You Lie! What Nation or Government Leader Hasn’t?

And that’s the problem.  ALL are liars, it would seem.

The first thing that Obama detractors will say about Obama is that he lies.  The first thing that Western Europeans will say about Putin is that he’s one grand liar.  This is not surprising in that even politician’s claiming to be conscientious, ethical, and religious devotees, have often been caught in a lie.

It is why we have law courts and treaties and contracts and swearing of oaths and notarized promissory agreements, and so-on and so-forth.  It’s an attempt to keep people honest and true.  Hold us to our word.  All too often we still desperately try to find ways to wiggle out of our agreements and deny our troth (our good word), when it no longer suits us to keep it.

People lie, nations and their governments lie, business people and corporations lie.  No one is innocent.  And, the more that is at stake, the more likely a lie will be told.  It is a mere cliché to say that politicians lie and will say anything to get elected.  The real sin here is simply getting caught.  This is why whistle blowers, like Edward Snowden, for example, actually do us a favor—yet we condemn them for it.  What’s the favor?

It’s as if the whistle blower suddenly hits a reset button.  The reset button stops us in our tracts, nakedly exposing our complacent acceptance of, and even justification for, daily doses of government lies or corporate lies or institutional lies.  Snowden type whistle blowers call us to accountability, and, ironically, we don’t like it.

Despite the whistle blowers best efforts, soon enough, we all become complacent again, and we’re back to accepting, as necessary and normative, government cover ups, corporate secretive operations, and institutional concealment enterprises—until the next whistle blower stops us short again, for a little while anyway, reminding us that there is a better way.  Yet, we all continue to justify lying on the bases of national security, or relational expediency, or the protection of personal and/or corporate interests.

Just before Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator, handed Jesus over to be crucified, he grilled Jesus with questions.  The key question was, “Who are you, are you the king of the Jews,” as they say you claim to be?  (See John 18:28-40.)  Jesus responded, “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth.  All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”  At that point, Pilate simply replied, “What is truth?”

No doubt Pilate said this with some contempt—not contempt toward Jesus, but contempt for the idea of TRUTH!  After all, he was a Roman statesman and politician.  He knew better.  There is no truth, only hints and innuendoes, clever half-truths and white lies, suggestive leanings and hollow promises and propaganda.  In the world of people, power, and politics, not to mention business, truth is twisted and actual reality is irrelevant.

It is noteworthy that Jesus also said of himself, “I am the way the TRUTH and the life….” (John 14:6).  I AM TRUTH, he says: that is, my inner subjective personal being is true: I speak truly, I relate truly, I BE truly—I am essentially transparent, consistently faithful, absolutely trustworthy, perfectly dependable, and completely authentic.  I am the embodiment of TRUTH, truth in person.

Who else can make such a claim?  Can you?  NO?  I thought not.  Neither can I.  That being said, what role should truth play in our lives?  Should we speak truth and be true only when it is safe and convenient to do so?  Or should we strive to BE true in all ways possible at all times and with all people?  Which gives us the better advantage or the more cutting-edge lead, lie-telling or truth-telling?  That is, which is more powerful?  Truth be told, we function as if lie-telling has the more power.  Jesus tells us differently.

Like Father, Like Son. Is that bad?

“I can’t believe it; I’m beginning to sound like my father!”  Ever hear that line repeated in a sitcom or in a movie, often said with pain and dread?  Of course you have.  It seems a universal truth: All sons dread becoming like their fathers.  Has anyone considered how sad that sentiment is, respecting fathers?

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I have not been a model father.  Thus, it wouldn’t do to have my son become “just like dad.”  Like any and all men, be it husbands or fathers, I am flawed.  So, no, I’d rather not have my son turn out just like me.  I’d rather have him become his own man and perhaps turn out better than me.  (My son is presently in his mid-twenties, and so is well on his way.)

On the other hand, I also believe it would do him well, even in his mid-twenties, to listen and observe and learn from me.  Not everything I do or say, or have done and have said, is nonsense or too old-fashioned and outdated to be taken seriously.  There are things I can still teach him.  That is, I believe that I have gained enough wisdom in life to still be a good influence in his life.

