I understand that matter can be changed
To energy; that maths can integrate
The complex quantum jumps that must relate
The fusion of the stars to history’s page.
I understand that God in every age
Is Lord of all; that matter can’t dictate;
That stars and quarks and all things intricate
Perform his word — including fool and sage.
But knowing God is not to know like God;
And science is a quest in infancy.
Still more: transcendence took on flesh and blood —
I do not understand how this can be.
The more my mind assesses what it can,
The more it learns the finitude of man.
We’re going to upgrade from our standard Rambler today to show you a great pic of Elvis Presley’s 1957 BMW 507, now restored to its original glory (and perhaps beyond).
Top Gear has a great gallery showing the step-by-step restoration of the King’s ride, which he enjoyed while he was a G.I. in Germany. The car had originally been presented to the King of Belgium before it went to an auto show, where it won a beauty prize. It ended up at a dealer in Frankfurt, where the 23-year-old Elvis saw it and fell in love with it. The popular singer had it painted red because his adoring fans used to scrawl messages on its white surface. He eventually traded it in back in New York, and after a few other stops it ended up awaiting restoration in a shed in California. Its owner, Jack Castor, never found the time to get it done, so he eventually sold it back to BMW’s classic department and they brought it back to life.
Go to Top Gear’s gallery for more great photos of the restoration. Also, if you happen to be in Pebble Beach, California on August 18, you can see this great car up close and personal at Concours d’Elegance.
One of our team members said that Shirley “died of loneliness.”
She had family, and whenever I met them they seemed to be attentive to her. I never heard her speak a word against them. But none of them were able to care for her in her final season of life.
When Shirley first came to hospice, she lived in her own apartment. A relative stayed with her, but – and I don’t remember all the details – she was either not capable or reliable enough to take care of a terminally ill patient. I recall that on my first visit this relative expressed her opinion that Shirley was not really as sick as they said she was and that she was going to be all right. She didn’t think she needed the medications we recommended. She didn’t want us there.
Shirley asked me for a Bible on that first encounter, and I got her one. She welcomed prayer. She was fairly quiet, overshadowed by her opinionated relative, but I liked her right away and told her I would look forward to seeing her again.
It wasn’t long before everyone realized the caregiving situation in the apartment wasn’t going to work. Even though Shirley had other family members in town, some of them very capable, their other responsibilities prevented them from providing the continuous level of care she needed. She also had family in California, including a little grandchild she adored, but circumstances kept them far, far apart geographically.
Shirley went into the hospital while plans were developed, and she ended up agreeing to go a wonderful facility in town that takes indigent hospice patients. And there she thrived.
She enjoyed the communal dining table where she could sit with the other residents and visit. The staff grew to love her and did a stellar job caring for her. The relatives she had in town also visited. One of our team members developed a strong bond with her and went often to see her. Shirley talked to her California family on the phone regularly and kept up with her grandchild’s growth and activities through pictures.
But Shirley only and always wanted one thing: to go home. She told that to our team members on almost every visit. And the longer she remained a hospice patient, the more she felt that way. Her disease progressed slowly through many ups and downs. Over time, more and more pictures of her little grandchild out west went up on her wall.
She slept a lot and there were long stretches, months at a time, when I would visit and never get a chance to really talk with her. She gained a lot of weight from the good food, lack of activity, the nature of her disease, and loneliness. I think it was easier for her to sleep.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, there came a time when Shirley perked up and became more herself. On one of my last visits, she was sitting on the side of her bed and a big smile came across her face. “I told the nurse I was hoping you’d come by!” she exclaimed. “I’ve been wanting to see my enthusiastic chaplain!”
She was as animated, conversant, and full of smiles as I’d ever seen her that day. I showed her pictures of my grandkids while she talked about her little one so far away. He would be coming to visit in a few weeks, and she couldn’t wait. She talked to him almost every day on the phone in anticipation.
That was on a Monday. By Thursday, to everyone’s surprise, she had slipped into a coma and was actively dying. I sat at her bedside and said prayers until a couple of family members arrived. I excused myself so they could have time with her. I went out to the foyer and sat at a table to do my paperwork. In a few minutes, I saw them walk out the door.
