Spiritual wickedness in high places

A little less that two thousand years ago the Romans executed someone at the request of the local authorities. They didn’t see the person as much of a threat, but they were happy to oblige those Jews that helped keep the peace in this sleepy little backwater province of the Roman Empire. Pilate, knowing that the normal Roman practice of leaving the dead bodies to rot on the cross was objectionable to the Jews particularly on a religious holiday, allowed a man of substance to take the body. In keeping with Jewish custom, the body was buried in a new tomb in order to avoid the familial stigma associated with being executed as a criminal.

Then something incredible happened. After three days, the man that had been killed by the Romans, got back up. He somehow got out of the burial wrappings. He found the strength to roll the large stone away from the entrance to the solid rock tomb. He walked off under his own power.

I don’t think that there is any question that this person was dead. His heart had stopped beating. He had stopped breathing. It is likely that most of the blood had drained out of his body from his many wounds and a spear through the heart. Given all of that, it is also likely that if we had modern instruments, no brain waves would have been detected. Yet, he overcame those challenges without the aid of ER physicians, electric shocks to his heart, sutures, bandages, or transfusions.

He invited those who thought he was a ghost to examine his wounds to confirm that it was him. So clearly those wounds were still there including the most serious one on his side that pierced his heart. There was no mention of his walking funny like the Hollywood zombies. So he also seemed to recover from the beatings that he received. Yet he was able to move through the population without drawing attention to himself.

As far as his bodily functions, we know that he ate and drank, so we can probably assume that his digestive system also returned to some level of function. In fact he was able to walk a considerable distance during the time after his death.

How could this happen?

Were the laws of physics suspended?

I don’t know. You can pick the explanation that works for you.

Here’s what works for me.

On that day, the world changed. The most perfect man ever to walk the earth, born of a woman, learned through prayer how to overcome his own death. Not only that, but he promised that everyone who followed his teaching would be able to perform even greater works because the Christ that he embodied is reflected in all of us.  He was willing to go through all of this because it was the only way that he could prove that all that he said was true.  For that we owe him a debt of gratitude that we can only repay by following him.

I believe that we are just starting to scratch the surface of understanding the power of prayer. As we do, our sorrow will also turn to joy because the world for us will change just like it did for the apostles.

Happy Easter to all.

There was an interesting juxtaposition of political positions in the news again this week.

We had the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

President Bush marked the occasion with a speech in which he again claimed that, “removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision.” He touted military progress and the moral obligation to support the growth of democracy.

We saw the Chinese violently suppress opposition in Tibet.

President Bush remained silent other than to mention that the United States and China have a “complex relationship”.

A topic on which he did not remain silent, however, was the election in Taiwan. He was happy to express his preference of candidates. The incumbent, President Chen Shui-bian, had advocated application for membership in the UN and openly spoke of independence. President Bush condemned this policy as a futile provocation of the mainland. Chen was defeated by Ma Ying-jeou, a smooth Harvard law graduate who advocates better relations with China.

So on one hand, we justify the invasion of a sovereign country on the basis that their leader was a ruthless dictator who persecuted some of this citizens.  We have to stay at a cost that may reach three trillion dollars because our mission is to spread democracy. On the other hand, when a democratically elected official attempts to exercise that country’s right to independence from a repressive dictatorship, we object.

And you wonder why we are held in such low regard around the world.

Here’s a hint.

It’s not because we are Christian.

 “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” Matt 15:7-8

There appear to be two great sins in politics these days. The first sin is some public revelation of sexual immorality. This sin will get you in the paper, but you may be able to survive. The second is hypocrisy. That also by itself is not fatal as the current administration has proved. Commit both of these sins, however, and you are front page news and your career is over.

This isn’t anything new.

Gary Hart committed both of these sins when he challenged reporters to prove that he had been unfaithful to his wife. They did and it was the end of both his bid for the Presidency and his public life.

What really put an end to Newt Gingrich’s political career was the revelation that while he was savaging President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky he was engaged in a remarkably similar affair with a married woman.

Same thing with the conservative evangelical minister and Focus on the Family spokesperson, Ted Haggard. It was the combination of his relentless condemnation of homosexuals and an affair with a male prostitute that brought him down.

Governor Elliot Spitzer is the latest victim of this perfect storm of political bad news. He built his political career on his aggressive pursuit of white collar criminals and prostitution while spending an estimated $80K with a prostitute.

What I’m curious about is what this says about us as a country.