I guess what I am trying to say is that “age and experience” means something.  With experience comes wisdom.  And only years under one’s belt, i.e., time, plus age, bring the opportunity for experience that lead to greater wisdom.

Yet I’m amazed at how many sit-coms and movies depict husbands and fathers as idiots and buffoons.  Now, I’m not asking that we go back to the “Father Knows Best” days, but would it hurt to show husbands and fathers with a little more dignity and respect?

Indeed, would it hurt to depict anyone that is older than forty as people who have learned from their mistakes and have become a bit smarter and wiser for the weathering?  Is it that impossible to imagine the elderly carrying their years with grace, dignity, and self-respect and with much to offer to the next generation by way of wisdom and experience?  Alas, I suppose the problem is that such a depiction of the elderly lacks in comedic substance.

I think what I long for in our society is an appreciative balance of intergenerational respect.  The young are not as asinine, birdbrained, and boneheaded as many elderly imagine them to be.  But neither are the elderly as foolish and vapid, and worthlessly out-of-date as many young people imagine them to be.  Each generation, young and old, can learn and indeed should learn from the other.

Fearing change and refusing to catch-up-with-the-times, the older generation tends toward rigidity and stagnation.  Thus, sometimes the old do need a kick in the pants from the younger set.

On the other hand, the younger generation will often regret not having taken their elder’s advice more seriously and soon admit that they should have listened and learned from them, so as to avoid needlessly repeating the mistakes of their forebears.  Indeed, sometimes old, slow and deliberate, is much more productive than young, fast and furious—and with better results.  Somewhere in there, there must be an ideal balance between the two.

What seems to be lacking is an ideal model.  What does a mature, wise, and respectable “old” man look like, one that young men and even younger lads would aspire to become “just like”?

    Is he strong?  If so, is it physical strength we speak of or a deeper emotional and spiritual kind of strength that is of more value here?
    Is he intelligent?  And by that, we should mean more than mere head-knowledge?  That is, is he insightful, perceptive, understanding, and wise?
    Is he loving?  No, we’re not talking about a Don Juan.  And neither do we mean mushy, sweet and sugary all over.  That is, does he care, is he concerned, is he sensitive and responsive to the needs of others—especially to that of his wife and children?
    Is he courageous?  Does he have the courage to do what is right, even when it hurts or calls for personal sacrifice to do so?
    Is he humble?  He is willing to admit to his mistakes, own up when responsible for things going wrong?
    Is he respectful?  Is he kind to those who have less power or status than he does?

So tell me.  What are the characteristic traits of a manly and/or fatherly role model?  Just what does a good man, or husband, or father, look like?  And why don’t we see more of this type depicted in the media?  And why can’t we readily think of immediate examples of this type, when asked to provide one?  Why is the cliché, “the last thing I want to become is ‘just like my father’”?  And what does that say about men in general, in our society and culture?

Resurrection Celebrations, despite Increasing Secularism

He is Risen!  He is risen indeed!!

It is a truth for many, unqualified and unmitigated.  Jesus is risen from the dead.

In that truth is the power of Christianity, Christ, and the Gospel Message.  This message will not go away.  It will not die.  It will neither be argued away, nor persecuted away, nor legislated away.  It’s a message that is here to stay—until Jesus returns.

Luke, a medical doctor by education and profession, writes: “During the forty days after his crucifixion, he [Jesus] appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive.  And he talked to them about the kingdom of God.”  (Acts 1:3, NLT)

Luke describes a few more things about the Apostles’ personal interaction with the post-resurrected Jesus, and then adds the following: “After saying this, he [Jesus] was taken up into a cloud while they were watching, and could no longer see him.  As they strained to see him rising into heaven, two white-robed men suddenly stood among them.  ‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, why are you standing here staring into heaven?  Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven in the same way you saw him go!”  (Acts 1:9-11, NLT)  Hence the Christian belief that Jesus will return again—as victor rather than sufferer, the second time around.

Argue against it as you will.  The witness is there.  The testimony is given.  And the intention is clear.  Jesus was dead, suffered and died, literally, fully, really.  And now he lives.  He is risen!  For nothing is impossible with God.

In short, this means things like:

- God obviously has power of Life over Death.

