After January 6

 After Congress votes on the results of the Electoral College, who will be the targets of revenge, retribution, and retaliation? What form will it take?

Will there be calls for insurrection? Who will issue them? Who will respond and how?

Will there be a grand exit from the White House to distract from the inauguration? Or will there be an eviction?

Will the removed tenant trash the house? or trash the country? or even trash the GOP?

 How long before a third Trump divorce?

Four years ago Republicans lauded the wisdom of the Electoral College because it "protected" the country from a popular vote electing Hillary Clinton to be President. Now some Republicans are fighting to overthrow (or undermine) the Electoral College because they don't like the result. I find it sadly ironic and appalling that Republicans, who have been the vocal champions of civil order and the rule of law are investing so much energy in undermining trust in the very institutions they have claimed to revere. They are sowing distrust of electoral process and institutions, the courts, Congress and their own party. This seems to me to be similar to undermining trust in the CDC a year ago when the covid-19 pandemic was just emerging, only now on a much broader scale I am seeing increasing frequency of labeling the country's long established institutions as instruments of tyranny as a justification for insurrection, even violence.   

Does Donald Trump recognize the damage he is doing to the Republican Party, the reputations and careers of those who have supported his fraud claims, public confidence in the country's elections? If he does, does he care?

Will there be a call for insurrection, maybe even armed? Will protests January 6-20 ff purposely provoke violence to justify armed insurrection? My own sense is that the Proud Boys et al have no interest in Donald Trump himself, only that he has provided them a platform for their own agenda.

I can't help but wonder if in 2021 the Republican party will split between the genuine conservatives (e.g. David Brooks, George Will, etc.) and the MAGA Trumpettes. Which one will claim the Republican identity? Will one faction bolt or will the other faction expel them?

Divisive

Of course I do not know what is in Donald Trump’s mind. I am not in any position to comment on the content of either the defence appropriation he vetoed or the covid-19 stimulus he has not signed. After intense negotiation that included both parties and representatives of the administration, they passed both houses of Congress with “veto-proof” majorities. Whether he intended it or not, Donald Trump’s specific objections to both bills seem to have been aimed at dividing the bipartisan support of both of them, timed to the holiday recess impeding congressional action. My suggestion to Congress is to reconvene and vote to override the vetoes now and make adjustments with the next administration. I am having a sense of deja vu having witnessed tenants who on getting eviction notices trashed the apartment before the sheriff hauled them out.

Never Was One of Them

 After Trump is out of office, I wonder how long before authentic conservatives, the Republican Party, and evangelical Christians realize the he is not and never was one of them.

Trumpertantrum

I just couldn’t resist and am sure I am not the first or only one to think of it. I am, once again, not posting to social media but only to my Writing Workshop blog as a way of getting some junk out of my system and having a record as things proceed, a kind of protection against claiming hindsight was foresight.

I have been amazed at the seemingly unflinching support for Trump’s claims of having lost by fraud. All sorts of things have been alleged, but not only specific evidence was presented for examination by the courts or the public. The courts, all the way to the Supreme Court as of yesterday, have consistently dismissed the suits being brought without documentation. This includes judges appointed not just by Republicans but by Trump himself (including his three appointees to the Supreme Court). The Republican governors, legislatures, and election officials in the contested states have consistently affirmed the integrity of the election results.

Yet 17 States’ Attorneys General and 126 Republican members of Congress (if I’ve got the numbers right), along with the President himself, joined with the Texas suit that the Supreme Court would not hear yesterday. I have a very hard time believing that they really believe that the election was fraudulently stolen from Trump. I suppose I do understand their political inclination to desire a Republican President, but the whole enterprise of overturning the election has been an obviously futile fool’s journey. So I am left pondering what would motivate these folk to take such an outlandish position publically. I have seen suggested that they hope to curry favor for some sort of appointments or campaign funding in the future. However, that seems a fatally flawed logic if they don’t have the power of appointment.

I suppose the exception to this that had been mentioned before in relationship to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, though he denied it, would be hoping for a presidential pardon before Trump leaves office.

Though much darker and sinister, but somehow more plausible to me is that they are intimidated and fear Trump’s vindictive revenge. Hard to imagine he has a file of enough dirt on each of them that was worth risking their political futures to prevent it from being exposed. Their public support for the Texas Supreme Court suit has certainly bolstered the fervent proclamation of fraud among Trump’s support base. I have no idea how big that is, but they do seem to be plenty very vocal and visible and determined.

