and regulations and overreaching power and authority over one’s self, so as to become internally whole, personally assertive, and individually complete, out of respect for one’s self—Love.

The two relational dynamics, Law and Love, are interconnected.  One cannot have a healthy sense of freedom from the other, to assert one’s individual and independent Self, without an adequate acceptance of boundaries and limitations from others.  Nor can one freely and healthily respect and submit to a set of external rules and its concomitant authority, without having the freedom to assert one’s individuality and the personal responsibility that comes with it.

These two interconnecting principles, what I’m calling the Law of love and the Rule of Law, seem to be at odds with each other.  How so?

The Law of Love persistently seems to say, forgive and forget, whatever the wrong, hurt, or damage done, give the Loved One a second, third, fourth chance, ad-infinitum.  This is often demonstrated in a mother’s love.  The only one willing to protect and defend an apparently incorrigible criminal is his/her mother, pleading and begging society to be lenient, to have mercy, to consider extenuating circumstances, etc.  A loving mother will ignore the immensity of her child’s crime and turn a willful blindness to the deep and penetrating hurt and offense her criminal child has caused to others.  Love forgives all and excuses everything, even the worst offenses, basically wants to sidestep the Law.

On the other hand, the Rule of Law is cold, precise, deliberate and unrelenting.  It is exact and calculating, demanding swift and immediate retribution when boundaries are crossed and laws are broken.  It seeks absolute obedience, compliance to the letter of the law, and expects unquestioned submission to its authority.  And if a law is broken or its authority challenged, it will seek complete and unmitigated vengeance in payment for a wrong done, period.  It wants nothing to do with Love (which may be willing to forgive and forget).

The irony is that both extremes elicit the same negative result in personal character development.  Love without enforced discipline results in the Loved One accepting little or no personal responsibility or accountability, free to do what he/she wants, there is a move toward license, unable to exert self-restraint, personal behavior seems to display an ignorance of ethical and moral limits, resulting in a kind of careless lawlessness—having no care or respect for rule and authority of any kind.

Likewise, authoritarian legalism, with its heavy handed application of the Law, has an oppressively cold attitude towards its subject, and provides little room for the internal growth of the person under its power.  Demanding absolute conformity and obedience to every rule it decrees, and without question, there is no ability for the Submissive One to grow in individual responsibility, no room for development in the area self-regulation and no allowance for personal ownership of self-determination within appropriate limits and boundaries.

Thus, parents who over emphasize loving their children—at the expense of discipline, failing to allow consequences or to hold their children responsible for their actions—raise children who tend to have little self-control, who tend to avoid personal ownership for the consequences of their actions, and tend to escape accountability to others.

On the other hand, parents who exaggerate discipline and authority over their children at the expense of demonstrating any love and respect to their children, while demanding absolute conformity and obedience from them, raise children that either become submissively dependent and subservient, in other words raise children who become weak and vacuous as individuals.  Or, find that their children will violently rebel and/or flee from the clutches of their control the first chance they get.

Tough Love is the healthy balance between the Rule of Law and the Law of Love.

When Judging Others is Wrong

Quit judging me!  You’re so judgmental!  Judge not, lest you be judged!

These are defensive statements, often told to someone that we feel has become too critical and judgmental of us.

None of us like being judged by others.  It is offensive and we are quite taken aback by anyone who would presume to stand as judge over us.  In short, we extremely dislike judgmental people.  But we encounter such all the time.  Indeed, we are often guilty of the same—if we are truly honest with ourselves.

To be clear, we must first note that there is a significant difference between work-related judgment and the judgment of one’s person.  A common phrase for work-related judgment is called “being evaluated.”

When one is judged for one’s work, one’s skills and actions are being evaluated for quality results, in light of pre-set standards and expected outcomes.  Results are measured against desired ends or goals.  Judgment at this level is a good thing.  For it helps us to learn and to see where we need skill improvement or knowledge build-up, not to mention the obvious—to determine whether or not we are successfully producing the intended results that we set out to accomplish in the first place.  All of us—whatever work, profession, or job/task we have embraced—do well to accept judgment of this kind.

Personal judgment, on the other hand, has an altogether different focus.  Whereas evaluative judgment is focused outwardly, on one’s actions, personal judgment is inwardly focused, judging one’s personhood so as to determine one’s personal value; it is the sizing up of one’s character and worth as a person, and is often coupled with the judgment of one’s motives behind one’s action—that is, also judging one’s reason (justification) for being and reason for doing.  This is where we are most offended and become most fearful of other’s judgment of us.

Why do we fear this level of personal judgment?  Well, for one, we are already insecure and unsure of ourselves in this area.  That is, somehow all of us seem to have a nagging suspicion that we really don’t “make the grade” when it comes to justifying our reason for being: are we really worthy, do we really have personal value—do I have the right to take up space on this planet earth as compared to others—am I significant, important, needed and wanted?

Another reason why we fear this level of personal judgment is the fact that most of us can think of someone or some group or other, who would, if given the chance, jump at the opportunity to denounce us as invaluable and unworthy and would even like to erase us off the face of this planet.  (You don’t think so?  If you are an American, how do you interpret radical extremists who chant “Death to America”?  Or how about those who show disdain to someone simply because they have the wrong skin color or speak the wrong language, etc., etc.)

A third reason we fear this kind of judgment is that we are familiar with it in ourselves, often guilty of doing the same to others, easily ignoring or dismissing those we deem inferior to us, those for whom we have no personal sympathy care or concern.  In short, we are fellow participants and we know what it means.  We just don’t want to be on the wrong side of it.

We also fear this kind of judgment because it is a means of attack, a deliberate attempt to make us feel small and little.  The one exercising such judgment over us usually wants to drive home the idea of our insignificance in thick palpable terms.  And if done so effectively enough, others may agree and also turn against us.

Personal judgment is, more often than not, subjective and relationally driven.  That is, if the relationship is good between you and the one doing the judging, you’re not so worried, you relax and are confident that you will not be cruelly judged and unfairly criticized.  On the other hand, if the relationship is bad, then your defenses are up and your personal radar is working overtime to detect any sign of biased, subjective, and unjust criticism or denouncement of you, which you are sure will come.