On Friday night Shirley died. Her family decided not to come to the facility. When I came back to work on Monday, I learned of her death and for the next several days I searched the obituaries, contacted funeral homes, and tried to call her family to find out the arrangements. All to no avail. At the end of the week, I finally got ahold of the relative who had lived with her in her apartment, back when we first met. There would be no service, she said.
Wednesdays with James Lesson Nine: Are you not discriminating among yourselves?
We enter the central section of the Epistle of James today. In the body of this encyclical, the author takes up the three themes he introduced in chapter one, addressing them in more detail in reverse order.
James begins with matters related to relations between the rich and the poor in chapter 2.
My brothers and sisters, as you practice the faith of our Lord Jesus, the anointed king of glory, you must do so without favoritism. What I mean is this: if someone comes into your assembly wearing gold rings, all dressed up, and a poor person comes in wearing shabby clothes, you cast your eyes over the person wearing fine clothes and say, “Please! Have a seat up here!” but then you turn to the poor person and say, “Stand there!” or, “Get down there by my footstool!” When you do this, are you not discriminating among yourselves? Are you not turning into judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters. Isn’t it the case that God has chosen the poor (as the world sees it) to be rich in faith, and to inherit the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. After all, who are the rich? The rich are the ones who lord it over you and drag you into court, aren’t they? The rich are the ones who blaspheme the wonderful name which has been pronounced over you, aren’t they? Supposing, however, you keep the royal law, as it is written, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”; if you do this, you will do well. But if you show favoritism, you are committing sin, and you will be convicted by the law as a lawbreaker. Anyone who keeps the whole law, you see, but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it. For the one who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” So if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act in such a way as people who are going to be judged by the law of freedom. Judgment is without mercy, you see, for those who have shown no mercy. But mercy triumphs over judgment.
• James 2:1-13, KNT
Why does James bring up the subject of favoritism here?
It seems that the recipients of this letter were primarily poor Jewish-Christian believers scattered in communities throughout Palestine and perhaps beyond. There were also, it appears, at least a few well to do members of the congregation, as well as other wealthy landowners in the region. However, most of them were relatively impoverished, working for powerful employers who were taking advantage of them in various ways.
Imagine yourself in that situation and think about what it must have been like to be in a position of virtual servitude, treated as inferior and expendable. Then one day, a prominent landowner deigns to attend your assembly. On the one hand, you probably resent his presence, but on the other hand you see an opportunity. Perhaps if you treat him with special courtesy and honor, it will make life easier for you. Maybe he will remember you the next time he is looking for help, or at least might think twice before punishing you. Some preferential treatment might be a wise move and relieve a little of the daily stress.
So, when he comes into the assembly you spot your chance. You take him by the arm and escort him to the best seat. Another visitor, a poor worker, is sitting there already, dressed shabbily, looking like the lower class person he is. You shoo him out of the seat and point to the back, directing him to the standing section or to the lower floor seats. You brush off the dust he left on the good seat and put on your best manners as you welcome the rich man and make yourself available should he have other needs during the service.
In his commentary, Peter Davids suggests this text might reflect an even more tempting situation. He thinks that James is describing, not a worship gathering, but a judicial assembly, a “church court” in which impartial verdicts for people with community complaints would be rendered. The “judgment” language pervasive throughout this passage seems to support a meeting in which decisions are made. If this is the context, the community is pandering to the rich and making unjust decisions in their favor, at the expense of their poor brethren.
The point is, James doesn’t just bring up the subject of favoritism out of thin air. Something like one of these scenarios must have been taking place in the congregations of exiles he was addressing. And he finds it unacceptable for people of faith to act this way.
Jesus did not discriminate between people based on human class standards. That’s what you just did.
Jesus pronounced blessings upon the poor. You have dishonored the poor person.
In fact, Jesus made it a point to prefer the poor, not because they are better or more important, but to make it clear that God loves even those we consider unworthy. However, your actions suggest that rich people are more important and that “the way the world works” is the standard Christians should follow.