We are already seeing signs that this group is ready to take to the streets in protest of the election and to do everything possible to thwart the Biden presidency. It seems to be somewhat above a rumor but not a definitive, public plan yet, but I wonder if Trump’s hinted at January 20 rally in Florida will be a “call to arms” and civil disobedience, cast carefully enough to not be a literal provocation of armed rebellion. However, I have already seen some hints from some (quoting Jefferson et al) justifying an uprising against what they are labeling as tyranny. Given what I have observed the last five years, I don’t know if Trump is self-disciplined or even aware enough to use language so judiciously.

My other speculation is whether once out of office, Trump will lose his power and leverage and the Republican party will return to its classic principles, and conservatives will disown Trump as a fake conservative, and evangelicals abandon the one who is hardly one of them. I know that he wants to control the party, but I am sure plenty of them are looking for an exit from the Trump mystic. He has already turned on FOX News, without whom he would have been politically marginalized. Will he turn on the party if the craved loyalty evaporates?

One last speculation circling back to my title “Trumpertantrum.” I have a variety of first hand experiences with renters who trashed their apartments when evicted, or when the rent went up, or when they clashed with the landlord, or when they were just ready to move on. My very serious concern is whether Trump with trash the country as he exits. We all know a flurry of pardons and executive orders are coming. Not good, but fully expected. I must say I have wondered if the rush to go out with a cluster of federal executions is a very grim expression of anger. “I lost, so people have to die!” I am not commenting here on what these criminals deserve or the ongoing debate on capital punishment. Rather, I am wondering if the timing is part of a final angry, deadly outburst.

Probably not at such a serious level, but I have to wonder what he will do to the White House. I know many past presidents have taken things with them – I suppose as mementos of their time there, but as far as I know none of them were intentionally destructive or vented their rage on the physical building. To be sure, there will be redecorating. That happens with every change of administration. Because so many who worked in the White House were diagnosed with covid-19, disinfecting is a reasonable expectation, whether that is done in a precautionary way or as a disrespectful gesture. But I can’t help but speculate on whether some symbolic damage might be left as a taunt to Biden et al.

While not all outgoing presidents have attended the inauguration of their successors, a gracious statement of appreciation of the privilege of having served the country and wishing the next president well is customary and polite. The handwritten note in the desk drawer in the Oval Office is a tradition I doubt Trump will continue. I have a personal interest here from my pastoral days. I always left a note affirming well wishes and prayers for my successor, and this was part of the training I had for my time as interim pastor.

I can't help but wonder

I can't help but wonder if divorce might not be added to Donald Trump's post-presidential legal challenges. 

I just don't see the chemistry between them as a couple as was obvious between:

Michelle and Barak

Laura and George

Barbara and George

Nancy and Ronald

Rosalind and Jimmy

Betty and Gerald

I can't help but imagine a very cold atmosphere without intimacy in the private apartment of the White House, especially in this post-election fiasco. 

Icon of Decadence

I never paid much attention to Donald Trump before he began his presidential run. I was not interested in his sorts of enterprises, but I couldn't avoid some awareness as his giant ego put the Trump name on everything he touched (Midas?). I guess I dismissed him as an icon of decadence. I would have to say that nothing he has said or done on his presidential escapade has changed my opinion, and his response after the 2020 election seems to me to be delusional and vindictive. 

Yes, this is in my Writing Workshop blog so I can get it out of my mind, but it is not for public consumption. I have no interest in arguing about Donald Trump.

Why Is Anyone Suprised?

It seems to me that Donald Trump's demeanor since the election is entirely consistent with how he behaved in his campaign and in office.

I really cannot make any observation before that. Of course, I knew who he was and his trademark line, "You're Fired!" However, none of the things he was engaged with were of particular interest to me, so I didn't take him seriously at first. When he started his run for President someone asked me what I thought of that, and I replied that it seemed like a joke to me. Shows how much I know.

Constructive Fun for Two Contrasting Realities

I am not the only, and certainly not the first, one to recognize that the 2020 election has brought into sharp focus phenomenon that has been growing in the US for decades: that is that people live in two separate realities. This is way beyond disagreements over political or social philosophy. I am sure others have observed that the gap is so great they have trouble even communicating much less debating with each other. They use words, symbols, and concepts in such different ways they don’t understand what the other says or thinks.