In the end, who, if anyone, has the right to determine our worth?  Who shall declare me a good or a bad person, a valuable or a worthless person?  Who are you, who is she, him, who are they to judge me as a person?  What right does anyone have to judge me at such a level?  Yet, at some point, at some time in our life, we will have to come face to face with this kind of final judgment, if you will, of our lives: Did we live well, do well; did our lives mean very much.  Did we have value and add value to others? 

In effect, only God is capable of that kind of judgment—to handle it fairly, justly, and without personal bias.  Perhaps it is in this light that Jesus says: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”  [Matthew 7:1-2]

Avoid Busy Work and Do Productive Work

Many employees are much busier at work these days yet may be much less productive—in terms of adding real value to company, client, and employee.  Obviously it’s a mistake to equate busyness with real productivity.  But it’s done all the time.  Merely being busy only leads to burn out and frustration.  It also results in feelings of inadequacy, worthlessness, and low self-esteem.  Likewise, a busy, busy professional is often not only a less productive one but a very frustrated one at that.

What’s the difference between real productivity and busyness?  Think of a painter’s goal of painting a room the color blue.  The actual job’s goal, painting the room blue, is relatively easy to do.  But the hard part, the real pain of the job, is the prep and setup work, as well as the take-down and clean-up work, that must be done before and after the room is actually painted.  Old rotten wallpaper may have to come down, holes may have to be covered, water damage from old leaks may have to be repaired, and so-on and so-forth.  Suddenly merely painting a room blue is not as simple as it sounds.

One should adjust time allotment for a job, by the task(s) required to do the job right, not the other way around.  That is, cutting quality in order to get the job done faster and cheaper, usually leads to long-term waste, unnecessary redo’s, unhappy clients and workers, and disastrous bottom lines.  Yet this seems to be the prevailing focus these days—cheap fast work, rather than solid, quality work done within a reasonable amount of time.  Cutting corners (and therefor value) is always a mistake.

And so (given our example of painting a room blue) because prep work, take-down and setup, etc. is a necessary integral part of the job, it must be included as part of the overall job estimate and analysis.  It’s the real dirty work of the job, the unpleasant part.  Yet it must not be confused with the actual job’s goal or purpose, which is nothing more than getting the walls painted blue.  Nevertheless, it’s in the difficult details of a job where “busyness” can take over.  Busyness can often simply be a means of avoiding the real dirty work, that unpleasant side of working toward a job’s real intended outcome.

Avoidance of real work is often a failure to see its value or purpose and one’s personal role in adding value to that purpose.  It is a failure to see the good that one can bring to others by doing one’s job well—in a timely fashion and with quality.  In that sense it helps for an employee to see that prep work, set-up and take-down etc. is in fact as significant as the job’s goal itself—so long as it is efficiently and effectively done to actually reach the intended goal.

The bottom line is that though people obviously are working for MONEY, money will never fully satisfy as much as knowing that one is adding value and goodness to the world by the work one is doing.  A job’s real purpose is to add value to humanity and humanity’s wellbeing.  In that sense, no job is too low or demeaning to do if one considers the benefit or value it adds to others.  Where would we be, for example, if we didn’t have someone picking up our trash on a weekly basis?  Now there is an example of a significant worker that adds value to our way of living to whom little appreciation is given.

Anyway, the point is that we must not lose sight of the end-goal of a job, the final outcome for which we are working: adding value to our lives with intended outcomes that are to benefit all stakeholders.

One last thing, the thing about time is that time is both within and beyond our control.  And so, neither take shortcuts to save time or money, nor become so tediously busy that you lose sight of the job’s intended outcome.  Rather, respect both time and money by working efficiently and rhythmically, if you will, which is to say consistently, persistently, and purposefully—with a determined focus on the job’s goal, which is a quality product, accomplished in a timely manner, with superb results, benefitting all—clients, company, and employees.

Boehner’s “Fought the Good Fight” Comment Says a Lot!

Admitting defeat, House Speaker, John Boehner, summarized it this way: “We fought the good fight.  We just didn’t win.”  This is very telling.  How so?

First, it conveys the fact that he and the extremist minority rightwing group within the Republican Party (Tea Party, et. el.) see themselves as morally superior to all their opponents.  This phrase, “I have fought the good fight…,” is from the New Testament, found in the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:7).  In other words, they see themselves as fighting a moral cause.

Believing that they are entrenched in a moral battle, they have little or no interest in actually negotiating with their opponents.  For them, it is an all-out battle against the forces of darkness, goodness verses evil.  Furthermore, as such, they see themselves not as one of two opposing but legitimate parties, that is, two opposing sides that still have a unified foundation with a unified overarching purpose and set of values; rather, they believe themselves to be the only true and legitimate side for all America.

Thus, totally one sided, they attack the other party as if it has no legitimacy to exist at all, wanting to annihilate, nullify and make void, anything and everything their opponents aim at and hope to accomplish.  For them, this is what it means to be in a moral battle against their opponents, taking their so-called good fight towards total victory and total repudiation of their enemy—no compromising ever!

Secondly, it conveys the fact that they approach the political negotiating table in terms of war.  For them, it’s always: “This means war!”  A warlike mentality presumes that there is to be only one victor; therefore, combatants must aim to win at all cost.  Furthermore, engaging in war is always for total victory, that is, total control: winners take all!  And losers are to lose everything.  Indeed, this very attitude was reflected in Boehner’s willingness to drive the whole country off the economic cliff vis-à-vis the government shutdown; and, on top of that, to also threaten to refuse raising the Debt Ceiling as well.

Thirdly, it sadly reflects a presumptuous attitude that they actually believe themselves to be speaking for, and taking action in behalf of, and protecting the concerns of, the majority of Americans.  Or worse, knowing that they are an extreme minority group, they still aim to control all of America with their own narrow ideology, despite their minority status.

That being the case, it shows that they are sorely out of touch with contemporary America as a whole.  Fighting this so-called good fight of theirs, they arrogantly and presumptuously sacrificed many average Americans and their precious paychecks, apparently caring very little for the harmful collateral damage done to many vulnerable American citizens.  Which says that they really only care about themselves and their own precious agenda.