Why is this the untouchable third rail in US politics and not something more tangible like lying to the public, mismangement, graft, or corruption?

Infidelity doesn’t seem to bother the French. They just elected a man who was having an affair with a woman he recently married and the woman he just divorced admitted to a having an affair for two years prior to Sarkozy’s election while they still appeared in public as a married couple. The extramarital affairs of his predecessor Chirac were so well known that he often joked about them in public. But, at least in the case of Chirac, he publicly acknowledged his affairs thus avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy (with the obvious exception of his marriage vows).

Clearly all of the people involved in these incidents (men and women) displayed moral and ethical weakness, but why should this particular combination of weaknesses cause immediate and complete collapse of public trust only in this country?

Why do we immediately call with one voice for the resignation of people like Spitzer, for example, and tolerate a President who says that we don’t torture and then vetoes a bill making one particular form of torture (waterboarding) illegal?

Why do some in this country object to Senator Clinton as a candidate because of her husband’s past indiscretions, but continue to support the current President spending $12B a week in Iraq?

Why do we get all bent out of shape when the Mayor of Detroit’s affair (which he denied) is revealed through public disclosure of text messages, but support the President’s call for amnesty for the phone companies which allowed the government to illegally look at everyone’s text messages (and email, and phone conversations)?

All I can figure is that the hypocritical sex scandals seem so black and white. They appear so simple and the solutions so obvious. So we focus our attention on those rather than the real problems caused by our failure to hold our elected officials accountable for how they have been running our country.

Even in Jesus time, there were way more people willing to stone the adulteress than drive the money changers out the temple.

At the end of the day, does that make us the real hypocrites?

This is a story about the conflicts between private life and public life.

The story starts with a Boston area bankruptcy judge taking a walk on the wild side in New Hampshire while his wife was away for the weekend. In this case that involved cross dressing and visiting a popular gay bar. His only crime was that he had too much to drink and then got behind the wheel. The next thing he knew, there was a parked pickup truck on the hood of his Mercedes. The police said that they knew he was drunk because he passed out a couple of times and, “had a difficult time locating his license in his purse.”

He pleaded ‘no contest’ to a misdemeanor DUI charge and agreed to pay roughly $600 in penalties. He also agreed to a 12-month suspension of his judicial license and resigned the post President Bush appointed him to in 2004.

Here’s what’s sad to me about the whole thing.

From all accounts, he was a good judge in an area of law where we need good judges.

So, other than embarrassment, why did he have to resign?

My sense is if it had been a simple DUI, he probably wouldn’t have had to resign. Heck there are plenty of congressmen and senators over the past several years convicted of driving while under the influence who have continued to hold office. Recently defeated Senator Tommy Robertson just had his second DUI conviction. The judge had to resign because of the revelation that he was a transvestite. As a Republican, I submit that this is a far greater transgression than driving after having too much to drink.

If this person had chosen to show up for the job in fishnet stockings and an evening dress, you could make a strong case for him being unfit. The fact that this occurred on his own time at a place where he would not be recognized suggests that he is capable of discretion and shouldn’t be punished for anything more than just having too much to drink.

If J. Edgar Hoover could run the FBI for 48 years and occasionally wear women’s clothes, why not this guy?

“Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” Eph 5:6 

The President was on television again today telling half the story about the wiretap bill that the house refused to pass. 

Here’s the rest of the story. 

This is all about extending the President’s power to wiretap US citizens without court approval.  The President says that this is only about looking for terrorists, but the whistleblowers which brought this who issue to the public’s attention have testified that the equipment installed by the government at the phone companies allows the government to listen to all traffic that goes through the Internet.   

There is a law on the books which gives the President the ability to request spying on US citizens, but requires court approval.  The spy activity can begin before the approval is obtained, but the agency doing the spying must send a letter to the supervising court letting them know that they have begun the activity and will be seeking approval.  The FBI has already admitted that it so fumbled this process that it lost track of how many requests it had made, and as a result could not confirm that it was in compliance.  In other words they have already proven that they can’t be trusted to follow the legal process. 

The last shoe to drop in this whole process is immunity for the Telco’s which cooperated.  They knew that this was against the law, and are seeking immunity for breaking the law at the government’s request.  By the way, they didn’t all cooperate.  Qwest refused and lost some government contracts as a result.  The President had the gall to suggest that Congress had to provide immunity to make sure that these companies would cooperate in the future.  We don’t want them cooperating if it involves breaking the law.  We want these companies to be held liable, and as a result to hold the government liable to prove that all requests are compliant with the law.   Otherwise this all comes down to the big lie that this government has been telling for the past seven years.  Trust me.  I can’t tell you what I’m doing, but I’m doing it to protect you from terrorists. 