 I am not going to bemoan this, but had a thought the other day that seemed might be some constructive fun from considering this. Though our society is growing away from gender stereotypes, we all understand the phrase “women are from Venus – men are from Mars.” It brings a bit of humor to communication challenges between women and men. Though the planets are specified, we also know that grows out of popular understanding of Greek mythology.

 I started thinking what deities from Greek mythology would each reality choose to best characterize itself? I would rule out of bounds making pejorative selections for the side you don’t identify with. So maybe you just choose one that you feel represents your reality. Only if you can you be affirmative about the counter reality should you suggest one for them. That is, how might the deities of Greek mythology offer a way to speak positively of each other in the pursuit of better understanding?

 Now I am fully aware that Republican and Democratic voters are not identical with these two realities, but that is a convenient short hand. I am going to let you do your own Greek mythology research. So here are my starter suggestions. Tyche might represent the “Republican” reality. Dice might represent the “Democratic” reality.

 

Poppies, Grass, and Flowers on Armistice Day

Armistice Day commemorates the armistice that ended The Great War at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. The Great War was not called World War I until World War II. Not only did they not know an even greater war was coming; what we call World War I, they called “the war to end all wars.” The seeds of World War II were sown in that armistice and the hope of the end of wars vanished. In light of that reality and the recognition of a perpetual veteran population, the name of Armistice Day was changed to Veterans Day in 1954.

The tradition of wearing poppies to honor veterans traces to the Flanders Fields where battles were fought in Belgium and France. The graves of 368 US military personnel are in the Flanders Field American Cemetery and Memorial. The poem by Canadian Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae is a lament for those who died there.

 

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

    That mark our place; and in the sky

    The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

 

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

    Loved and were loved, and now we lie,

        In Flanders fields.

 

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

    The torch; be yours to hold it high.

    If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

        In Flanders fields.

·          

Carl Sandberg’s 1918 poem Grass includes these same battles with others in its own ironic lament.

 

Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.

Shovel them under and let me work—

                                          I am the grass; I cover all.

 

And pile them high at Gettysburg

And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.

Shovel them under and let me work.

Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:

                                          What place is this?

                                          Where are we now?

 

                                          I am the grass.

                                          Let me work.

 

 

Pete Seeger’s 1962 song Where Have All the Flowers Gone echoes the theme of flowers and the cycles of war.

 

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them every one
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone?
Gone for husbands every one
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

Where have all the husbands gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the husbands gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the husbands gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Gone to flowers every one
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them every one
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

Walk Into My Parlour/Parler Said a Spider to a Fly

I have observed before that privately owned information outlets have the right to their own editorial policy, which will reflect certain presuppositions. As they are not the government suppressing free press, that is not censorship. Alternate views of different outlets become a form of accountability. Thus CNN and FOX need each other, and we all need NPR and BBC, etc.

Social media are not exactly the same as information outlets, though my opinion is that as privately held entities Facebook and Twitter, etc. have the right to their policies of controlling false information, recognizing that will not be totally objective. Now Parler rises in prominence by pointedly refusing to monitor the accuracy of what is posted there. I would again affirm that as a privately owned entity, they have a right to their policies, as long as it is not slanderous, libelous, or inciting violence. I would suppose that legal action could be taken against those who post such things if they could be identified.

When I first learned of Parler this week (maybe that shows how out of it I am), I almost instantly thought of  "Will you walk into my parlour?" said a spider to a fly. And somewhat grimly chuckled at spelling parlor (or parlour) as parler. I have to admit only being familiar with the first line, so I looked up the whole poem and just couldn’t resist posting it.

 

I.
"Will you walk into my parlour?" said a spider to a fly;
" 'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I have many pretty things to shew when you are there."
"Oh no, no!" said the little fly, "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."

II.
"I'm sure you must be weary, with soaring up so high,
Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the spider to the fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around, the sheets are fine and thin;
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in."
"Oh no, no!" said the little fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"

III.
Said the cunning spider to the fly, "Dear friend, what shall I do,
To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you?
I have, within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome—will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no!" said the little fly, "kind sir, that cannot be,"
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see."

IV.
"Sweet creature!" said the spider, "you're witty and you're wise.
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I have a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."

V.
The spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew, the silly fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner, sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the fly.
Then he went out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
"Come hither, hither, pretty fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple---there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead."