Summing them up:

First, they are absolutist in their attitude; having an all or nothing attitude, they take action accordingly and sweepingly denounce everyone that does not line up with their agenda.  As we’ve seen, they are even willing to hold the whole country hostage in order to get their way and only their way.

Secondly, they are militant in their political spirit and approach, believing that it’s an all-out fight for absolute and total control—take no captives.  This prevents them from seriously engaging in real negotiations, in the true sense of the word.

Thirdly, they are purists in their belief.  They think of themselves as elite, morally superior, and high and mighty, compared to everyone else, especially as compared to their opponents.

And finally they are exclusivists.  Theirs is the only true way, the only real party of value and worth, and the only ideal for the American way.  This is what makes them both obnoxious as well as dangerous to the rest of America—whether left, left of center, center, right of center, or normal right.

Republican Power Move—Holding the U.S. Government Hostage—Did NOT Work. No Surprise!

It is a power move, short and simple—minority, right wing, Republican Extremists holding the government hostage to try to force Obama to negotiate on their terms.  It’s not working.  And it won’t work.  This is no way to run a nation.  It is no way to negotiate with an opposing party.  And it is no way to serve the American people—right, left, or center.

It is selfish, myopic, and childish, and very arrogant on their part.  Their defenders try to ward off accusations that they are holding the government hostage.  But that is exactly what it is. And they are desperately trying to place the blame on Obama.  Americans know better.  American voters are not that stupid.  Most Americans see it for what it is, political maneuvering, a last ditch effort to get their way using the only weapon, club, force, or leverage that they have at their disposal—shut down the government.  And so they did!

What petty nonsense!  The government should never have been shut down in the first place—not for the reasons that the Republican extremist group give (which of course keep changing now).  Obama was and is right to resist efforts to negotiate under such conditions.

And Americans are right to hold the Republican Party responsible for the Government shut down.  Especially blameworthy are the extremist rightwing, self-righteous, holier-than-thou subgroup within the Republican Party, who act as if they are God’s gift to America, as if they are the only right and true representatives of American values, practices, and virtues.  They are not!  And they are wrong for presuming as much.

And now comes the Debt Ceiling threat!

A word to Congress: Quit stalling!  Quit negotiating for short term fixes and long term postponements.  We’re right here where we are, because you’ve been kicking the can down the road all along, creating these artificial deadlines and due dates and refusing to soundly deal with the issues forthrightly for fear of not getting everything you want and demand.  Quit cow-towing to a talk-to-my-hand, hardnosed, recalcitrant and fractious minority group; go to work for the good of ALL of America.  Oh wait!  You can’t do that, can you—because your re-election coffers are being filled by big-pocket minority special interest groups!  Is that it?

Do You Work for a Dehumanizing Corporation?

No one likes to work for work’s sake.  Work is work after all, as opposed to fun and games.  But work can be rewarding, even pleasurable at times, if it is done in the right spirit and with the right attitude and gives more than monetary payoff.  But work cannot be done in the right spirit with the right attitude if the corporation for which you work is constantly minimizing, trivializing, or otherwise dissing your worth as a person.

People are not machines and that is a good thing.  And though work may be hard, tiresome and irksome at times, that is not always a bad thing.  Work is about making, producing, building, and growing things.  And that is what we humans are about.  We want to build, grow, and produce.  We want to add value to our lives.  We want to be valuable to others.  We want to be part of something meaningful.  Corporations that understand this life principle treat their employees very well and have very happy clients and customers.

However, many dehumanizing corporations are solely task-oriented in their approach to reaching their financial goals.  They distribute their goals from the top down, without ever inviting, including, or involving input from their employees in the lower ranks.  Indeed, they tend to treat their lower ranking employees as usable and expendable objects.  Thus, key players in their company may lack ownership as to company quality, may become resistant as to company processes, and worse, may end up having no interest at all as to the company’s overall success.

A robotic, dehumanizing, task-oriented corporation begins with the bottom line and ends with the bottom line, measuring productivity by dollars and profits and evaluates success on the basis of profit margin only.  Everything is about the dollar.  Such an approach to business not only appears reasonable but seems necessary for a company’s success, if not survival.  Nevertheless, it is misdirected.

A people-oriented company, on the other hand, measures its success by the actual value it adds or service it provides to others that require, need or want its product, providing that product to its clients as equitably and reasonably as possible in a way that brings “profit” to all—owner, employee, and client.  It is not that it has no interest in the bottom line or the profit factor; it’s that it puts it in the right perspective.  Its first goal is to meet human needs in a humanizing way, adding to humanity’s overall prosperity in life so that everyone benefits and profits from its product and business.  That is, its reason for being is more than the making of money.

Too many corporations devalue their employees by treating them as cogs in a machine.  The idea is that the more you can make a human like a machine, the more productive he/she will be—if only humans were more like robots.  Companies with this kind of attitude toward their work force tend to dehumanize their employees.  In the short run, it looks as if it works.  In the long run, they lose dollars and profit, productivity slackens, and good employees are wasted.  Bottom line, it is not in the best interest of a company to dehumanize its employees.  What kind of company do you work for?

More Evidence of Global Warming…Urgent Warnings Means What?

So, we now have more evidence that Global Warming is in fact human induced.  An official UN report tells us so.  According to an astute scientific panel, it is indeed very likely that we’re doing it to ourselves!  Yes, we are responsible for climate change.  Connect the dots.  There’s no denying it.  We have a direct link to Global Warming.

Yet, for so long, and with such intensity, we have been constantly hearing the very opposite by contrary voices—that there is no real evidence for Global Warming, that it is scientifically unverifiable that we humans are contributing to climate change, that to say so is a mere scam to rip off the people, and so-on and so-forth.

The reality is that those who oppose the very idea of accepting Global Warming as a fact, let alone accepting any human responsibility for it, are the same big, powerful, money and corporate people that stand to shoulder a great deal of responsibility and blame, when confronted with reality—that their own business practices have directly fed into the Global Warming phenomena (though, admittedly, we all are to share some degree of blame, given the lifestyle that we have chosen to embrace at the expense of good ecological earth management.