- Jesus’ death was intentional.  Jesus died for a reason, and we would do well to clearly understand that purpose.

- In the person of Jesus, humanity has personal, experiential, and testimonial evidence, that there is indeed Life after death.

- Jesus is therefore the cornerstone, the lynchpin of our hope and faith in humanity’s salvation, which includes life after death, the hope for ultimate and final justice, and the victory of goodness over evil, among other things.

It is no wonder then that this message, this conviction, this belief and hope in the resurrection of Jesus will not die.  It is especially powerful in the face of all that is wrong with this world, its extreme pain and suffering, its oppression and injustice, and its dark unabashed evils.

So we celebrate and we proclaim with passionate hearts and full conviction: Jesus Lives!  Jesus is Lord!!  He is Risen!!!

Please, do join us in that celebration and enter into this great hope for humanity.

Teachers: the new Scape-Goat for Poor Education

If students are not learning and passing with good grades, it’s the teacher’s fault.  Right!?

I am a pastor.  I am also a teacher, an adjunct professor for a local private Christian university.  I’ve seen my share of good and bad students.  And, of course, there are good and bad teachers as well.  It goes without saying that teaching is both an art and a science.  So is parenting or even pastoring for that matter.

Consider the art of parenting for a moment.  In my lifetime, short or long as it may seem, I’ve seen bad children rise out of what seemed to have been very good parents.  I’ve also seen very good children come out of what were clearly very, very bad parents.  Thus, being a good parent gives no guarantee that the child will come out good, though it certainly favors such an outcome.

In short, be it in parenting or in teaching, positive results are not guaranteed.  The whole process—requiring attentive engagement, listening, responding, understanding and applying lessons given and lessons received—is a two-way street.  And it is personal—a personal choice of attitude, will, desire and interest, motivation, responsiveness, and action—the all too volatile human factor.  In short, whether we’re speaking of poor students or bad children, it is not always the fault of the teacher or the parent.

Teaching is complicated by many things.  Poor diet, broken homes, family dysfunctions, the culture of poverty, racism, classism, and so many, many more negative and conflicting dynamics make teaching in an inner city environment, for example, quite difficult, if not next to impossible.

The most complex variable is the human factor itself, the very subject who is to be taught and/or raised.  Variable personalities and temperaments, variable learning styles and learning rates, variable comprehension levels, not to mention the variety of interests, wants, and needs, when considering educational outcomes and directional placement in relation to vocational training and/or specialized academic tracks, for example.  In short, when it comes to educating human beings, one size does not fit all.

Flexibility, adaptability, personalization, risk taking, trial and error, inventiveness, creativeness, instinctive redirection, these traits, and many more like these, are those required of a good teacher to do the job well—and still there is no guarantee that a student will…, will what?  Will learn, achieve, grow, develop…what?  Obtain the one-size-fits-all test result that we’re looking for in our schools and universities?

It is my humble opinion that our increasing emphasis on state-level and national-level unified testing results is killing the art of teaching.  I enjoy teaching.  I love to see the proverbial light bulb go on in a student’s head, that “Ah, Hah!” moment.  It’s exhilarating.  Yet, though I am not anti-government as such, this is one area that I believe the government, at both the state and federal levels, is asserting itself too much.

We hear about how American students are doing poorly in comparison to students around the world.  We’re turning out high school graduates with low-level reading and writing skills.  Fewer and fewer high school graduates seem to be adequately prepared for strong math and science career tracks.  The dropout rate among our minority and inner city kids is widening, so-on and so-forth.  And what’s our answer—get the government involved and throw more standardized tests at them.  Furthermore, blame the educational system, especially teachers.  Such an attitude and approach is not only wrongheaded but also detrimental—in the long run.  That’s my humble opinion.

With the caveat and serious acknowledgment that inner city students, the poor and ethnic minorities, do need special attention from all levels, local, state, and federal, I believe that the application of good educational goals and processes must be reclaimed by our local schools and universities and taken back from the overreach of state and federal government regulatory involvement.