VI.
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue:—
Thinking only of her crested head, poor foolish thing!—At last
Up jumped the cunning spider, and fiercely held her fast.

VII.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour—but she ne'er came out again!
—And now, dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly, flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart, and ear, and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.^[1]

— Mary Howitt (1829)

 

 

Great flurries of golden leaves

 

Watching out my window

In wonder and delight,

Great flurries of golden leaves

Are dancing from the trees.

 

Twisting, turning, spinning

Fairy farandole.

Flashing in the morning

Mystic, magic sparkle.

 

Sipping my breakfast tea,

I ache to dance along

As freely as I breathe,

Watching out my window.

In Praise of Old Lovers

© 2020 Norman Stolpe

I wish for all you young lovers

Fruitful passion, mature and ripe.

The welcome wine of old lovers

Whose  arms wrapped round ages of grief.

Refrain

Sing, yes sing, of old lovers - 

Radiant stars shine in the world.

I wish for all you young lovers

Serendipities outstriping your dreams

Love grown old enough for savoring

Abundant feast from Delight Mountain.

Refrain

Sing, yes sing, of old lovers -

Radiant stars shine in the world.

I wish for all of us old lovers

To treasure all the twists and turns

Adventures that we could neither

Prepare for nor even imagine.

Refrain

Sing, yes sing, of old lovers - 

Radiant stars shine in the world.

I wish for all us old lovers

As we are walking hand in hand

To nourish and sustain each other

On our last journey in this land.

Bridge

Lovers together young and old

Shine as radiant stars in the world.

Lovers together, old  and young

With arms and hearts linked together

So none of us will walk alone,

But singing and dancing together. 

Refrain

Sing, yes sing, of old lovers - 

Radiant stars shine in the world.

The Dilemma of Incredulity

Many people understandably expressed hopes that the 2020 US Presidential election would produce a clear cut vision for the country, of course expecting that their candidate and perspective would overwhelmingly prevail. Instead the election results are an unsettling window into how deeply and evenly divided the country is. Some argue that it wasn’t always like this and blame the other side for fomenting division. My own observation is that this divisiveness has been brewing for a very long time which the political climate of recent years has given opportunity to become visible and defining. Many who felt long silenced found a voice in Barack Obama and Donald Trump. 

Differences of opinion, sometimes sharp differences, are inherent in democratic dialog. But today many people are incredulous that half of the country voted differently than they did. This seems to have gone quite a bit beyond political disagreements about principles and policy. Both sides in the recent campaign have declared that they have dramatically different visions for the country. Both sides describe the other in caricatures that evoke fear and revulsion that are then easy to dismiss without grasping what the other side is actually proposing. A number of analysts have gone even further suggesting people in the US are living in two radically contrasting, disconnected realities. 

I am inclined to agree with that. In fact, I suggest that the incongruity between these realities is so great that debate, dialog, even communication between them has become virtually impossible. Even when they use the same words and symbols, refer to the same current and historical events, invoke the same heroes they not only mean different things, they cannot comprehend each other. Identifiers that each cherishes for itself, such as conservative and liberal, are used as curse words by the other side. 

This incredulity seems particularly acute among those of us who consider our primary personal identity to be those who trust, love and follow Jesus. Over and over through the last 6 years or more, I’ve heard, “As a Christian, how could you possibly vote for someone who … ?” Fill in your own issue. I am purposely not going to explore any of those issues I have heard associated with that question as it would only distract from what I think is even more important, exploring a constructive path for those of us who follow Jesus. 

Western culture operates with the polarities of either-or thinking that sometimes is explained as a spectrum or continuum. Conservative - liberal, with moderate as a tension escape. Democrat - Republican, with Independent as a tension escape. The mutually exclusive, non-overlapping competing realities that have emerged more recently seem to be pushing the continuum toward obsolescence. Only the polar extremes are invoked. Our society exerts excessive pressure to define our Christian faith in terms of the polarity or at least the continuum. This seems to grotesquely distort my relationship with Jesus and my fellowship with other Christians. When we who identify ourselves with Jesus submit to this pressure, I believe we are letting the world squeeze us into its mold (as J. B. Phillips put it so aptly in his paraphrase of Romans 12:1). 

I believe that a viable escape from this trap can be found in the history of those who have gone before us in the church, the community of those who have followed Jesus through the centuries. I am convinced that rejecting polarities and continuum thinking will not only be healthy for the Church but has a real potential offering relief to those in the society who would also like to escape this cage. 

