History to Ponder Today

Since I first read and studied the Theological Declaration of Barmen in graduate school fifty-plus years ago, I have repeatedly encouraged Christians and churches in our timed should revisit and pay close attention to it. I am convinced we need the reminder that the threat to authentic Christian faith and discipleship in the 30s was not being tortured into denying Christ by atheistic forces but by the fellow church members and respected church leaders who were linking church with nationalism. The Theological Declaration of Barmen (sacred-texts.com)

 I also believe we would all benefit from understanding the Beer Hall Putsch of November 8-9, 1923 when about 2,000 Nazis marched on the Feldherrnhalle in a failed attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic government. Fourteen Nazis were killed, and four police officers were killed. Hitler and others were imprisoned. Hitler’s highly publicized trial lasted 24 days and gave him a platform to articulate his nationalist agenda which launched his crusade (Mein Kampf  which he dictated while in prison) that propelled the popular Nazi takeover of the government. In our time “Nazi” has a distinctly negative even evil connotation (some on the political right even attempt to label others on the political left as “Nazis”), but at the time many in Germany saw it as a movement to restore national pride and dignity after the embarrassment of losing World War I (The Great War/War to End All Wars) and the weak Weimar Republic.

 I also believe we would do well to revisit and refresh our understanding of Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938 when a Nazi pogrom broke windows of Jewish businesses, synagogues, and homes. Though not an official government action, the government did nothing to restrain the effort that came to symbolize antisemitism. Again, Kristallnacht is remembered as evil, but at the time it was regarded as patriotic.

 I am all too aware that hurling historic labels at present day activities and expressions that we don’t like is a dubious enterprise. Details and dynamics differ enough that drawing too close parallels is dangerous and misleading. Nevertheless, I do think these sorts of pieces of history do caution us about how easily popular ideas that sound noble are mobilized for untoward even evil purposes.

 

Witch Hunt

What if a supposed witch hunt is actually dealing with a witch? But the presumed subject is not the witch. Rather, like the weird sisters who lure Macbeth to his doom, the witches are metaphorical personifications of human vulnerabilities.

The Law of the Medes and the Persians

The Law of the Medes and the Persians

“The Law of the Medes and the Persians” has come to imply a rigid rule applied without flexibility for circumstances. It is mentioned in Daniel 6:8, 12, 15. Without getting sidetracked into historical scholarship, I have thought it a step forward in the understanding of law in the era of autocratic despots. Yes, the king/emperor issued binding decrees, but they were binding on him as well. To me this validates the principle we depend on in our time that no one is above the law, no matter how much status or authority they have.

As a Sunday school story, the emphasis was how God rewarded Daniel for his faithfulness by rescuing him from the lions. Perhaps less obvious but very important through the millennia since the time of Daniel, is the danger of ego driven leaders. Daniel’s jealous enemies appealed to Darius’ ego to entice him to promulgate a law unjustly targeting Daniel and compelling him to enforce it against his better judgment.

Who Is the Real RINO?

Political identities are always in flux and being reshaped. As I was coming of age the Republican Party was known for it “big tent.” It included the likes of Nelson Rockefeller, John Anderson, and Mark Hatfield. After the Civil War/War Between the States reactions to the then new Republican party’s role in the war and in ending slavery, the Democratic Party had pretty much of a lock on the Southern States, even as it moved in a more liberal direction with FDR. These were (sometimes derisively) known as Dixiecrats. This profile began to shift considerably with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and Reagan’s “Revolution.” After that came efforts to bring pure conservatism to the Republican Party.  In the 1990s the label “Republicans in name only” began to be used to exclude those left from the “big tent” days. A cursory check suggested that RINO was first used in print in 1992 to identify those who were deemed not sufficiently conservative. In the post-Trump era, RINO seems to have been redefined as those who are not sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump rather than adherence to conservative political philosophy. That Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have been labeled as RINOs is evidence of this, as their political philosophy and records are impeccably conservative. In my mind, as something of an outsider to the Republican Party (I am also an outsider to the Democratic Party), Donald Trump seems more of a RINO as he clearly puts his own ego ahead to the good of the party, the nation, or any sort of consistent political or ethical principles.

Added September 5, 2022

As the midterm elections approach in the midst of the turmoil about the documents Donald Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, it is clear that he does not care about the Republican Party much less the country, but only about being the center of attention which his ego seems to crave whether the attention is positive or not.