Jesus was never afraid to point out the oppressive sins of the rich and powerful. But you have conveniently forgotten them, hoping that your favoritism will win them over and bring you favors.
Jesus taught you simply to love your neighbor as yourself, remembering that you are loved by God. Your actions show that you don’t get that. You have acted in a judgmental way toward the poor man and have shown unwarranted deference to the rich. This is not what God’s word teaches us. You have failed to follow your Father’s instructions (law, or torah).
In my experience, which has mostly been in small town and suburban congregations, this is one of the great unspoken sins of American Christianity.
Some groups (the Assemblies of God come to mind, as well as many inner city missions and congregations) understand the power of this teaching and seek to level the playing field between people of different socio-economic contexts.
But the suburban churches with which I’m familiar don’t even recognize that there’s a problem here.
I’ve heard people who have attended a church for awhile complain to the pastor that they cannot become members because too many in the congregation come from the “other side of the tracks” and it makes them feel uncomfortable so they’re leaving.
I have watched parents pull their children from youth groups because the youth pastor was including unchurched teens from less desirable neighborhoods.
I have seen church people resist getting involved with unwed mothers and needy families from local ministries like pregnancy centers and shelters. They are happy to have the parachurch ministry care for them at their facility, but they resist having them become part of the congregation in any significant way.
I have witnessed congregations who are willing to take in a “token” poor family and minister to them. This makes them feel good, as long as they remain the “givers” and the poor can be their “project.” But they never seem to accept them as equals.
And we haven’t even begun to talk about racial, ethnic, language, or lifestyle differences and how middle and upper-middle class American Christians struggle with accepting true diversity and equality in the church.
Almost every day now, as a hospice chaplain I walk into neighborhoods and homes that I know most of the congregants with whom I’ve rubbed shoulders would recoil from. Frankly, sometimes I do too. So conditioned am I by the comfortable station of life with which I’ve been blessed that I must regularly ask God for the grace to love my neighbor as myself, without a hint of partiality or prejudice.
As Peter Davids says in his summary of this text:
James clearly believes that the poor have a very important place in the church because of the leveling effect of the Christian gospel. True faith has no place for the social distinctions of the world. In fact, if a Christian [church] should so much as consider these distinctions, it becomes by that act evil and sides with the wealthy who persecute Christians.
But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins.For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous. God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful grace became more abundant.So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful grace rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
• Romans 5:15-21, New Living Translation
• • •
In a recent sermon by Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist in Dallas, he said the following:
Listen to me. When you die, you don’t cease to exist. Your spirit is going to live forever. Everybody’s spirit lives forever. It doesn’t matter what you believe. Jew, atheist, Muslim, Catholic, Baptist. Everybody’s going to live forever.
Some are going to live forever in heaven, with God. Others, the majority of people, will be in hell, separated from God. But we live on, after our bodies fall asleep. That’s what the Bible says.
This post is not a knock on Pastor Jeffress in particular. What he said represents mainstream Christian evangelical and fundamentalist teaching. But when I read those words, I gasped, and the thought came immediately to my mind: “If this is true, then the gospel of Jesus is not good news.”
Here’s the line over which I stumbled: “Some are going to live forever in heaven, with God. Others, the majority of people, will be in hell, separated from God.”
The majority of people.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Can it really be that most people who’ve ever lived will be condemned to hell? That is staggering.
What makes it even more astounding to me is that the preacher said it as a passing phrase on the way to making his main points. As though this is just understood, axiomatic, the clear expectation of anyone who reads the plain teaching of the Bible. A few of us happy with God in heaven, the vast majority in hell.
And what will that place be like? Jeffress describes hell in another message as “a place of eternal physical torment, of excruciating physical torment.” He puts it this way: “Ladies and gentlemen, the awful truth about hell is this: when you have spent ten billion, trillion years in that excruciating pain, you will not have lessened by one second the time you have left to spend there.” He believes the flames of the fires of hell are literal, but warns us that if the Bible is using figurative language it must actually be even more terrible, because the only comparison Jesus could make to it was of human beings being burned in fire forever and ever.