For the Church’s first three centuries, Jesus’ disciples were marginalized and outside the power structures of the Roman Empire. Their influence was by lifestyle and moral suasion, not political or military power. At times they were tolerated, even admired, and at times slandered and persecuted. Apologists argued that Christians were good citizens and should be legally accepted and protected in the Roman Empire. However, they would neither have imagined nor advocated making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. For the Emperor Constantine to adopt his peculiar version of Christianity as the religion of military conquest and empire expansion would have been unthinkable. (My apologies to my Eastern Orthodox spiritual kin for understanding Constantine differently than you do) Yet, from that grew the Holy Roman Empire, Christendom, the state and church alliances of Europe, and the generic, quasi Christian cultural consensus of the US. 

The spiritual decline of the Church was precipitous and almost instantaneous when being Roman and Christian became almost interchangeable. Many who were hungry for spiritual vitality retreated to desert communities in the third and fourth centuries. We know their writings as the Desert Fathers and Mothers which continue to reverberate in our time. In the sixth century, Benedict was so repulsed by the corruption and spiritual laxity of Church leaders in Rome, he went on a three year pilgrimage, and emerged convinced God had called him to start a movement of spiritual renewal that shaped monasticism and the Church and continues as the Benedictine movement today. As Anabaptist movements developed in the time of the Protestant Reformation, they became convinced that spiritual integrity mandated opting out of what they saw as an unholy alliance of Church with state and culture. 

I am convinced that we can learn from the pre-Constantinian Church, the monastic movements, and Anabaptists how we who trust, love, and follow Jesus can thrive in our deeply divided society, even having the influence of salt and light that Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount. We are a totally different alternative reality to the cultural model of polarity and continuum. While living as good citizens of whatever society we are in, we recognize that our loyalty and allegiance is not to current, transient political organizations or countries. We are citizens of the eternal Reign and Kingdom of God. We begin living that reality and building our present daily lives and relationships around the teaching and life of Jesus. Thus, even when a society welcomes us, we who follow Jesus will always be countercultural. 

This will always be challenging, not only because the dominant culture will pressure us to conform to their ways, but among ourselves, we will not always have complete clarity of vision or agreement about how to live this out in society's ever-changing landscape. As much as we respect and learn from those who came before us, we recognize they didn’t always get it right or agree on the approach to the challenges they faced. Some monastics and Anabaptist have chosen to opt out of public life almost entirely, seeking pure focus in their communities. Sometimes with an expectation that the alternative would be attractive to those who were spiritually hungry around them. Other monastics and Anabaptist have sought to engage the culture constructively, even though they know the society will try to define them in its own terms and co-opt them into their alliances and causes. 

We have to insist that our identity as those who trust, love, and follow Jesus is not only primary but singular and exclusive. I am not a Christian Republican or a Christian Democrat. I am a Christian, which means I believe Jesus has something confrontational and affirming to say to those who identify themselves as Democrats, Republicans, or even Americans. I remember a concept Francis Schaeffer spoke about back in the 1970s: not allies but co-belligerents. I readily acknowledge reluctance to cite him given the retrospective of 50 years, and as one of Anabaptist non-violent conviction, I have reservations about the image of co-belligerents. What I do find helpful, however, is the concept that as a disciple of Jesus I may agree and even work on a specific issue with some people I dramatically disagree with on another issue. I must never allow my concern with a particular issue obscure my primary and total identification with Jesus. I must also reject the false dichotomy of either-or thinking, that if I take a position on one thing that assumes what I believe about other things. If I care about this (fill in the blank), then I must not care about that (fill in the blank). Conversely, if I care about this (fill in the blank), then I must also care about that (fill in the blank). 

Perhaps even more challenging about living as citizens of Jesus’ alternate reality, is that we who follow Jesus are limited in our perspectives and will not always agree with each other. That reality goes all the way back to the New Testament Church. Romans 14 addressed this in some detail in terms of disagreements on how those who were following Jesus responded both to Jewish laws and customs and to the practices of their Pagan neighbors. Rather than saying they all had to agree on one answer, verse 14 says, “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” Of course, once I become fully convinced in my own mind, I start to think everyone should be similarly convinced. But the chapter is clear that disagreements will persist and instructs us to relate to each other with respect and love. Similarly, what one of us considers to be a debatable matter, someone else is fully convinced is clear in Scripture and not debatable. Yet the point of the passage is to accept and not judge each other. 