We are too swiftly running towards a one-size-fits-all educational approach for the whole nation.  Our states are putting too much emphasis in the outcome of specific test results.  Teachers are being forced to become educational cookie-cutter test-result facilitators, stifling and deadening more creative, imaginative, and more diverse if not expansive teaching results and possibilities.  This is not good and does not lend itself well to the kind of open-ended possibilities of new discovery and energized learning that America was known for in the early to mid-twentieth century.   This is one area where too much governing from the top down can truly ruin the cause.  Oh yes, let’s quit blaming the teachers.  The majority of teachers should be honored and respected for what they do for our children.

President Obama meets Pope Francis, Does it Mean Anything?

Recently President Obama met with Pope Francis.   The most iconic state representative of all free and democratic nations met with the most iconic religious representative of world Christianity.  What of it?

Much!  That is, depending on what WE make of it.

Pope Francis is well received by the populace.  Indeed, he seems to have revitalized the Christian faith not only among Roman Catholics but among Christians in general, young and old.  Why?

Could it be because he authentically cares for people?  People are his priority.  For example, Pope Francis seems to show more concern for the people who make up the church than the institution of the Roman Catholic Church itself—and that’s good.  Furthermore, Pope Francis also seems to be much more than just the office he holds.  That is, in his case, it’s not so much that the office makes the man as much as the man is making the office.  The people like who he is as well as what he is, as a person.

But we often overestimate the power of political and institutional officeholders.  For example, when running for presidential office, Republican or Democrat, all candidates promise to “bring change.”  Obama did the same.  “Change is coming!” he said, “Voting for me is a vote for change.”  But, now that Obama has been in office for over five years, many wonder what happened to the changes that were supposed to have taken place in Washington.  So it goes.  Political realities checkmate most attempts at institutional change.

Both President Obama and Pope Francis represent much power and influence in the offices they hold.  The question is, how do they best use their power and influence and to what end?  The old adage that effectively says, the world can only be changed one person at a time, is as true for them as it is for us.  In short, their power and influence means nothing—without us.  We the people must endorse the change that they seek, by our actions.

But there is a catch.  The catch is that a good leader—religious, political, or otherwise—must rise above the lowest common denominator in the change that he/she seeks to make.  That is, a truly good leader will refuse to cater to either special interest groups or to the whims and wishes of fickle popular sentiment.  Because of this and ironically, the people can and often do easily turn against solidly good leaders.  Likewise, out of a true care and concern for all people, a truly good leader pursues what is right, good, and just, for the least among us in a compassionate and loving manner, which inevitably upsets the mainstream and powerful.

I think that it is fair to say that these two men, President and Pope, want what is right and good for the common person, the average person on the street.  And, the common person has responded accordingly with a collective “Yes!” or “Amen!”  Note how, when first elected, Obama’s popularity was quite strong.  However, Obama’s popularity is now waning.  Why?  Failure, ineffectiveness, unfulfilled promises?  Whatever the reason, my guess is that the same will happen to Pope Francis.  I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a matter of a few years, Pope Francis’s popularity will also go down.  You see, it’s hard to be a good leader and do the right thing, to stand for what is good and just, AND maintain popularity among the people.  Doing the right thing can be costly, and costliness grates on the average person on the street, who want quick and easy solutions with little cost to themselves.

Thus, we the people are the real problem.  We can be socially lazy—wanting others to do the hard work for us to make this world a better place to live in.  We can be economically selfish—wanting others to make the necessary sacrifices to make this world a fairer and more just place.  And we can be politically fickle—ready to drop our support in a blink of an eye, if things don’t change fast enough or aren’t going in the direction we had expected or wanted.  In short, we lack patience, we want immediate gratification, and we tend to demand unrealistic results from our religious and political leaders.

We are a contradiction.  We expect too much from them on the one hand, and want too little of their effects on the other.  We expect too much of them in that we want them to perform like superheroes in making things better.  We want too little of them in that we so easily dismiss them when they call us to account, asking that we live more equitably and be more responsible and act more justly.  We want them to change the world, make the world better, while we dig in our heels and say, “But as for me, I’m fine just the way I am.”

If we want good leaders to do what is good, right, and just for all the people, then we must support such leaders with our own willingness to be and do the same.

