I am for Voter ID that Respects and Enfranchises People

 I am seeing more and more things about government issued photo ID for voting and increasingly restrictive voting laws supposedly aimed at fighting fraud (that repeated investigations have found to be so negligible as to be effectively non-existent) that effectively suppresses voter participation. When those promoting these measures use language such as “quality voters,” clearly they are seeking to discourage voters who are unlikely to vote their preferences.

 This has stirred up my thinking about voter ID, so I want to set down my thoughts in a somewhat orderly fashion and can move my mind onto other things.

 To be clear, I am not at all opposed to government issued photo IDs for voting. Having said that, I believe getting a qualifying ID should be easy for all citizens and not manipulated in a way to disenfranchise significant populations, which are often invisible to people who live in suburb-like communities and assume everyone lives as they do. My thoughts are not comprehensive, but I hope by getting them out of my head, if someone else reads them their thoughts may be stimulated as well.

 To me the most obvious population this applies to are those, largely living in urban cores, who do not have cars, do not need driver's licenses, and use public transportation or walk for work, shopping, church, etc. Because they are often employed hourly, they cannot get to a DMV office during business hours. Sadly, in too many communities, the closing of DMV offices has coincided with photo ID voter requirements. I can’t say for sure that is intentional, but it is still harmful.

 The assumption at everyone has a driver's license or can get an ID at a DMV office is just not real. The objection that ID is needed to buy alcohol or tobacco is also faulty. Those who shop in neighborhood stores where they are known to be of age may not be asked for ID, not to mention that they may not be indulging in the “vices” used to disparage them. Also, they may not be regular patients of physicians or hospitals that routinely expect ID and insurance. Emergency rooms and neighborhood clinics have different procedures, and many avoid medical care as too costly.

 Some of the voter ID laws exclude the IDs of those who live in government public housing, even those are government issued with photos. I think a good start would be to accept those IDs for voting. I have also done some brainstorming on ways to make getting a suitable ID accessible and convenient. With the same technology that discount stores use for their membership cards, many government entities could be empowered to issue photo IDs. Some of my thoughts are: city, county, and state colleges and universities (for community people beyond the student IDs that are not always acceptable for voting); public libraries; police stations; city and county offices, including social services; post offices. My thinking is that in our cities and towns, everyone should be able to walk to a place where they can get an ID acceptable for voting at minimal cost with reasonable documentation.

 Yes, including affirming they are US citizens. Keep in mind, those of us who are born US citizens have birth certificates but not the kind of documents that immigrants get when they are naturalized. Digital accessibility to those birth certificates could facilitate those whose families were not fastidious in passing documents to their children. Thus, someone who was born a US citizen may not have their birth certificate in a desk drawer (some older folk born in rural areas may not have a birth certificate at all).

Trump Booed by His Supporters - a Metaphor for a Self-Destructive Spiral

Neither political party seems particularly effective or constructive at the moment. The Democrats appear to be floundering in confusion and some strategic incompetence, while the Republicans are caught in a trap of vicious, vindictive vengeance. For Donald Trump to be booed by his own supporters for acknowledging that he's had a Covid-19 booster seems an apt metaphor for a society plunging heedlessly down a self-destructive spiral. It is as though Trump opened a Pandora's Box of distrust that even he can no longer manage. For me, this is not a single issue but a metaphor that characterizes an entire landscape consistent with Galatians 6:7. "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."

Documenting my thoughts

 I posted these two things to Twitter on December 16 to document my timing to affirm that I was anticipating not reacting.

Will Mark Meadows self-immolate attempting to protect Donald Trump? If so what principle, reward, or threat would be an adequate incentive?

If trumpdom implodes, will the Republicans who have so deeply ingratiated themselves to Trump back-pedal, deny, evade, or persist? I am not speaking to the validity of or motivations for the myriad of assertions against Trump, only observing the converging of powerful storms.

Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Not End Abortion in the US

In 2009 and 2012 I expressed some of my personal reflections on abortion from my pastoral perspective. I probably should just leave it at that, but with the US Supreme Court soon to issue a major opinion on Roe v. Wade, I wanted to get my thoughts together and set down so I am not reacting to their decision or to the myriad of respondes it will evoke, no matter what it is. 

http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2015/08/abortion-pastoral-response.html http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-decide-when-you-have-right-to.html  

In certain Pro-Life circles excitement is building that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, with some hope if not expectation that would be at least the beginning of the end of abortion in the US. At the simplest level, overturning Roe v. Wade would not make for a uniform national ban on abortion but only return the authority to regulate abortion to the states. That would open the way for some states to tighten abortion restrictions while other states could respond with much more open abortion regulations. Besides the hodgepodge of regulations, this would introduce legal maneuvering such as how strict states would respond to women who travel to more permissive states to have abortions. 

However, the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to overturn wholesale previous decisions. Generally, they make modifications along the way. This has been happening with Roe v. Wade all along. Having said that, the profile of this Court could be primed for overturning Roe v. Wade as some have hoped and even predicted. The way they render their opinion will probably be more nuanced than “just go back before 1973” as though Roe v. Wade had never happened. Indeed, a lot has happened in the past 49 years. Surely some will hope for the Court to impose some level of national uniformity, but that would seem to require a real act of Congress. I have neither a prediction nor a recommendation for what the Court will do, but I am confident that whatever they do will unleash a storm of legal battles for years to come.

My point is not advocacy but realism. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, abortion will not go extinct in the US. To be sure, the landscape will change which will both please and aggravate people on both sides of the debate. Battles over abortion will be waged in state after state, and it will be a high profile issue of contentious public debate. This will be much more convoluted than the patchwork of contradictory regulations from state to state. Individual cases of differing motives for seeking abortion will challenge not only the laws but the sentiments of many people, some of whom do not think of themselves on one side of the debate or the other. Before 1973 women of means or connection were able to find physicians who would perform abortions for them, either calling them something else or as part of another surgical procedure. Roe v. Wade did not completely eliminate the “black market” (I use that understood cliche with reluctance.) in illegal abortions that had previously been tragically too common. While it probably won’t go back to the way it was before Roe v. Wade, it will undoubtedly resurface adapted to new market realities.

My expectation (not an expert opinion) is that criminalizing abortions (whatever form that takes) is not and will not be effective in either reducing or eliminating abortions. Like so many other social and ethical concerns, reality is complex and messy. In the debates one side seemingly presumes the women seeking abortions are promiscous and irresponsible. The other side presents tragically difficult cases that go beyond rape, incest, mother’s life/health. Yes, both are real, but pitting one against the other evades addressing the sorts of forces that prompt women, girls, couples, families to seek abortions. What would seem to be more effective in preventing abortions are things such as birth control that women easily access, economic opportunities for women, child care that enables especially women to be employed.

Beyond all this, I would assert that what could be most effective, maybe even essential, in drastically reducing the market for “elective” abortions is undoubtedly the most elluisive and difficult to achieve. That is a dramatic change in the cultural consensus that would expect men and boys to be responsible and hold them accountable for their sexual activity. This not only applies to abortion but to rape and sexual assault culture that treats women and girls as tools for male rites of passage and ascension in power. In my pastoral engagement with community, I have seen too often men insisting on unprotected sex with their partners and then compelling them to get an abortion when pregnancy results. Yes, part of this is empowering women to say “no,” but such a radical change in what is expected of men seems almost insurmountable. To be sure, the Supreme Court will not speak to that. Law is only part of it. This is where the cliche of “what we have is a heart issue” is most incisive.

I do not see either the “Pro Choice” or “Pro Life” advocates addressing this at all, and I do not identify with either camp. I don’t know who, if anyone, will ever read this, but I suspect neither camp would claim me, and both would probably critique if not disown me. I am not in favor of abortion, nor am I in favor of criminalizing abortion. 

Promoting “a woman’s right to choose” strikes me as a slogan for autonomous individualism. The logic doesn’t seem too different from those who argue against Covid-19 vaccinations and masks as threats to their individual freedom (even though typically from opposite sides of the political spectrum). My Christian theology and ethic precludes making myself the focus. I must always be looking out for the well being of others, especially the orphans, widows, aliens, weak, sick, poor. In public square, this means the common good is a higher value than personal liberty. I won’t go into a theological or exegetical study here, only assert this witness to my convictions.