Particularly in our time of such intense polarization, this is difficult indeed, probably impossible without the working of the Holy Spirit among us. When it comes to voting, we must prayerfully discern how to cast a vote for a candidate or party that does not fully reflect our values as disciples of Jesus. This is very different from “voting for the lesser of two evils.” I know I seek for my votes to be positive expressions, recognizing that others who trust, love, and follow Jesus believe their different vote is also a positive statement as a positive expression of their faith. I do, however, believe that declaring the way I vote is the only legitimate Christian vote is not only dangerous and divisive, but reveals a spiritual pride that does not recognize my finite, fallible limitations. 

I am not at all suggesting that we do not have objective theological, moral, and spiritual realities to pursue, only that we examine them together in good faith, respecting the integrity of those with whom we disagree. I propose that sincere dialog between followers of Jesus who disagree (politically and in other ways) should not be about condemnation or judgment (“You can’t be a Christian if you …”) but about learning from each other and challenging each other to keep learning and growing as we walk with Jesus. I believe we will be more convincing to those with whom we disagree if we listen to them respectfully and seek to truly understand how they pursue their Christian discipleship in ways differently than we do. 

In the case of the 2020 US Presidential election, in my personal circle are many whose Christian faith and discipleship I recognize and respect, plenty who identify themselves as evangelical, who voted for Donald Trump and who voted for Joe Biden. (I find the idea of an evangelical voting bloc to be quite repulsive.) Several of them overtly expressed they considered their vote to be an expression as disciples of Jesus. Before you react with “How could they!” I will push the envelope one step further. Based on their personal expressions and regular, visible participation in Christian faith communities, I consider both Joe Biden and Mike Pence to be my spiritual kin in Christ, though they both live out both their faith and their politics quite differently than I do. 

Parenthetically, I do want to add that I cannot make that affirmation about Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. I do not know what is in their hearts or how they relate to God, but I have not heard personal statements of faith from either of them, nor has their participation in a community of faith been publicly apparent. I know Donald Trump recently changed his official religious identification from Presbyterian to Non-Denominational Christian. Having served both Presbyterian and non-denominational congregations in the course of my pastoral career, I know that both labels cover a wide variety. I will not attempt to interpret this except that it doesn’t strike me as a personal expression of faith. I do know that some who have contact with him have asserted they think he has Christian faith. With her ancestry in India and Jamaica, Kamala Harris reflects a much broader background yet. My only comment here is that I affirm the US Constitution that there should be no religious test for holding public office. My reasons for that are not just political but having to do with protecting the integrity of faith from being diluted by superficial, cultural expectations. For me saying “I believe in God,” or even “I believe in Jesus,” is not at all the same as “I trust, love, and follow Jesus.” 

 Given how evenly divided the vote in this election was, we are not likely to see any respite from the animosity and tensions between people in the alternate, polarized realities. Rather, I expect activists for both competing visions for the country are going to redouble their efforts to gain the upper hand, by power and maybe even force as the future unfolds. I believe this is both a trap for those of us who trust, love, and follow Jesus to avoid, as well as an opportunity to point our society to another way to live. I am not at all suggesting that the population of the US will be transformed in total to Jesus, but that we can become an attractive alternative for those who want to escape the trap of no-compromise political polarization, and that we can demonstrate the respectful dialog is not only possible but constructive and healthy. 

As I wrap up, I readily acknowledge that my pre-Constantinian, monastic, Anabaptist thinking is not, and probably will not, be widely accepted or even understood. I have no illusions that this essay will be widely circulated or used as a catalyst for how we who trust, love, and follow Jesus can respond constructively in the days that lie ahead of us for both the Church (meaning “all who follow Jesus, all around the world, yes, we’re the church together” to quote the song) and the country that will almost certainly be contentious. I have written before about my observation that we who identify ourselves as Christians in the US are facing challenges similar to those faced by the Confessing Church in Germany 1934-45. Though singular clarity is likely to elude us, I do believe that those of us whose sole and supreme allegiance is to Jesus are agents of hope in these distressing times. It’s not about an organization or movement as it is an intentional mentality such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer explored in Christ the Center (lectures from 1933 first published in 1960). Our influence as disciples of Jesus will be by lifestyle of love and moral suasion, not political power or force. 