Now we are being told that it is urgent we act now, immediately!  Or, we shall soon see terrible traumatic effects on our weather patterns, our sea-levels, and a dramatic change in the arctic region.  Duh!  Honest good-hearted scientists of integrity have been trying to warn us of this reality for decades now.  But they were effectively told to shut up!  Until now, I suppose.

We must immediately reverse decades of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are accumulating in the atmosphere and are a direct link to the cause of Global Warming.  We must find and use the technology, funding, and the social/political will to reverse the trend of climate change and build what is called a new “low carbon society.”

But here’s a question, who is going to pay for it?  I’ll give you a hint.  It won’t be the rich and powerful or the mega companies and corporations whose industrial polluting actions have been, and continue to be, the major contributing factor in our Global Warming phenomena.

And just how exactly are we going to combat this climate change phenomena?  Obviously it is a national, domestic and private, as well as multi-corporate and international problem, a problem for all of us on planet earth.  But, what then are the specifics for addressing this global problem?  What kinds of sacrifices are we going to have to make?   What!  Make sacrifices?  Most likely, yes!  But who exactly will be bearing the brunt of the most extreme sacrificial acts that will be demanded of humanity in order to prevent global warming disasters?  Take a guess.

My guess is that the very same people that have forestalled and persistently denied and constantly countered the reality and existence of Global Warming in the first place, will also be the same people who will most resist accepting any responsibility for making any sacrifices toward correcting the phenomena, yet will have been most directly linked in having created this climate change crisis by virtue of their industrial business practices from the get-go.  It’s called, “Take the money and run.”  Even so, it is still true that we all share responsibility and blame for this global crisis.  For, most of us continue to be quite complacent about it.

Political Sore Losers Throwing Tantrums Instead of Doing Real Governing

It used to be that when a given party won—got elected, passed a law, or carried a vote in their favor—the other party would accept it as a fait accompli, a done deed, an accomplished fact; the only logical, reasonable response was to deal with it, work with it, and make the best of it.  Am I wrong?

It used to be that the guy who lost would acknowledge defeat, shake hands respectfully, and wish the winner good luck and Godspeed.  Was this not so?

In other words, there was no allowance for poor losers, let alone any respect for them.  Apparently this has changed.  It seems now that we must not only tolerate but actually applaud sore losers.

A party loses the vote.  They didn’t get what they want.  So what do they do?  They stomp their feet in protest and whine and cry.  They vilify the winning side, calling them ruinous and disastrous for the country.  They swear oaths to sabotage, topple, and overturn their political opponents’ every action and every move, at every turn, every step of the way.  In other words they refuse to accept the winner as a winner and childishly thwart the winner’s every effort to make something work well.

There was a time in which the value of a good name meant maturity and respectability, wisdom and good sense, which in turn prevented one from “acting out” in an immature manner.  And so, one was not to be a sore loser and was to avoid such things as throwing a temper-tamper in public or pouting and whining, simply because one did not win or get what one had hoped for.  One was to be decent and respectable.

Not anymore.  Today’s political losers are not only sore losers they are vengeful losers.  They not only scream and pout; they throw things and break things.  They kick and obstruct.  They throw fits of anger and commit themselves to sabotage, regardless of effect or consequence.  This is what we are seeing in the face of Obama Care.

We, the people, need to say to them: Enough already!  Quit the whining!  Stop your temper-tantrums!

Obama Care passed.  So deal with it.  Work with it and make it better.  Quit trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because things did not go your way.  Dig in and try to make our nation’s health care system beneficial to all.  Make Obama Care worthwhile.  Fix it by coming up with modifications that makes it truly serviceable.  In other words, be positive and constructive about it, rather than simply blocking, negating, and being obstructive.

Stop acting like spoiled rotten overgrown children and become the mature, balanced, measured, and wise adults you are supposed to be, as congressional representatives of this supposedly great nation.  Run this country!  Address its needs.  Put your minds together to do something positive, to build instead of tear down, to construct instead of destroy, to tweak and make better instead of trash and burn.  Just do it, and do it now.

"In All Things, Charity..."

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity – this quote is attributed to St. Augustine (born 4th Century).  He speaks of the church needing to apply this principle in the face of its many disagreements on points of doctrine, practices, and lifestyle choices, etc.

You more than likely have heard this quote repeated, especially in a church or community association, seeking unity in the face of severe disagreement and diversity.  Perhaps you’ve even quoted it yourself.

The premise is quite simple really.  There are essentials and there are non-essentials.  The foundation, the core, the one unifying factor that gives the group its core identity, that is, the essential element, is non-negotiable.  For, to change it is to change the very essence of what it is.  Everything else is negotiable.

But the second part is just as important: “in all things, charity.”  That is, even if someone disagrees with your core essential(s), you should still maintain charity towards that person(s).  It’s the way of Christ.  That is, one should maintain a caring, compassionate, considerate, and respectful attitude toward the one with whom you vehemently disagree.  (Note: The word “charity” is too old-fashioned and now simply means the giving of a helping-hand to someone in need, and substituting the word “love” for charity doesn’t work well either because that word, love, is too flippant and easily dismissed these days.)

And so, it amazes me to see so much anger, hatred, and demonizing going on even from Christian voices regarding their opponents in the political, social, or economic arena.  They not only disagree with their opponent, they literally seem to hate the guy (whoever “the guy” may be), and react as if their social political opponent is the devil himself in disguise.  Yet, if any group of people should demonstrate respect and courtesy towards those with whom they disagree it should be followers of Christ, regardless of political persuasion.  For, truth be told, as Christians, the Way of Christ and God’s Kingdom principles should be given first and foremost priority above all else.

Ideally, it would be nice to see such an attitude of authentic respect and consideration for one’s opponent modeled at the highest levels of government—in Congress, in the Senate, and in the Executive Office.  Short of that, anyone who claims to be a Christian should be leading out in practicing this principle, “in all things, charity.”  That is, stop vilifying and demeaning and defaming the person or character of those with whom we disagree just because we don’t like their position or cause.  Do have passion for your own position or cause, but don’t turn that passion into hatred of those who oppose you.