If that’s what you believe hell is, how can you make a passing remark in a sermon saying that the majority of people in this world are going to go there? Wouldn’t that stick in your throat, make you choke up, utterly devastate you and keep you from saying anything else?
How can that thought not drop you dead in your tracks? How can such an image not force you to question everything you think you know about God? How can the prospect not send you running back to the Bible to scour its pages until you’ve ripped them and torn them to shreds in a desperate effort to find some other way of understanding your “gospel”?
That is not good news, and it stupefies me to think it would be to anyone else.
I also don’t think it matches the vision of “superabounding” grace Paul sets forth in Romans 5 (see above). I can’t tell you how it all works out, but the apostle’s unambiguous point is this: whatever sin has wrought, grace accomplishes much more. Whatever terrible consequences Adam brought upon us are overwhelmed by the results of Jesus’ gracious actions.
“Even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness,” Paul exclaims. Or, as the older versions put it, “much more.” That’s what God’s grace in Jesus does — much more.
The scriptures envision that this triumph of grace will culminate in a new creation, populated by vast multitudes no person can count (Rev. 7:9). This has been the anticipation of the faithful ever since God promised Abraham descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand upon the seashore.
It greatly diminishes the grace of God and the great victory of our Lord Jesus Christ to argue the opposite: that only a remnant will be with God while the majority of humans are lost to him. How can anyone call this victory? How can that offer any hope worth having? It is not good news.
Even John Calvin, infamous for his strict doctrine of predestination, sees Paul’s logic here, saying that the grace of Christ “belongs to a greater number than the condemnation contracted by the first man, for if the fall of Adam had the effect of producing the ruin of many, the grace of God is much more efficacious in benefiting many, since it is granted that Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to destroy.”
A later Reformed scholar, C.H. Hodge agreed: “the number of the saved shall doubtless greatly exceed the number of the lost,” he wrote. Hodge suggested we might grasp the proportion by comparing the general population with the much smaller number who are imprisoned.
I suggest, along with Hans Urs von Balthasar and Richard John Neuhaus, that we might even hope (without asserting as doctrine or certainty) that in the end, perhaps all people will be saved. These things we can never know for certain. But if I’m going to place my bets, I will go with the just grace and mercy of God every time.
Ultimately, I think the problem with the standard evangelical/fundamentalist view represented by Jeffress and others is the soterian nature of the gospel they proclaim. As we have argued often, it is a revivalistic gospel for individuals, grounded most deeply in modern notions of individual choice and autonomy rather than in the gracious Kingdom vision of the Bible, which tells of the God who brings all creation under the authority of King Jesus (Eph. 1:10).
Too often we think of hope in too individualistic a manner as merely our personal salvation. But hope essentially bears on the great actions of God concerning the whole of creation. It bears on the destiny of all mankind. It is the salvation of the world that we await. In reality hope bears on the salvation of all men—and it is only in the measure that I am immersed in them that it bears on me.
Note from CM: One of the chief characteristics of Michael Spencer’s life, ministry, and writing was his emphasis on grace. Over the next season here on IM, we will draw from his writings on the subject and re-present it on Mondays.
• • •
Lots of times, there’s something I want to write about, but it’s just too close to the real world where I live and work, so I have to find a way to not put something out here that’s going to get me in more trouble than I’ve already been in over this blog.
But seriously, I need to say this: You have to trust the Gospel to do what it says it promises to do.
We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (I Thessalonians 1:2-10)
You have to preach the gospel and trust it to the work it should do.
Two mistakes to avoid:
1) Making your own agenda the “to do” list for the Holy Spirit. That’s a big leap: I want it to happen to God wants it to happen.
2) Turning to other motivations- like guilt, condemnation, guilt, manipulation and guilt- to get the work done.
Really. This is so important and so true.
If the Holy Spirit isn’t going to produce it by constant, earnest presentation of the Gospel to the people of God, then does it need to happen?
And if the Holy Spirit isn’t the primary motivator, how can other motivations- like guilt and condemnation- actually do anything worthwhile?
I love Paul’s advice in Ephesians 6. Take up the whole armor of God…and having done all, just stand there.