I believe Ernest W. Shurtleff got it right in this verse of his 1887 hymn Lead on O King Eternal which repudiates popular battle imagery. 

    Lead on, O King eternal, till sin's fierce war shall cease,    

    and holiness shall whisper the sweet amen of peace. 

    For not with swords' loud clashing or roll of stirring drums 

    with deeds of love and mercy the heavenly kingdom comes.

Is the US history of 230 years of peaceful transition of power credibly at risk?

 

Tad Hargrave

I don't know that "everyone I meet" is thinking like this, but I am seeing a lot of fear of or craving for weapons. For me the punch line is "We won't survive by killing each other," which I think is absolutely true even without a societal collapse.

I guess in a somewhat different way I am echoing the cliché that is popular in some circles: "We don't have a gun problem; we have a heart problem." My concern is that in our hearts revenge and retaliation masquerade as protection and defense, and we humans lack the moral wisdom to make and act on that distinction.

What does this say about our expectations of our fellow citizens? It seems to me to beg a deeply troubling question. Have the hostilities and chasms between us reached a place where we believe those who side loses next week's election will consider that in and of itself to be societal collapse that justifies violent insurrection to overturn the result? Will those whose side wins consider the threat from the "losers" justification for lethal force in a futile effort to preserve stability and security? Except for the Civil War Between the States a century and a half ago, the US has a long and honorable (even enviable by world standards) history of peaceful transitions of power since the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, even in times of considerable political division and controversy. Have we come to a place where believing that noble history is at credible risk?

Not a Prediction but Maybe a Premonition

Blame your favorite whipping post, but the US has clearly been set up to disbelieve the results of next week's election and to distrust the entire electoral process into the future.

Not a completely unrelated corollary is to imagine those who so vociferously objected to the protests of police killings of Black folk will take to the streets if Biden wins, openly carrying their cherished Second Amendment firearms. 

I am posting this here in my Writing Workshop blog on October 30, 2020 to be clear that I considered these things before the election.

I am adding this on December 12, the day after the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas suit against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. I am convinced that undermining confidence in the US electoral process also would have been accomplished with a Trump win. 

 What if re-electing Trump was always of secondary importance to undermining confidence in US elections which could be accomplished whether he won or lost?

My Expectations for Amy Coney Barrett

 I expect that the interviewing and investigating of Amy Coney Barrett to be thoroughly vigorous but not vicious. I desire and expect her personal faith to be respected, but I also expect her answers to respect that the free exercise clause of the Constitution means that all religions have the right to practice as freely as Christians, and that the non-establishment clause means that Christians are not given preferential privilege or government support over other religions. I expect her to render her judgments based on legal principles and not political preferences (recognizing that the boundaries there can be fuzzy). Yes, I actually celebrate that the way she follows Jesus will overflow into the totality of the way she lives, just my pacifist ethics are a direct expression of how I follow Jesus, even though others do not share those views. In that regard, I am looking for authenticity and integrity more than conformity with my opinions. With some relief, I am anticipating that we will not be faced with allegations of sexual harassment or assault that seem to have been accepted as a rite of passage for so many men in positions of power.

 

Gun Rights and Breonna Taylor

I will not, cannot get embroiled in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing, but I have to get my churning mind to stop so I can move on to focusing on care for my wife with Alzheimer’s and her aging father. I will not post this directly to social media but just put it in my Writing Workshop blog. If someone else’s social media post evokes a response, I may just give this link.

Though I am neither a gun owner nor gun advocate, if I understand correctly, one of the cherished arguments for keeping a firearm in the home is to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property from intruders and attackers. Sometimes the threat is identified as an oppressive government bent on depriving you of your rights.

Again, if I understand correctly, knowing that I am getting public information and was not on the grand jury in the Breonna Taylor case, police were executing a “no-knock” warrant looking for drugs and broke into the apartment with a battering ram. Awakened by the noise of intruders, her boyfriend fired a couple of shots, apparently striking only one of the officers. The police responded with a volley of gunshots that killed Breonna Taylor in her bed. No drugs were found. The grand jury did not return an indictment specific for her killing.

Was not her boyfriend exercising his Second Amendment rights that are so vigorously defended? Or do we have here yet another instance of guns kept for self-defense ending up in unintended tragedy? Or are we faced with another case of open season on Black folk? Or maybe some will suggest that she deserved to be killed for sleeping with her boyfriend. I don’t have answers, and I have nothing to say about the protests of the grand jury's action (or inaction). I regret that an officer was shot (not fatally as Breonna Taylor was) and that firearms were even present. 