Conversely, I find “Pro Life” truncated and disingenuous when abortion is, as it were, ripped from the single cloth of the fabric of life. I do believe variations of opinion on specific issues are legitimate, but ignoring them is untenable to me. I have written elsewhere of my ethical position on war and military service as a follower of Jesus. To be pro life seems to me to necessarily also include capital punishment, poverty, violence in life not just entertainment, racism, access to medical care, environmental threats, compassionate end of life care. Again, for me the biblical witness and Jesus’ life sees orphans, widows, aliens, weak, sick, and poor as the warp and woof of the single cloth of the fabric of life.

So, I have had my digital vent, so I can move my mind to more constructive things and see what develops. 

What should we be learning from Covid-19?

 What am I learning from Covid-19? I never bought into the array of conspiracy theories that circulated freely. I never put much credence in pop-treatments from bleach to hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. Early on I suspected that had we done what the CDC and WHO recommended in January 2020 we would have been past the pandemic long ago. I now see that was an illusory hope, though I am still sure hundreds of thousands of deaths and debilitating illnesses would have been avoided. With the parade of variants, now up to omicron in the Greek alphabet, I think what we should all be learning is the finite limitations of human knowledge. No, I don't believe we were lied to by science or CDC, only that we may have been overconfident in our human ability to understand and address everything. We are always learning, so should expect what we once thought we knew needs to be corrected and updated. I do believe that the response to Covid-19 should never have been politicized but treated as a significant public health issue, so I am suspicious that politicians posing as scientists or critics of scientists either lied to us or were themselves delusional.

Just an aside about responding to skipping the Greek letter Xi in naming variants. I have no insight into the rationale for that (or skipping Nu), but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with being controlled by or not wanting to offend China. In my days of doing educational research, I often used the statistical procedures known as chi-squared. Chi (pronounced ki) is the Greek letter that looks a lot like the English X (thus Merry Xmas since chi is the first letter in the Greek for Christ). In the chi-squared process, chi was the variable that indicated is a deviation from the expected response was statistically significant.

So, for any of you who have endured to the end of my ramblings, my conclusion is that we all should be learning humility from our global, human experience with Covid-19.

Irresistible Force or Immovable Object?

“A foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

Jesus - Matthew 7:26-27

I do not intend to take anything away from Joe Biden and the Democrats, nor to criticize them. However, regardless of what you think of Donald Trump and the movement identified with him, they are on center stage in the US right now. Nor am I interested in any sort of political advocacy. Rather, I want to explore my ponderings about human propensities and vulnerabilities. Historical dynamics are certainly in play. Insights from literature, such as in MacBeth and Richard III, highlight the human universality of our present day that extend well beyond politics.

Since the 2020 election, Donald Trump has certainly consolidated his power and control in the Republican Party. The people in the Trump movement are unswervingly loyal and vocal in their support. Recent changes in electoral policies and practices in several states clearly favor those who will receive Trump support in the 2022 midterm elections and make a successful run for the Presidency by Donald Trump in 2024 seem plausible. 

On the other side of this is the gathering storm of impending crises for Donald Trump and the people and organizations surrounding him. The legal and political efforts to get his tax returns made public still continue. Several legal actions pending against a variety of Trump enterprises and organizations. The rejection of the results of the 2020 election is not relenting. The January 6 storming of the US Capital has brought both criminal and civil proceedings against those who participated. The conflict between Trump and his people with the Congressional committee investigating January 6 keeps these tensions in public view.

I sense we are witnessing something of a collision of the irresistible force and the immovable object. I tend to see Trump et al as the immovable object and the gathering storm as the irresistible force. Others may find reversing that to be more meaningful. Or perhaps it is like a cyclotron accelerating particles to crash them into a target of very heavy atoms splitting their nuclei and releasing a tremendous burst of energy. Or maybe two gargantuan black holes colliding in the deep reaches of space soaking up everything in proximity to their gravity.