Democracy requires transparency.  Democracy requires that no one is above the law.  Democracy requires accountability.  

Without those things we have what we’ve been living through the past seven years.  Invasions based on “cooked” intelligence.  The VP insisting that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda when even the President was admitting that this was false.  Billions of dollars funneled to administration-connected companies.  Our President telling the world that we don’t torture only to later discover that his definition of torture didn’t include waterboarding.  Our Secretary of State telling the world that we didn’t have a secret interrogation process only later to admit that renditions continue to be a standard practice.  US Citizens imprisoned without access to lawyers or the ability to defend themselves against their accusers.  Widespread violations of human rights.  Widespread domestic spying.  The wounded and dead snuck back into this country under the cover of darkness.  The rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer. 

Trust me.  I can’t tell you what I’m doing, but I’m doing it to protect you from terrorists.       

“And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” I John 3:3 

I posted something earlier about the Republican race.  It’s probably appropriate to post something about the Democratic race too. 

The obvious historic nature of this race aside, there is something else special going on here.  This is a battle between the establishment forces of Senator Clinton and the “new world” forces of Senator Obama. 

Forty years ago, when the Viet Nam war was at it’s peak, I supported Eugene McCarthy in a similar run against an incumbent democrat, Lyndon Johnson.  The success that McCarthy had in New Hampshire led Johnson to announce that he wasn’t going to run for another term.  The way the party shut McCarthy out of the race in favor of Hubert Humphrey and our collective grief over Bobby Kennedy’s assassination sent many of us into the streets in Chicago for the famous police riots during the Democratic convention of 1968. 

This time things appear to be different.  This time there is real hope that the insurgent candidate, Obama, may actually have enough support from the party establishment to overcome the inherent bias for preserving the current order.  This time he seems to have enough money.  This time he seems wise enough to stay above the fray.  This time he not only has the support of the young, but also their parents, and minorities, and those who oppose the Iraq war.  This time he could very well do what McCarthy, and Anderson, and McGovern were unable to do in their runs for the White House.  He could win both the nomination and the Presidency.

Then we will see what sort of a President he will become. 

The Washington establishment will not take kindly to a wholesale dismantlement, but if he does win, he will bring that mandate of change with him.  The time may finally be over for attack politics and insider cynicism.  Maybe it is time for that old guard to step aside.  Maybe hope can foster change. 

We will know soon enough. 

In the meantime, the country will benefit from another generation of idealistic college kids investing their hearts and souls in the possibility that they can make a difference. 

Welcome. 

“A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8 

I continue to marvel at how well our political system seems to be working this year.  The voting public appears to be taking their responsibilities seriously.  They consistently demonstrate that they are going to make their decisions based on solid analysis of the candidates rather than the opinions of experts. 

The buzz word for this election cycle appears to be “authenticity”.  This is just another word for character and integrity. 

The latest candidate to fail this test is Mitt Romney.  In his case, it wasn’t because he was a bad guy.  From everyone that I’ve talked with, in his personal life, he is everything that he appears to be – a good husband, father, Mormon, and public servant.  The problem is that his ambition for public office led him to listen to his advisors regarding his public positions.  His clumsy attempts to appeal to the conservative wing of the Republican party made him appear opportunistic and hypocritical. 

The moderates and independents flocked to John McCain and the religious conservatives embraced Mike Huckabee.  Romney lost in a character contest to McCain.  He lost in a conservative religious contest to Huckabee.  He was vulnerable to attacks from both on his movement on the issues. 

Pundits are saying that Romney’s strategic error was to position himself for a fight against Giuliani which never materialized.  I think his strategic error was his fear that he had to become someone else in order to be elected.   

It is doubtful that Huckabee is going to be able to mount much of a campaign against John McCain, but stranger things have already happened, so it’s probably best to continue to let the rest of the primaries play themselves out. For his part, Romney will have at least four years to contemplate the mistakes that he made this time around.  If the Democrats win in November, I’m confident that we will see Mitt take another run at the Republican nomination in four years.  It will be interesting to see what he does over that time to improve his credibility with the voters.

 Well I guess it was inevitable. The CIA admitted waterboarding three al Qaida suspects during 2002 and 2003. The new attorney general will not open a criminal investigation. VP Cheney thinks that it was a good thing then and would be happy to do it again if necessary. CIA Chief Hayden thinks that waterboarding is now likely illegal under laws passed by Congress.