There! I wrote it. Maybe now my heart can focus and be at peace.

What Kingdom Are We Expecting?

The combination of challenges at this time are prompting reflection and speculation about the trajectory for the future. Pandemic, fires, hurricanes, racial tensions and civil unrest, election year, economic uncertainty, climate change. In some Christian circles these are being interpreted as signs that the return of Christ is imminent. With some level of irony, some in those circles are reacting to measures being taken to address the concerns as malevolent indicators of impending evil totalitarianism. Some other Christians use some of the same eschatalogical imagery to articulate their distressed but less ominous responses to the particular characteristics of this time. Though I am not going to attempt to sift all of that out, this awareness did remind me of a piece I wrote for my Pilgrim Path blog in July 2017. http://nstolpepilgrim.blogspot.com/2017/07/reverse-rapture.html  That prompted me to write a bit of my personal understanding of the history of Christian eschatalogical thought in September of this year (2020). http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-few-landmarks-on-dispensational.html 

During this time of awareness and reflection, the hymn Lead On, O King Eternal came up in my regular rotation of singing a hymn as I start each day, in keeping with the rhythms of Benedictine spirituality. The last half of verse three arrested my attention. “Not with swords loud clashing, nor roll of stirring drums; with deeds of love and mercy, the heavenly kingdom comes.” The words were written in 1887 by Ernest W. Shurtleff (1862-1917) as the graduation hymn for his Andover Theological Seminary class of 1888. He became a congregational pastor, and the words express the understanding of the mission of the Church to be the agent of bringing the Kingdom of God to reality in the world that was common at the time. He died in 1917 doing relief work in France during the Great War (we call it World War I), which certainly fit with his vision and sense of calling.

To be sure, theological trends and styles emerge and fade, developing over time in response to both events and fresh exploration. I don’t believe that undermines at all the credibility of Scripture or the durability of the Gospel. But I think recognizing that this hymn was written before the heyday of dispensationalism is significant, however it is handled and interpreted. I do not want to imply this line from a hymn (or even the whole hymn and its history) are somehow an authoritative key for interpreting biblical eschatology. However, for me it poses a question I have pondered for many years without organizing or setting down my thoughts. That question might be phrased, “What Kingdom are we expecting?”

I have often heard that when Jesus came proclaiming “the Kingdom of God is near,” many of his time mistakenly thought in terms of a political/military kingdom that would overthrow the Roman Empire and establish Israel as not only independent but dominant over the entire world (at least what they knew of the world). This was based on the hope and understanding of restoration they read in the prophets. But when Jesus offered a Kingdom of peace and mercy, compassion and love, it was neither understood nor accepted. Jesus’ contemporaries did not, could not, understand a first and second coming of the Messiah. They missed what Jesus brought in the first coming that still awaits his second coming.

Various eschatalogical schemes seem to me to posit the very things Jesus’ contemporaries were mistakenly looking for. It is often assumed to be in the affirmations of his coming in “power and great glory” as the Wheaton College statement of faith expressed it in 1993 when it removed the specific reference to premillennialism. Though “power and great glory” don’t specify political or military power and glory, they seem to be associated with the dramatic battle imagery of Revelation, as though those were literalistic and not metaphorical or symbolic. Even when they are seen as symbols, they are applied to pretty typically militaristic expressions. I don’t want to get into exegetical controversies but move in a different direction with a broad view.

First, is that it seems to me that to assume that we know better than Jesus’ contemporaries and have a correct understanding of the two commings is arrogant at best. Yes, we have the advantage of the witness of the New Testament and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but I think that ought to inculcate in us humility and a willingness to trust God to be at work in ways that are hidden or not understood by us. I believe authentic faith is to live with the reality that I don’t, can’t, and won’t know most things.

Second, and to me much more important, is the nature of the Kingdom of God that Jesus announced. Though each Gospel brings its own distinctive perspective, I see the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 are the most complete portraits of the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed. Because of our human presuppositions, those principles are often regarded as signs of weakness rather than power and great glory. In some eschatalogical schemes they are relegated to a future that we should not even seek to experience here and now. I would suggest that such thinking misses the point that peace and mercy, compassion and love are far more powerful and glorious than the most celebrated political or military imaginable. The cross is mightier than the sword.