I am neither making a prediction nor preferring an outcome for what seems it could define the course of our society for generations to come. Will the Trump movement collapse on itself like colliding cultural black holes? Will it release a burst of energy that reinvents the US and sends it in unanticipated directions? Will there be long term immobility and division as the forces in play strive against each other with neither making any headway? I am not looking for definitive answers to resolve these and a myriad of related questions. Rather I am inviting other thoughtful people to enter into serious discernment of our times.

Your Political Presuppositions May be Dangerous to Your Health

My tongue in cheek speculation for which there is no evidence is that Covid-19 vaccine resistance may be a liberal conspiracy for suppression of Republican voters, extrapolated from these lines from the New York Times (that voice of loser liberals), November 8, 2021.

[The Covid-19 vaccines] proved so powerful, and the partisan attitudes toward them so different, that a gap in Covid’s death toll quickly emerged.

In October, 25 out of every 100,000 residents of heavily Trump counties died from Covid, more than three times higher than the rate in heavily Biden counties (7.8 per 100,000).

The vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing severe Covid, and almost 40 percent of Republican adults remain unvaccinated, compared with about 10 percent of Democratic adults.

 

Two Realities

It's not just politics, but how politics had intentionally sown not just division but undermined trust and truth to achieve its own ends, including coopting "religion" as a weapon of fragmentation and even language so communication becomes impossible. I am not the first one to recognize this, but I have observed for a while (and even wrote about it) that what we are experiencing is not just disagreements on competing philosophies. We are living in such disconnected and discontinuous realities that dialog and debate are no longer possible. From within the construct of each reality, the political stances make sense, but since the realities are so different they leave no way to address what is or is not true. I suspect that this infection has intentionally been foisted on the Church to the point that the Gospel (good new of Jesus) is obscured.

My hypothesis is that the Obama presidency represented a significant segment of the US population who have felt their voices were not heard, and not just Obama himself, but the movement surrounding him articulated that long suppressed voice. That fueled the MAGA movement that also felt their voice had been dismissed for a long time and felt threatened by the likes of Obama (from the 60s: the peace, civil rights, environmental, and women's movements). Trump and others around him spoke for that voice. The MAGA movement harked back to the 1950s as though that was a normative golden age when "America was great," which of course the people whose voices were heard in the Obama years viewed as an era of oppression and darkness. Ordinarily, when the spokesperson for a movement is defeated in an election the movement fades away, but that is clearly not happening. The refusal to acknowledge that lost election is a cue to just how incongruous these two realities are. Those differing realities are not just liberal vs. conservative debates (conservatives such as George Will and David Brooks have pointedly distanced themselves from MAGA). This discontinuity is evident in a variety of ways besides the 2020 election, including response to Covid-19 and climate change.

Not an Essay - Just Venting

 I hope that by writing this out, I can free my mind for other things that I really need to focus on, such as stepping up care for my wife after her father's death.  I don't expect anyone to read this, but I suppose some might if they are browsing in my blog.

My sense is that one does not need to like or agree with Joe Biden and the Democratic Party to recognize that Donald Trump is evil: viciously vindictive; blatantly dishonest or (to put it more charitably) dangerously deluded; a manipulative con-artist at best.

As I observe his responses after the 2020 election, I keep wondering when everything will collapse around him: legally, politically, ethically. Yet, he seems to have a iron grip on the Republican Party, in ways that seem to me to be totally incongruous with historic Republican principles, conservative political values, and most dramatically evangelical Christian convictions. I can't help but wonder what sorts of threats and revenge are keeping them under his control, yet a substantial following is voluntarily not just loyal but enthusiastic. 

PQT – Prior Question of Trust

Perhaps the most valuable course I took for my MA from Wheaton Grad School (early 70s) was Biculturalism with Dr. Marvin Mayers (anthropology/mission). He started us out with what he called PQT – prior question of trust. Mutual trust is essential before people of differing cultures can accomplish anything together, whether the cultural differences seem great or small. This became a reliable compass on the journey of my pastoral career.

To me this makes sense out of the social schisms that I have observed in the US the last dozen or so years. Race, climate change, election integrity, and responses to the Covid-19 pandemic are just the most obvious. Strident voices clamor to claim they should be trusted and those with a differing perspective should not be trusted. The citing of evidence is dismissed by asserting the source is not to be trusted rather than by addressing the evidence.