My opinion is that complaining about the timing of the FBI retrieving the purloined documents is bunk! It would not be an issue if they had never been taken but turned over to the National Archives as long tradition and the 1978 Presidential Records Act. Failing that, they could all have been turned over when they were first missed and requested. Failing that they could have been all turned over with the first visit to Mar-a-Lago that retrieved some of them (while even more were "hidden"). Failing that they could all have been turned over when the subpoena for their return was issued. Any one of those would not only have eliminated the growing stain on Trump's integrity (if he has any), it would have entirely prevented the timing from being associated with the midterm elections. My opinion, again, is that Trump (and those who seem to me to be mindlessly defending him) has only himself to blame for this debacle. 

It would seem that the Republican Party would be well served by severing relationship with Trump, and by triggering his vicious vengeance, expose his true character. I think after enduring his bluster and wrath, they'd be better off.

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

 This may be a bit premature, but I wanted to get it posted with a date before outcomes were public. My thought is prompted by making public the recording (attr to) Steve Bannon that Trump had planned before election day to declare himself winner early, regardless of the outcome and use that as leverage to derail the counting of mail in ballots, etc. With what has been coming out in the TV interviews/reports from the January 6 committee, Trump's standing in the GOP seems to be weakening, at least some. Not exact words, but I am getting the sense of some of the "never-Trump" conservatives and Republicans are thinking if not saying, "We told you so." With my observation of Trump's whole career, and specifically his responses on election night, I think the real question is: Why is anyone surprised?!"

Reservations about Fireworks

 Before articulating my reservations, I want to be clear that I understand that since their invention in Asia, fireworks have been instruments of celebration and joy for centuries. Spectacular aerial color displays evoke oohs and ahs and loud bangs and bottle rockets in back yards thrill amateurs. Warnings about dangerous eye and hand injuries begin to appear right after Christmas and Flag Day. Yet, every year emergency rooms are crowed with accidents. Having had dogs who hid in the bathtub at the first bangs of New Year’s and Fourth of July, I sympathetic to the suggestions to be sensitive to animals in fireworks seasons.

 I am sure I heard The Star Spangled Banner at things like sporting events when I was younger, but my first memory is learning it in junior high orchestra to play at the opening of concerts. As a percussionist, I enjoyed getting the cymbals for the big crashes between phrases. That seemed to express “the bombs bursting in air.” At about thirteen years old, I began to associate the line about rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting with Fourth of July fireworks. Through my adolescence this association grew into some misgivings about what we were celebrating. Was it the joy of independence from Britain or was it bragging on US military power? As my peace ethic formed as a young adult, I became increasingly uncomfortable with fireworks as a celebration of war, but I have no interest in debating my thirteen year old observation about fireworks.

 Though a few freelance fireworks were set off in our neighborhood this year, several of the local official fireworks displays in our area were canceled this year due to wet weather. The dogs, my wife, and I noticed and appreciated a quieter Fourth of July. Which got me thinking again about the significance of the way we celebrate a number of historical events.

 This year I noticed something else for the first time that took my Fourth of July pondering in a parallel but different direction. On social media a number of people posted a variety of messages with the theme of: “Your holiday weekend was brought to you by citizens with guns.” These were clearly positioned as pro-gun rights messages. Though my values do not share that perspective, I believe they are right. Guns, war, and violent force as means of achieving goals and resolving problems have been intrinsic to US history from the founding of the country.

 What made me particularly uncomfortable is the connection between the proliferation of all sorts of firearms in our time (that would have been unimaginable in 1776) with the celebration of US independence from Britain. I cringe at the increasing rhetoric that suggests and even seems to welcome and promote armed resistance toward those whose perspectives and behaviors feel threatening. While I don’t want to debate a compare and contrast between Black Lives Matter and the events of January 6, 2021, violent force figures in those and other current movements.

 As a society we seem to be moving past violence on the margins to advocating violence in the mainstream calling for an armed revolution. As a US citizen, such attitudes and rhetoric cause me to question the future of our country. As one who aspires to follow Jesus on the path of peace and even love for enemies, I am compelled to distinguish myself from the advocacy of violent force. I am not objecting to fireworks or guns per se, but I believe I am discerning a deep moral disease eating away at not only the US but the witness of those of us who bear the name of Jesus.

Remembering the 2016 Republican presidential debates and primaries, nothing in the wake of the 2020 election and everything surrounding January 6, 2021 surprises me at all.

 Remembering the 2016 Republican presidential debates and primaries, nothing in the wake of the 2020 election and everything surrounding January 6, 2021 surprises me at all.