There is good reason why Jesus said that his followers must be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.  But if we don’t rise above worldly attitudes and worldly ways, the salt has truly lost its saltiness and the light has grown dim if not fully flickered off.

A Military Strike against Syria? I'm Not Convinced

Shall we or shall we not?  Is it justifiable?

Few would disagree with the fact that the Assad regime’s chemical attack against its own people is morally reprehensible.  It is despicable.  I agree.  It cannot be condoned and should not be tolerated.

Nevertheless, my first question is this: does the responsibility to chastise Assad and his government solely fall on American, U.S. shoulders; and if so, why?  Is this not a truly global and international responsibility?

And, if the world governments, including the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, e.g., are willing to tolerate Assad’s use of chemical weaponry, then we have to ask, what are the deeper issues going on here, such that these governments are willing to turn a blind eye to this deplorable act?

For example, apparently Russia doubts the reports that Assad’s regime used chemical weaponry against its own people, rejecting the evidence as inconclusive.  Okay, I therefore ask the same question, put in a different way: Why would a country like Russia choose to reject what seems to be the obvious and side with a government that they know has been both murderous and oppressive of their own people?  What does Russia gain by stubbornly supporting Assad against the majority of world opinion?  That is to say that there are deeper issues here that I want more fully explained.

What is this really about?  Is not the real story about the powers behind the renegade Assad regime?  Assad’s government is petty, compared to the outside powers aiding and supporting him (such as Russia or Iran or even China).  Thus, would it not be more efficient and effective for Obama to get to the heart of the matter with the likes of Russia and China, e.g., rather then running around trying to convince members of our own legislative houses to support a U.S. limited strike against Syria?

In support of this so-called limited strike, I hear such things as, the regime has crossed the line and our credibility is at stake.  Or that it is a moral issue and we must therefore send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons against one’s own people is not to be tolerated.  And that our national interest is at stake.  Still, I wonder, how is acting like a national moral police-force in the Middle East supposed to be in our best interest—while other nations passively look on, approvingly or disapprovingly?

It seems to me that there are larger and more serious undergirding issues at play here that we citizens are not readily speaking about or being informed about.  What in fact is the essential core of our national interest in the Middle East?  A military solution seems always to be the only answer in a Middle Eastern crisis; why is our role in the Middle East always reduced to a military one (remember Ronald Reagan’s presidency and his Marines sent to Beirut fiasco)?    There are many interests in the Middle East—Russia, China, Iran, Israel, oil—what are we not being informed about respecting these powerful interests in the Middle East?  And so, why, for example, do we continually fail to win over a country like Russia, which historically has been as much a “Western” country as it has been otherwise?

So for me, not to strike Syria is not a question of becoming isolationist, as if we’re in danger of becoming mere “spectators to a slaughter.”  Limited military strike or not, there is more to this whole Middle Eastern policy than meets the eye.  Besides, what does “limited” mean anyway?  A punch in the nose is a punch in the nose, an attack is an attack, and a fight is a fight, limited or otherwise; fights cannot be contained or limited, they must be stopped, resolved and brought to an end.

So, as an average Joe American Citizen, I am not convinced.  For me, none of the given reasons are sufficient in themselves, or even collectively, in defense of striking:

• It is argued that we shall suffer a loss of credibility or loss of face and that our allies will be disappointed in us, worrying that we will not really be there for them in the future….  This is a lame argument and very unconvincing to me.

• It is argued that not to strike may cause regional instability.  I doubt it very much.  It’s already unstable.  A limited strike such as is now being considered may even have the opposite effect and cause even more instability.  For example, our starting the war in Iraq did just that.

• It is argued that inaction will embolden enemy-nations, such as Korea or Iran.  I don’t think so.  On the other hand, a miss-applied or miscalculated limited strike on Syria may continue to give these countries more reason to denounce us and refuse future possibilities of serious negotiations for lessoning the overall posturing of hostility.

• It is argued that not to take action against Syria at this time poses a national security threat to us.  Really!  How so?  Please spell it out for me because I don’t see how?

• And it is argued that Assad’s regime needs to be chastised and put in its place.  True, but by whom?  Should it not be chastised by the whole international community and not just the United States?

So, I’m just not convinced.

Three Great Temptations When Occupying a Congressional Office

Many who run for congress and get elected do so with good intentions.  They want to make a difference, help their community and constituents, and have a positive impact in the health and welfare of this nation.

There are, however, great dangers along the way toward becoming a good, honest and conscientious congressional representative.  What might they be?

First there is the temptation to exaggerate one’s position, become puffed up, and take advantage of the office.  A congressional or senate seat is no small thing.  It comes with title, privileges, and connections, and promises to give access to much more.  It’s enough to turn anyone’s head.

A newly elected representative may enter the office with a healthy amount of humility and goodwill, but it can quickly fade into the background when the real nature of the political office-quirks, with it accompanying privileges and power, begin to settle in.  Once in office, it is easy to forget that a true representative is a servant of the government and its people, not a privileged lord and master.

We’ve all seen them, petty officials, from a small security officer to a business owner/CEO, who act as if their official position sets them apart and puts them above it all.  They become little dictators, lording-it-over, demeaning and demanding of those below them, thinking themselves quite the figure, expecting others to cow-tow to their whims and wishes.  How many congresspersons and senators have succumbed to this temptation without realizing it?

Congressional and Senate Representatives are in a key position of power and influence within a nation that is among the strongest and wealthiest of world nations.  It is a valid question to ask what and whose interests are they really and truly serving—the people’s or an oligarchical elite, the special interest of money and power, a chosen few, whom?

The second temptation is age old, the temptation to abuse one’s power.  Among people, power moves in either of two directions: (1) outward toward the many, or (2) inward toward the one and/or the few.  Real servant-leaders seek to share power and move power outwardly, in the direction of the people around them, empowering the many.  On the other hand, egotistic, self-important leaders tend to amass greater and greater power for themselves and their comrades, the chosen few.