Same Sex Marriage and Freedom, Power, & Authority

PART I

“Who are YOU to tell me what I can or cannot do with my life?!  It’s MY life, and I’ll live it the way I want!”

This could be a teenager sassing back to the “parental units.”  Or it might be anyone of us reacting to any others of us who would dare presume to tell us how we ought to live or what we can or cannot do with our life.

We don’t take too kindly to self-appointed masters controlling our lives: “No one is going to tell ME how to live!”  We are free and independent Americans.  We think for ourselves, choose for ourselves, and reserve the right to freely exercise the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  And that’s that!

Or is it?

At what point does the exercise of my personal freedom—to choose, to practice, to do, to pursue, and to BE—become an invasion and limitation upon your personal freedom to do the same, and vice versa?

Does a religious conservative, for example, not have the right to say, “As a professional photographer of deep religious conviction, I cannot in good conscience accept your invitation to become your hired photographer for this same-sex wedding of yours?”

If not, why not?  Where’s the freedom of conscience, of choice, of personal conviction, if he/she does not have the right to act upon his/her religious conviction in this way?

On the other hand, does not a couple, ANY couple, of any type, background, and/or sexual orientation, have the right to expect and receive professional and unbiased service with courtesy and respect in this country founded upon the assertion of freedom and equal rights?

If they cannot expect to receive equal access to all professional services, is this not being hypocritical in the face of our 4th of July celebrations, asserting American values of freedom, independence, and equal rights and opportunity for all?

In truth, there are always legal and structural limits to freedom.  There has to be.  Without them we have the definition of chaos and anarchy.  But how are such limits set, and who has the right to impose them?  In that sense, the question of individual and independent freedom is also a question of social and political (group) power, authority, and control.

PART II

Getting to the point, I think a huge social and relational mistake is being made on both sides of this question, respecting the acceptance and practice and the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The mistake that religious conservatives are making is that of arrogating to themselves an assumed right (superior and self-righteous) to demand and enforce religious (heavenly) authority over (earthly) social authority, as if this nation’s government is, or should be, a kind of Democratic Theocracy—a democracy with a direct rule from God, or more accurately put, a direct rule from God’s representative people.

The mistake that the left-wing progressive side seems to be making is really the same in kind; a mistake which liberals have always accused religious conservatives of doing over the centuries.  What’s that mistake?  The presumption that their way of thinking is more true to Reality and therefore better reflects what ought to be.  This presumption leads them to not only call for the general allowance and acceptance of same-sex marriage, but to demand that its acceptance be forced upon everyone as a kind of cosmic right in the universe.  In short, in an inverse way, the gay community is also treating the question of same-sex marriage as a “religious” right (cosmic and universal).  This attitude is effectively no different than that of their religious conservative opponents coming from the opposite end.

Thus, this is virtually a clash of two competing cosmic Worldviews or universal definitions of Reality.  Hence, perhaps the best way to address this clash is to respect the differences in a way that allows for a form of “Live and let live.”  Each side must avoid trying to outmaneuver the other side by the use of authoritarian means.  That is, avoid claiming the right and authority to superimpose one’s particular worldview’s perspective on the other by the exercise of naked power and control over the other.  For it is very likely that there will never be a time when all will agree on this particular issue of same-sex unions.  (Unlike, for example, the issue of slavery, where there was a time when some defended slavery as an acceptable practice, and using the Bible to do so; now of course it is universally agreed that slavery is just flat out wrong and cannot be defended Biblically or otherwise.)

PART III

How does this look practically speaking?  It’s simple really.  Same-sex couples could avoid asking or demanding that conservative, faith-driven individuals, change or give-up their conviction that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, for example, and should avoid requiring them to act against their faith convictions.  But, by the same token, the conservative faith-driven person should stop trying to impose, by social political and/or legislative law, his/her religious values, convictions, and practices upon those who neither believe-in nor accept the conservative’s religious premise and thus reject the religious application of his/her convictions.  In short, whenever possible, make room for each other.  However difficult it may be to do so, go out of the way to allow each side to live by their convictions so as to avoid blocking, oppressing, or obstructing the other side’s chosen lifestyle.  Live and let live!