That’s so good. Put on God’s resources, God’s vision, God’s heart. Do all that the Gospel commands and demands.
Then do nothing. Stand.
We take this and do something like this:
We use some of God’s resources, and things don’t go the way we want. So we start doing things our way, and finding what does work. Or we just get frustrated and start beating ourselves and other people up with guilt and condemnation for what’s not happening. They we are upset at people, ourselves and God because nothing’s working.
Scripture has a better way. Stay with the Gospel. Speak the truth in love. Design a path of radical loyalty to Christ, specific repentance and clear obedience. Does those things and do them God’s way.
Then stand.
I believe that part of the method of Paul in I Thessalonians was to do his ministry God’s way and to then look for the resulting work of the Holy Spirit and to encourage God’s people with what he saw the Spirit doing.
Even when Paul is strongly correcting the church, he does so from the standpoint of the grace of God in the Gospel, never by resorting to guilt.
That’s very different from setting the agenda, living in frustration that things aren’t working, then resorting to beating up yourself and other Christians in hopes something will change.
Life is too short, folks. Grace is the good stuff. Stay with it. Don’t quit and take the road back to legalism as so many do. Preach yourself happy in God, then encourage, persuade and exhort God’s people in the grace of Jesus.
The house had gone to bring again
To the midnight sky a sunset glow.
Now the chimney was all of the house that stood,
Like a pistil after the petals go.
The barn opposed across the way,
That would have joined the house in flame
Had it been the will of the wind, was left
To bear forsaken the place’s name.
No more it opened with all one end
For teams that came by the stony road
To drum on the floor with scurrying hoofs
And brush the mow with the summer load.
The birds that came to it through the air
At broken windows flew out and in,
Their murmur more like the sigh we sigh
From too much dwelling on what has been.
Yet for them the lilac renewed its leaf,
And the aged elm, though touched with fire;
And the dry pump flung up an awkward arm;
And the fence post carried a strand of wire.
For them there was really nothing sad.
But though they rejoiced in the nest they kept,
One had to be versed in country things
Not to believe the phoebes wept.
There are a lot of us whose faith in the American political system is running low these days. It’s almost like we’re being sold AMC Gremlins again. Gosh, that was a bad (and ugly!) car. But not as bad (and ugly!) as the political campaign is about to get, now that the conventions are over.
This past week, the Blue Team met in Philadelphia for their quadrennial soirée. Like last Saturday, when we discussed the Red Team in action, we’ll give some attention this morning to what happened in the city of brotherly love, while also rambling a bit farther afield to see what else we can find that’s of interest at the end of this eventful week.
Let’s ramble!
You didn’t think this was going to be another Summer of Love did you?
Before anyone could down the first cheesesteak in Philly, Wikileaks revealed emails from the DNC that that they had (gasp! horror! surprise! wink-wink!) undercut the primary campaign of Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton in order to secure the nomination for her. The Dems National Committee, of course, is supposed to stay neutral (nudge-nudge! say no more!) The site says:
Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.
The Washington Wire blog of the Wall Street Journal highlighted twelve of these emails, including some that mock Sanders, talk about questioning his religion as a strategy for hurting his chances, and discuss floating an entire negative narrative about Sanders and his campaign to discredit him.
It was was the last straw for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who announced Sunday afternoon her resignation as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. At first, she said she would resign after the convention, but she was booed so heartily by delegates from her own state on Monday morning before the convention started, that she decided not to gavel in the proceedings and resigned right away.
But an even bigger story was yet to come, thanks to foreign intrigue and some guy from the Red Team sticking his nose in it.
No one knows who gave the Dems’ emails to Wikileaks, but the hacks, according to NPR, were likely done by the Russian FSB intelligence agency (code name “Cozy Bear”). The other breach was identified as coming from “Fancy Bear,” which marks it as the work of Russian military intelligence.
As late as Friday, the Democratic National Committee was still finding more evidence of tampering with their computer systems.