Servant-leaders listen to, receive from, and consider the plight and place of the people at large (they see individual trees as well as the whole forest).  Then they seek to motivate, encourage, and direct their fellow representatives to adopt policies that serve the interest of community and nation, individual and the people at large, the collective whole—not always easy, but always the better way to go.

A third temptation is to attempt to personally profit from one’s official position.  With congressional or senate office come many perks and privileges, as well as powerful connections.  Who can resist?  How does one not personally gain from such a status and position of influence?

Here’s just one example: I am greatly concerned by former State Governors who become key spokespersons for powerful oil companies in defense of fracking, parroting shallow arguments that are dismissive of real consequences in real peoples’ lives.  Especially since many of the State fracking deals and privileges given to the very same oil companies came at the hands of the very same person who was governor at the time.  Such behavior gives more than just a mere appearance of collusion.

Abuse of power, exaggeration of status, position, and privileges, self-interest, seeking personal gain and profit during one’s tenure in office or after one leaves office; these and more, are the many temptations that people who occupy powerful and influential offices face.  Who keeps them real, holds them accountable, or checkmates them when they cross the line?

It’s interesting how we are always worried about the moral decadence of our nation when it comes to sex.  But when it comes to the sins of greed and wealth accumulation at the expense of the poor and needy, or the lust for power and its abuses, we hear very little, say even less, and have so little concern for where this nation is heading respecting wealth distribution (or the lack thereof).  What an irony it is, when one considers the total teachings of Jesus.

The Central Flaw in Capitalism, Democracy, and Freedom

Democracy!  Capitalism!!  Freedom!!!  God Bless America!!!!

These four proclamations are like sacred incantations in our American vocabulary.  They’re indelibly stuck in our American psyche and we faithfully repeat them (especially during political campaigns, which seem never ending), as holy American mantras.

But, assertive pronouncements, even with passionate devout fervor, give no guarantee to their faithful application.

As to “Democracy,” votes can still be bought and sold, or worse, ignorantly and blindly misled.  The masses are always vulnerable to being duped and naively misdirected, often shamelessly seeing nothing beyond their own self-interest, which is easily pandered to by shrewd and unscrupulous politicians.

As to “Capitalism,” it is a far from perfect economic system; indeed, many, many people suffer from its unchecked and unregulated excess, to say the least.

As to “Freedom,” we now act as if freedom is a kind of absolute personal right, giving us license to do whatever, whenever, however, we feel like—with the one qualifier: “so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else”—as if we are all islands unto ourselves with no interconnectedness in consequence and effect (notwithstanding the well-known chaos theory principle called the “Butterfly Effect”).

And, as to “God Bless America!” we evoke this as if we have the right of God’s favor upon us, as if God must be on our side.  What presumption!

God demands humility, mercy, justice, and truth from His people.  God demands personal integrity, as well as economic and social justice for His people.  He does not bless greed, or the abuse of wealth, power and status, or injustice, or a rebellious, wayward, and self-indulgent people.  As a nation, we conveniently seem to forget this while we cry out “God Bless America!”

In short, along with the privileges of freedom, democracy, and capitalism come the responsibilities of self-control and the ability for self-restraint, the limiting of self-indulgence for example, with respect to our freedom.  Or along with our enjoyment of a capitalistic economic system comes the responsibility for the systemic care of the poor, the sick, the weak and the needy.

Truth be told, the quality of a system—democratic, capitalistic, economic, political, social, or otherwise—is no better than the people applying it.  If the people within the system are greedy, selfish, and self-indulgent, having no larger vision than that of their own self-interest, the system will fail, even if it happens to be the best system around.

Systems are not corrupt, people are.  The weakness of any and all systems is in the humans who function within it.  A system’s greatest weakness is Human Nature and human character, not the system itself.

Hence, in actuality, certain values and principles that undergird other economic systems, such as socialism and communism, for example, might actually be worth applying to our own capitalistic system (modified of course)—so as to make our own particular form of capitalism more equitable, more functionally fair and just.  But those words “Socialism” and “Communism” are taboo, as if the evil of those systems were inherent in the system rather than in the corruptness of the people that function within them.

We tend to treat our Capitalistic and Democratic systems as if they were a religion—something to be believed in, by faith, without question or doubt.  Likewise so we treat their opposing systems, Socialism and Communism, as if they are of the devil, heretical, evil, and anathema.  What we probably really need, in terms of a good economic policy, is an economic system that applies the best working values and principles from all sources, be it capitalist, socialist, or communist, so as to ensure that the most people have the best opportunity to make a fair and just living off our limited lands, shrinking resources, and modest means.

Living in an Unjust World

We live in a cruel and unjust world.

For example, what are the consequences, or what should be the consequences, of grievous and horrible acts of violence and hatred?

From the purely human point of view, people DO get away with murder.  Scoundrels cheat, lie, and steal, and live quite well at the expense of others.  Some use brute force and naked power to oppress their victims and keep them in virtual slavery to their wants and wishes.  And, whether by official and legitimate means (as in the use of business and/or government office) or by unofficial and illegitimate means (as in the use of gangs or the mafia, for example) the end is the same.  People suffer dearly under their tyranny.

How will this be made right?  How is justice had, for those who suffer and die by the hands of unjust and unscrupulous individuals?

If there were no God, the question doesn’t matter.  Death equals nothingness.  And, here on earth, it becomes a simple matter of the survival of the fittest.  And so, the cruel, unjust, power hungry, oppressor types, live as such, embracing the old adage: “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”; which is to say, “Grab what you can, while you can.  Kill if you have to.  Do whatever you need to, in order to get what you want, for we’re here today and gone tomorrow.  Live it up!”

Will one eventually pay for one’s sins?

Funny, even the word, “sin,” is dismissed as outdated and immaterial these days.  People laugh at the word, a silly topic, too unsophisticated for polite conversation, even distasteful.  The word has become irrelevant for all too many.