This is all coming out now because the next President (John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama) will enforce the law and finally establish for all agencies that this country does not torture and that waterboarding is torture. So those who have used this technique want to make it perfectly clear that they did so only with the authorization of the President.

What has happened to us?

We used to be a nation of laws.

We are now a nation of lawyers.

We used to be a nation founded on principle.

We are now a nation of fear and self-righteousness.

We call ourselves a Christian nation, but there is no Christ in this policy.

It is tempting to try to justify torturing a person to save the lives of others, but that cuts to the very core of moral principle.

God gives us simple choices. Love Him and love all of those around us.

We are the ones who try to make these choices complicated.

We make them complicated because we fear that doing what we know is right will somehow leave us vulnerable. It’s at that point that we have stopped listening to God and have started listening to our fears. Unfortunately our fears can drive us to the ultimate absurdity, we kill to save lives.  To my mind that is the ultimate act of cowardice.

Here’s how Jesus defined courage, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13.  What that means to me is that the greatest demonstration of love and courage is willingness to confront your own fears and remain commited to your values.  

My sincere hope is that the next election cycle delivers a leader who understands and can demonstrate this quality. 

The concept of the greater good has always been active in this country.  It does feel a little like moral relativism, but it is also a call to citizens to sacrifice their own individual goals for the benefit of a larger goal shared by a greater number of people.

Where this gets tough, however, is when the concept of the greater good bumps into what some people consider a moral absolute.  War is an example of that.  The current conflict in Iraq failed the Catholic Church’s “just war” standard and so it has been condemned by the US bishops and the Pope.  Still, many Catholics are serving in Iraq because they feel that their duty to their country is more important than their obligation to obey their church leaders.

Here’s another example that might hit a little closer to home for some. 

New studies indicate that the number of abortions in this country have dropped to its lowest level since 1974.  Some are suggesting that it is an answer to prayer.  When you look more closely, however, many believe that it is the result of relatively easy access to the “morning after” RU-486 pill.

So here’s the greater good thought exercise.

If it is true that easy access to RU-486 does dramatically reduce the need for the more invasive and expensive later term abortion, are those who oppose abortion also going to continue to oppose RU-486?

Roughly a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, most during the first three months.  This drug is generally prescribed during the first two months and induces the same sort of miscarriage.

So what is the greater good here?  A pharmaceutical solution to unwanted pregnancies which may be reducing demand for physician-performed abortions, or the fact that for some, any intentionally terminated pregnancy is unacceptable.

I read an excellent post from Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. You can read it for yourself at the First Amendment Center site.

The post talked about what Mr. Haynes saw as the two biggest threats to religious freedom in this country in the coming year.

The first was the conflation of religion and politics. The second was Islamophobia.

For Christians, they both come down to a simple discussion.

Is it ever appropriate for Christians to impose our particular moral or theological views on others?

In my mind this brings up the whole discussion of free will.

We Christians have a particular view of the how a life should be lived. Though we may differ in degree, what we all agree on is the Jesus embodied the Christ spirit which made him the most perfect man ever to walk the earth. Jesus Christ brought a message from God to man that everyone has an unending spiritual life and if you would like to experience that life it’s fullest, you have to accept the same Christ spirit. The embrace of that message and spirit, however, has to be voluntary to be meaningful.

So we have these things as basic common understandings, yet we also seem to have a very difficult time when people practice free will and reject those things that we feel are sacred. Some of us start to insist that what had been a set of beliefs must now become a set of laws. In the minds of some, sinful behavior (not to be confused with criminal behavior) should be illegal, even though it is the practice of free will. Some Christians feel it is their duty to protect people from themselves as if free will is dangerous if actually practiced.

In a similar vein, some Christians view the current cultural conflict between fundamentalist Muslims and western societies as a religious conflict. Just one example of that are the e-mail attacks directed at Barak Obama. Rather portray him as somehow inferior because of his racial background, the Internet whisper campaign suggests something much frightening. They accuse him of being a closet Muslim.

If he is the right person for the office, it shouldn’t matter what his religion is (he happens to be a Christian). Even the constitution says that. And if we Christians really believe in free will, why would we care if someone chooses to worship in a non-Christian way?

So at the end of the day, it turns out that the greatest threat to religious freedom in this country is us Christians. That’s because we are unwilling to give others the same key to salvation that our Creator gave us – the ability to choose our own path.