Given the nature of the emails, it led to all kinds of speculation about Russia sticking their big ol’ bear nose into an American presidential election and trying to help Mr. Trump win. Word is that Vladimir Putin despises Hillary Clinton, and there was a gaggle of jabber about whether or not Mr. Trump or his associates have ties in Russia that might implicate them. Also, the Republican candidate has made some…uh…unusual comments about Russia lately, and his campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, a position that goes against current military and foreign policy positions.
And then there was Mr. Trump’s press conference. Now it is traditional during convention weeks that the candidate on the other side usually “goes dark” and avoids news making statements or actions. But not in 2016. Mr. Trump stepped up to the lectern and said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” referring to deleted emails from the private email server Mrs. Clinton used while she was Secretary of State. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Talk about a love-fest sh*t-storm! My goodness, the skies broke loose after that with showers of praise condemnation for Mr. Trump’s remarks, which he later said fell into the category of “sarcasm.”
My humble opinion is that Mr. Trump would do us all a favor after he speaks — anywhere, anytime — of just saying afterwards, “You know folks, sometimes I just say sh*t. Don’t worry about it.”
Have I been saying “sh*t” too much? You know, I need a break already. Let’s pause and take a quick look at what a political convention is really all about —
FUNNY HATS!!!
And one stunning outfit from “Heidis for Hillary”…
Now, where were we? Oh yeah, there was a convention in Philadelphia this past week.
My superficial observations:
Michelle “The White House Mama” Obama rocked the house.
Her husband did ok too.
Hillary’s husband Bill (the former president) told how he picked her up in a library after they’d made goo-goo eyes at each other (nudge-nudge, know what I mean? say no more!). And by the way, did the former president look 90+ years old to you like he did to me? (It’s the miles, not the years.)
Mrs. Clinton made history as the first female major party nominee for president (though others have run before — for example, here’s twelve).
Funny, I didn’t hear much about Bernie after the second day, when the love-fest for Mrs. Clinton got rolling.
Seeing both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton on stage led a lot of people to ask: What in the world are we going to do with Bill if Hillary becomes president?
An article in the NY Times considers the tricky situation a Hillary presidency might create. Mrs. Clinton’s staff has said he will not become a regular at cabinet meetings. He will not be invited into the Situation Room. He will step away from his family’s foundation work and it’s possible he won’t even have an office in the West Wing. What wife wants that guy looking over her shoulder while she’s trying to work?
The article also notes that the Clinton team wants to see Bill doing something meaningful, since seasons of relative inactivity have provided opportunities for Mr. Clinton to get in trouble in the past. I can’t imagine there’s anything Hillary would like less than repeat performances of some of those embarrassing scenarios.
Putting Mr. Clinton to good use, while containing his less helpful impulses, would be a major test for Mrs. Clinton as president, given the spotlight and pressure they would be under and her limited ability in the past to rein in his excesses. Mrs. Clinton sees him as her most trusted confidant and sounding board on national security and the economy, advisers say; one recalled a recent golf outing where Mr. Clinton received several phone calls and emails from Mrs. Clinton before reaching the 14th hole.
Yet Mrs. Clinton is still not sure if she would give a formal position to Mr. Clinton or rely on him to help behind the scenes and keep a low profile, aides say. She clearly wants him busy: Appearing on “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton said that it would be “an all-hands-on-deck time” if she won the presidency and that she would rely on Mr. Clinton — as well as President Obama — and “put ’em all to work.”
At the same time, she emphasized that she and Mr. Clinton would not be co-presidents, leaving open the question of how he would spend his days when he is so close to the levers of power that he knows well.
With Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, Christianity Today decided to trace “The Deep Roots of Our Hillary Hostility.” If you follow the link, you’ll find a 45-minute podcast discussing this, with a summary article.
They are speaking of evangelicals when they say “our.” A recent Pew survey showed only 16% of evangelicals said they would vote for her. And a number of those said they would only do so because they dislike Donald Trump more.
One of the contributors to this feature, Alan Noble, an English professor at Oklahoma Baptist University, says he remembers listening to talk radio disparaging Clinton back when he was a kid in the ’90s.
“Every time I [hear] the name Clinton,” Noble said, “there’s all this baggage, rhetoric, language, fear, anxiety, corruption, sliminess, conniving, big government baked into me [from when I was a child].”