But then, from whence is real justice?  Certainly not from us humans; we want it, even long for it.  We try with all our might to properly exercise it.  Still, we fall short of it, often missing the mark quite badly even phenomenally so!  But it doesn’t stop us from aiming for it.  Yet, when push comes to shove, we want it for others, but seldom for ourselves—when we are the ones in the wrong, that is.

And so, accepting that God IS, we also would hope that God is Just—a Just and Righteous God, Holy and True.  But if that is the case, how will we measure up to this just, righteous and holy God?

Ah, therein is our dilemma.  What will God do, what shall God say about our own unrighteous acts, our own unjust deeds, our own little wrongs that we’ve committed against others?

Perhaps we need take more seriously the wise observation made in Ecclesiastes (12:12-14): “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

There is good reason why the message of the Gospel of salvation offered to humanity in the person of Jesus the Messiah is called “Good News”!  For, in terms of God’s standard of righteousness, justice, and holiness, do any of us stand a chance, if we are to trust in our own self-righteousness?  To even consider the possibility that we have the self-sufficient potential to pass God’s moral scrutiny, with approval, reveals our blindness to the real truth of our moral failings.

Problem Solving Strategies

Problems, problems, problems, life is full of problems.  And they never seem to go away.  It is a fact of life.  So, instead of avoiding problems or hiding and running from them, or wishing they’d go away, the best strategy is to learn how to deal with them when they come.  Here are some helpful strategic ways to deal with problems.

(A) Put them in perspective.  That is, view your problems in light of your life’s big picture respecting your life goals, priorities, values, and life’s end.

Problems are easier to deal with when you clearly understand how they affect your greater goals and purposes, allowing you to determine the level of impact and thus their immediacy (from the severe, demanding immediate attention, to the insignificant, which can be ignored).

This presumes that you have the big picture of your life in mind:  Where are you heading, what are you doing to get there, what are the obstacles that may prevent you from reaching your life’s goal?  How do you want to be remembered when you die and what accomplishments do you hope to have by the end of your life?  In short, view all of your “problems” from the vantage point of one heading in a certain direction toward a certain end and deal with them accordingly.

(B) Accurately and clearly define your problem.  This sounds simple enough; however, sometimes the “problem” you believe you are facing is not the real problem.  The issues that lie behind or underneath the surface may be the real problem.

This requires bold honesty within one’s self, to one’s self.  Ask yourself, why is this a problem for me?  Why would I prefer to run or escape from dealing with it rather than to confront it head on?  What am I not admitting, acknowledging, or accepting about this problem?  Try to get to the root or heart of the problem in the process of defining it.

(C) Clarify whose problem it is.  That is, is this a problem that you caused and that you are able to resolve or correct or is it a problem that is beyond your ability to control, manage, or solve?

First of all, keep in mind that not all problems are yours.  There are a lot of people who are happy to make their problems YOUR problem.  Don’t take on other people’s problems—unless it is your job, or you personally feel called to do so, or unless you know that you have to share the problem as part of a group or community that has collective ownership of the problem.

Secondly, know your limitations and the extent of your ability to adequately and satisfactorily deal with the problem.  Understand what the problem requires and determine your ability to solve it.  You may need help or it may be a problem that cannot be solved.  For example, when the Titanic hit the iceberg and started to sink, there was no way to solve the problem of its sinking.  The only solution was to abandon ship and man the lifeboats.  That is to say, deal with problems that you can actually solve.

(D) Examine: look, listen, and think before you take action.   Problems are best dealt with when you fully understand their details and how best to tackle it.  This requires some reflection, contemplation, information gathering, and assessment taking.  Then, “make it so” and do what you have to do.

You have options. You always do.  Determine what those options are.  Put them in perspective as to timing and urgency.  Compare long term solutions with short term solutions and their consequences.  Take the time to consider the advantages and disadvantages between various options.  Yes, take the time to do so, if you have the time; however, do not procrastinate.  In the end, you must make a decision and take action.  Once a decision is made, neither vacillate nor hesitate, rather, be swift and to the point about it.

(E) Follow through.  You now have a plan or strategy.  You know what needs to be done.  Some problems require ongoing attention, miner steps and major steps, process, and time.  Follow through to the end.  Do not stop halfway, midway, or somewhere in between.  Or there is a good chance that the problem will never truly be dealt with and thus will never really go away.

Be ready to adapt, modify, and change strategies along the way if necessary.  Sometimes you may have to step-back and re-evaluate, even take a “wait-and-see” approach, but you are still in the mode of addressing the problem.  And monitor your progress.  Only when you know that the problem has fully and completely been dealt with, do you put it behind you and move on.

Atheist Wins Debate in Delivery but NOT in Content

A congregant asked me to view a debate between an Atheist and a Christian Apologist (Sam Harris//William Craig).  If you Google Notre Dame’s God Debate II: “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” you’ll find it on You Tube.  It’s interesting.  Here’s my take on it.

At first glance, it would seem that Harris (the Atheist) “won” the debate.  What I am conceding by saying this is that Harris seems to have won by his manner and his delivery, hitting the right emotive buttons for emotional suasion.  His rhetoric was excellent. 

Nevertheless, with regard to the actual question at hand, I believe that Craig (the Christian) made the better argument in terms of reason and pure logic.  However, truth be told, reason and pure logic rarely inspires people or convinces people.

I have to agree with Craig and say that Harris does not adequately address the question about the foundation for moral values.  Yes, I know that Harris claims that he tried to do exactly that, but he did not do so convincingly.  I was not at all persuaded by his rationale.

What Harris does is what everyone does when building an ontological case at its source.  He begins with a given, a two-part a priori assumption: (1) We are conscious beings and (2) we want wellbeing.  Now, as to the second part of this a priori assumption, wellbeing, Harris says that the axiom (self-evident truth) that goes with it is this: the worst possible misery for everyone is bad!

Craig claims that the foundation for that kind of statement is God.  On the other hand, Harris essentially says that there is no need of a foundation for that statement, for it is self-evident.  In that sense it becomes a mere truism.  His argument therefore is basically a tautology: “The worst possible misery for everyone is bad and it is obviously bad for everyone to experience the worst possible misery, so we must seek humanity’s wellbeing given that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad.”