This should work for the religious conservative, because, in the end, if one’s religious convictions turn out to be true and real, the real and true God will hold everyone accountable anyway.  It’s called Judgment Day.  That is, God will do the final judging and discerning as to who does or does not deserve condemnation for his/her actions here on earth.  Humans (religious conservatives especially) need not preempt God’s right to be the final judge.

This should also work for the progressive liberal in that he or she can allow the religious conservative to live by his her own conviction without much personal loss or inconvenience to him/herself, providing that his/her freedom are truly sustained in the larger society as a whole (which is a central key to the applied principle of “live and let live”).

Is this too simplistic, idealistic, and unrealistic?  Or are we just going to continue to fight it out in our law courts, businesses and professions (and churches), with winners and losers on both sides, one side managing to suppress and oppress the other side until the tables are turned (winner takes all)?

Higher Overtime Pay, Hardship for Whom?

“That’s not FAIR!”

Remember saying that as a kid, maybe while playing a game with your friends?  Of course you have.  Today’s children can be heard saying the same thing—when they feel that a fellow playmate is taking undue advantage or doing something that just doesn’t measure-up to a sense of justice and fair-play in the game.  No doubt your own children have said it to you, if they felt that you were treating them unfairly with respect to their siblings, for example.  “How come he got the bigger piece?!”

Who doesn’t react vehemently when feeling unfairly treated?  Who doesn’t get angry when one believes that he or she is a victim of injustice?  As adults, we may no longer actually cry-out, “That’s not fair!”  Nevertheless, the feelings are the same, though we may have found a more mature and adult way of making the point.

In short, we all expect fair treatment.  We expect all players in this game called Life to play by the rules in a fair and just way—be it in sports, business, or politics.  Indeed, we expect that the rules themselves will establish fair and just practices so that the game can be played “on a level playing field.”  After all, it’s only fair!  Is it not?

So, what’s just and fair in the realm of business and the workplace?  Is it right, fair and just, that a low-level manager be asked to work long overtime hours, virtually doing what non-management low-wage payees do, and not get paid extra for it—just because they’re called a kind of manager, for example?  Or is it right that business owners and entrepreneurs be forced to pay higher wages, which, they feel, will result in having to downsize staff and/or lose income in the face of already thin-line profit margins?

What’s fair?  What’s just?

The business community is upset by Obama’s intention to take “executive action” to expand overtime pay.  And now, as usual, the whole debate takes on the form of a Right/Left power struggle: he’s wrong, I’m right, he’s an idiot, I know better, he’s against business, I’m for business, etc.  Is Obama anti-business?  Seriously, what president would ever be anti-business?  Okay, the intention may be good, perhaps the means is questionable, maybe, maybe not.

But what is the real issue?  The real issue is one of equality of opportunity as well as economic justice and fair-play.  The fundamental question is not simply what is good for business, but what is best—fair and right, good and just—for ALL economic stakeholders, employees and employers, business owners and clients, entrepreneurs and investors, and most especially the hard working (almost overworked) middle-class American family.  To rob Paul in order to pay Peter is wrong, but to give heavy economic advantage to Paul at the expense of Peter’s potential to do economically well is also wrong.

Why is it so difficult for our politicians to make good and wise economic decisions respecting our economy?  It’s simple: Tunnel vision!  A too narrow focus on special interest groups and local constituents; it’s a failure to see and adequately address the BIG picture.  Adding to that, greed, fear, territorialism and un-checked power and influence by hidden political forces, and so-on and so-forth, it’s rather amazing that anything good comes out of Washington at all.

As political maneuvering and power-plays take place between parties, which inevitably results in ecstatic winners and fuming losers, perhaps we voters should regularly ask ourselves the following: Which State or Congressional representative shows the most concern for all sides and is willing to do what is best for all parties involved?  Who is being most fair or is considering what is most just, respecting all economic stakeholders?  Who seems to be showing the most respect for the value of all groups concerned?  Whose economic policy gives consideration for the benefit of the many rather than the few?

In short, who is looking at the BIG picture and considering all levels of interests and needs, with a view toward a prosperous America as a whole, so as to lift up the majority of Americans and leave as few of us behind as possible?  For it is a question of economic justice and fairness for all stakeholders, all interested groups, and all individuals and parties involved.