Though Clinton claims that her faith has always informed her commitment to public service, many of the stances she has taken have been opposite to American evangelicals, many of whom became known as “the Christian Right” by virtue of their opposition to those political positions.
I haven’t listened to the full podcast, but in my opinion there is more to be concerned about with regard to Mrs. Clinton than her positions on a few specific social issues, but these are matters that don’t always draw the ire of the evangelical crowd. Evangelicalism tends to be as shallow in what it opposes as in what it affirms.
Seen on Facebook this week.
Worth pondering.
Most Christians on this planet are NOT American.
That means they’re Christians w/out being Republicans, Democrats or even capitalists. (Keith Giles)
The article points out that the convention in Philadelphia had a good share of attendees who see supporting the Democratic party as a matter of acting on their faith. However, despite intentional efforts to close the “God gap” between the Republicans and Democrats since John Kerry’s defeat in 2004, this year, the Democratic leadership has downplayed the role of faith-based participants in the process of drafting the party platform and helping to shape the campaign message Mrs. Clinton.
Privately, many expressed anger at this development, which they say is a departure from the party’s earlier efforts to heed the concerns of religious believers — concerns they say could attract undecided voters and those disillusioned with what they see as the dark and divisive language from Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Previous Democratic efforts to attract faith-based voters began in earnest after the failed 2004 campaign of nominee John Kerry, when the so-called God gap — the glf between churchgoers who vote for the GOP as opposed to the Democrats — emerged as a glaring problem.
In 2008 and 2012, the Obama campaign was diligent about reaching out to people of faith and including faith-based activists and party regulars in the campaign and, subsequently, in the Obama administration.
Yet those efforts tailed off noticeably this year, which can only fuel the public’s growing impression that Democrats are more hostile to faith than the GOP is.
…Some delegates in Philadelphia said it’s time for the party to do more to change that dynamic. They said they are viewed too often with suspicion by party officials if they speak about faith or if they talk about hot-button moral issues such as abortion and religious freedom, or on behalf of faith-based programs or school choice.
“If we really are the inclusive party then we should include everyone,” said Paul Vallone, a New York City councilman and practicing Catholic who spoke after a breakfast meeting for the New York state delegation. “Everyone’s got to feel that they can bring their faith to this party and not feel ostracized for it. That still hasn’t happened. We really need to focus on that.”
One very visible person of faith that has gotten some attention is Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine, who went to a Jesuit school and spent time engaged in mission with the order in his youth. Here is an excerpt of his speech from the convention:
My parents, Al and Kathy, here tonight and going strong, they taught me about hard work and about kindness and most especially, about faith. I went to a Jesuit boys high school, Rockhurst High School.
(APPLAUSE)
Wow, that’s a big line for the Jesuits.
Now we had a motto in my school, “men for others.” And it was there that my faith became something vital. My north star for orienting my life. And when I left high school, I knew that I wanted to battle for social justice.
(APPLAUSE)
Like so many of you. Like so many of you.
That is why I took a year off from law school to volunteer with Jesuit missionaries in Honduras. I taught kids how to be welders and carpenters. (SPEAKING SPANISH), faith, family, and work. Faith, family, and work. (SPEAKING SPANISH).
And let me tell you what really struck me there, I got a firsthand look at a different system. A dictatorship. A dictatorship where a few people at the top had all the power and everybody else got left out.
Now that convinced me that we have got to advance opportunity for everybody, no matter where you come from, how much money you have, what you look like, how you worship or who you love.
Kaine’s speech sparked reaction from Catholics like Ross Douthat at the NY Times, who criticized him for his positions on abortion and gay marriage, etc., and said that Kaine’s loyalty to the Democrats has “erased any Catholic distinctiveness in his politics.”
Dispensationalist preachers used to have a standard line: “I know I’m going to heaven, either by the under-taker or by the upper-taker.” That is, by death or via the “rapture.”