But that is an assumption that presumes a foundational moral premise, which is precisely the key question of the debate.  That is, on what basis can we “authoritatively” say this?  In other words, Harris does not actually debate the question at hand; rather, he simply pronounces it as an axiomatic given.  In that sense, Craig is correct.  Harris never directly addresses the fundamental question, which is: what is the foundation for accepting the moral premise that “the worst possible misery for everyone is bad” (other than the fact that we humans do not like being miserable)?

What Harris does do very effectively is raise all the questions that religious wars and divisive religious doctrines have raised over the centuries: if there is a God, who is this God, what kind of God is God, and how do we rightly and properly come know this God?  These are questions touching upon theodicy, epistemology, hermeneutics, historical witness, and divine revelation respecting the intersection between phenomenology and the numinous.  He brushes aside these religious questions, as if they have no value worth considering, by summarily asserting that there is no evidence for religious beliefs in the first place.  History begs to differ with him on that assertion.  Here Harris makes the classic 18th century enlightenment assumption that goes something like this: Today we are smarter than that!  The ancients were more gullible and ignorant in their day and therefore believed in things that cannot be substantiated in today’s modern more enlightened world.

Suffice it to say that all these subjects (and more) have been discussed and debated by secular and religious philosophical scholars for centuries.  Harris is simply the new kid on the block repeating ancient arguments against any belief in God in the face of the existence of evil.  But Harris never addresses the question of the real nature of goodness verses evil, or why there is evil, or why we humans have a moral nature at all (other than to give a nod to evolutionary dynamics—which results in another tautology = “we are moral creatures because evolution produced us that way, and we know that evolution made us that way because that’s the way we are”).

So, no, I am not convinced by Sam Harris’ cool, smart, and well-presented arguments.  In short, my conclusion stands with William Craig’s.  I’d put it this way: it is true that one need not be a religious believer in God, in order to live as a moral person; nevertheless, as I understand the nature of the universe without God as its creator, I see no valid reason why anyone must or should or have-to choose morality over immorality, for there would be no real moral foundation (an authoritative “Says Who?!”) for choosing to live a moral life as such—other than to feel obligated to choose morality because Sam Harris says that I must.

The Zimmerman Trial and the Question of Justice

If a fourth grader asked you to explain the concept of justice, how would you answer—given the attention span of a ten-year-old?

What is justice?

Is it tit-for-tat, an eye-for-an-eye?  Is it vengeance and revenge?  Does it involve remorsefulness and penance (from which we get the word penitentiary)?  Does it require personal change and correction (from which we get the term correctional institution)?  Or is it a simple matter of retribution, the idea of punishment plain and simple: You got to pay for what you did!

Notice: when we are the innocent victims of a crime, we want swift, sharp, and unmitigated justice with harsh and exact punishment?  But, when we are the guilty offender, we ask for understanding, personal consideration, and a review of mitigating circumstances, even leniency and compassion, if not mercy.

Perhaps this is why Lady Justice is often depicted as blindfolded, supposedly to represent unbiased, impartial, and non-prejudicial consideration, as she weighs the facts upon her scales?  There is to be no preferential treatment, neither to the powerful, nor to class or race or ethnicity, or any other possible prejudicial distinction between her citizens, when it comes to the pursuit of justice.

However, even children learn early on that real justice can be quite illusory and can often escape us.  A sibling bullies his sister without provocation of any kind.  The sister smashes her brother’s favorite toy in retaliation, just as mom or dad walks in the room.  The sister is held responsible and is severely punished for her deed while the brother’s instigating action is ignored.  The sister soon realizes that this is an unjust world within which we live.

Hence, justice is not simply about laws, legalities, and technicalities.  It is about people: about the need of interpersonal respect for the other, to take personal responsibility for one’s self, and to recognize our relational connectedness with each other.  Thus, a crime committed is first and foremost about personal harm that one has caused another, not just a matter of breaking a law and offending the State.  It requires a personal owning-up to the harm done to the other, and a recognition that, as a result of that harm done, one now has a personal obligation to make things right.  This is the language of Restorative Justice (See: The Little Book of Restorative Justice by Howard Zehr.)

Thus, with regard to the Zimmerman/Martin case, the State has been satisfied with its procedures and processes.  But the individuals and families involved—on both sides—are left unsatisfied and remain ill-at-ease.  Why?  Real and true justice has escaped them.  George Zimmerman continues to fear for his life, apparently receiving death threats from angry citizens who believe that he is truly guilty and that his guilt requires vengeance.  Meanwhile, the Martin family has been irrevocably damaged and hurt.  They will never see Trayvon again, this side of the grave—a direct result of George Zimmerman’s unwise choices and actions the night he fatally shot Trayvon Martin in what we are to understand was an act of self-defense.

In short, great personal harm has been done against the Martin family and no one seems to be in a position to make things right for this harm that has been committed against them, least of all George Zimmerman himself.  This is why so many believe that the system has failed to produce real justice.

Remove the State’s interests in this whole case.  Forget about certain Florida State laws, legalities, and technicalities for a minute.  And what do you have left: Two families that need to come to terms with each other.  Let’s grant that George Zimmerman truly reacted in self-defense at the moment he pulled the trigger.  Still, it is not as if he was purely innocent in the incident.  It seems apparent to most people that he minimally exercised poor judgment, took wrong action, and virtually instigated the whole initial conflict.  Thus, the least that Zimmerman could do on his part is to be receptive and open to directly hearing from the Martins, to directly embrace and give witness to their pain and agony, to personally and directly own, experience, and empathetically understand the impact that his fatal shooting of Trayvon has had and continues to have on the Martin family.  This is not asking for forgiveness or reconciliation; it is asking for ownership of one’s misguided behavior, ownership of some responsibility, and accepting some obligation and respect given to the Martin family.  However, that will never happen and can never happen, given the way our judicial system now works.

This is why few are pleased with the verdict and many are dissatisfied with its outcome.  There is no sense of real personal justice having happened.  There has been no real personal, relational accountability, no ability for either party to accept a kind of mutual and measured responsibility for a death that should not have happened.