Those of us who knew of Pastor LaHaye back in the day remember other books he wrote that were popular among the evangelical crowd. Many of us had our first experience of mixing psychology with the Bible through “The Spirit-Controlled Temperament,” the first book besides The Living Bible published by Tyndale House Publishers. And not a few church folks had their eyes opened by Tim and Beverly’s Christian sex manual, “The Act of Marriage,” an important book in the 1970’s wave of emphasis on the Christian family.
But it was with the “Left Behind” series that LaHaye gained most of his renown. The founder and president of Tim LaHaye Ministries and the PreTrib Research Center, LaHaye sold 62 million copies of the series, which he co-wrote with Jerry Jenkins. (You can read Jenkins’s tribute to LaHaye HERE.)
He has been at the heart of evangelical activism since the 1960’s, founding two accredited Christian high schools, a school system of 10 Christian schools, San Diego Christian College (formerly Christian Heritage College), and assisting Dr. Henry Morris in the founding of the Institute for Creation Research, the nation’s foremost exponent of creationist materials. He was also a very generous benefactor to other evangelical Christian institutions and causes.
Tim LaHaye was married for 69 years to Beverly, who became well known in her own right as the founder of Concerned Women for America, a conservative political advocacy group.
If there were a Mt. Rushmore for American evangelicalism in the late 20th century, Tim LaHaye would probably deserve a place on it.
Finally, I’m feeling kind of worn out and mellow after two weeks of political conventions. Let’s have something quiet and reflective for our music selection today.
I did NOT choose this song because of Hillary (though I’m sure her supporters would cheer using the title to express their feelings for her). I just think it is one of the loveliest covers of a Beatles’ song I’ve ever heard.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of my favorite musicians, Pat Metheny. Let it wash over you. And I promise — next week, no politics (nudge-nudge, say no more, say no more).
This week, what we are doing (instead of listening to me) is hearing and discussing quotes from Wendell Berry’s 2015 book, Our Only World: Ten Essays.
In our final post of thoughts from Berry, he meditates on Jesus’ words, “Take no thought for the morrow,” encouraging us to remember that, if something is right to do to make the future better, it is right to do now, for the present good.
• • •
There is in fact much at hand and in reach that is good, useful, encouraging, and full of promise, although we seem less and less inclined to attend to or value what is at hand. We are always ready to set aside our present life, even our present happiness, to peruse the menu of future exterminations. If the future is threatened by the present, which it undoubtedly is, then the present is more threatened, and often is annihilated, by the future. “Oh, oh, oh,” cry the funerary experts, looking ahead through their black veils. “Life as we know it soon will end. If the governments don’t stop us, we’re going to destroy the world. The time is coming when we will have to do something to save the world. The time is coming when it will be too late to save the world. Oh, oh, oh.” If that is the way our minds are afflicted, we and our world are dead already. The present is going by and we are not in it. Maybe when the present is past, we will enjoy sitting in dark rooms and looking at pictures of it, even as the present keeps arriving in our absence. Or maybe we could give up saving the world and start to live savingly in it.
…Only the present good is good. It is the presence of good — good work, good thoughts, good acts, good places — by which we know that the present does not have to be a nightmare of the future. “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” because, if not at hand, it is nowhere.
and 
One very visible person of faith that has gotten some attention is Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine, who went to a Jesuit school and spent time engaged in mission with the order in his youth. Here is an excerpt of 
.
There is in fact much at hand and in reach that is good, useful, encouraging, and full of promise, although we seem less and less inclined to attend to or value what is at hand. We are always ready to set aside our present life, even our present happiness, to peruse the menu of future exterminations. If the future is threatened by the present, which it undoubtedly is, then the present is more threatened, and often is annihilated, by the future. “Oh, oh, oh,” cry the funerary experts, looking ahead through their black veils. “Life as we know it soon will end. If the governments don’t stop us, we’re going to destroy the world. The time is coming when we will have to do something to save the world. The time is coming when it will be too late to save the world. Oh, oh, oh.” If that is the way our minds are afflicted, we and our world are dead already. The present is going by and we are not in it. Maybe when the present is past, we will enjoy sitting in dark rooms and looking at pictures of it, even as the present keeps arriving in our absence. Or maybe we could give up saving the world and start to live savingly in it.
The Internet Monk Archives 