My observation is that the fragmenting and polarization of our society has plunged the US into cross cultural crises. Without trust, working together for constructive efforts has become impossible. Even communication has become impossible as words and ideas are assigned mutually exclusive meanings and become weapons to attack trust.

I wish I could extract from that class fifty years ago a strategy for answering the PQT for our time. I am reminded of a Peanuts cartoon in which Snoopy is writing a book on theology. When asked the title, he replied, “Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?” I believe that level of humility among those in positions of public influence and responsibility is essential for breaking this impasse of trust.

 

Clearing My Mind About Afghanistan

I have no expertise nor knowledge nor access to information to address the recent events in Afghanistan, only my personal responses to what is publicly available. So I am not writing to enlighten or influence anyone or anything, only to clear my mind so I can move on.

My opinion is that the collapse of the Afghan military and government and the rapid take over by the Taliban was inevitable from the moment the first US military forces arrived in Afghanistan. The only real question was: on whose watch would it come?

After the terror attacks of 9-11-01, the mood of the US public was hungry for revenge. George W. Bush recognized and responded to that, not only in Afghanistan but also in Iraq. Barack Obama followed conventional wisdom of building troop strength in the illusory hope of completing the mission with violent force.

By the time Donald Trump became President, the mood of the US public had changed to wanting to stop sending US young people and resources on a costly, hopeless errand. Accurately perceiving that, the Trump administration negotiated a treaty with the Taliban with the hope of a peaceful, orderly withdrawal. If Donald Trump had won a second term, what we have just witnessed would have come on his watch.

But it came on Joe Biden’s watch, and it will rightfully be an historic hallmark of his administration.

2020 US Presidential Election: A Metaphor for Competing Realities

As I have been pondering the responses to the 2020 US Presidential election and subsequent developments, I have wondered if that has become a metaphor for much larger competing perceptions of reality and even truth. Two mutually exclusive voices have rallied significant adherents who each think the other is deceived. As they angrily vilify each other, another significant contingent shrugs or worries, “I don’t know what to believe anymore.” My observation is that this has infected the Church in the US (seemingly of all ecclesiastical and theological traditions) so that those who are accustomed to forming their understanding of reality and truth through Scripture and faith are marshalling their religious arguments to support one or the other of the competing voices of reality and truth and disparaging those who don’t fall into line. So Scripture and faith have become subservient to the cultural clash of perceptions of reality and truth. I believe this metaphor is relevant to much more than the 2020 election. It is certainly at play in the Covid-19 pandemic, but I think a bit of consideration will bring to mind a host of other issues, well beyond the political realm. Rather than giving my list or proposing a solution, I hope to stimulate vigorous thinking and dialog.

Curious about David and Goliath

I focused on David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) in my lectio divina last week. A couple of questions piqued my curiosity as the week progressed. I really don’t know what significance they may have, if any, but I wonder if anyone else has thoughts.

First, the story seems to suggest Goliath’s challenge was to hand-to-hand combat (vv. 8-9), which made David coming with his staff (v. 40) prompting Goliath’s taunt about coming with sticks (v. 43). So as Goliath and David approached the battle line (v. 48), Goliath does not seem to expect to be attacked until they are both there, but David slings the stone before getting close enough for Goliath to get a hand on him. Was that a violation of the expectations if not rules? Was David “cheating” with a preemptive attack?

As a kid, I fooled around with my own homemade sling and some small stones, trying to imitate David. Not only was my precision grossly inadequate to hit a moving target while was moving too, I wondered if it was possible to develop enough skill to hit someone in the forehead. We are told Goliath was wearing a helmet, so the opening for such a direct hit would be even smaller. So I am wondering, was David really that good a shot, or did God guide and propel the stone?

Second, what actually killed Goliath? The text has some ambiguity. “David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; then he cut off his head with it.” (vv. 50-51)

Did the stone to the forehead actually kill Goliath or just render him unconscious and defenseless when David took Goliath’s sword? Did David kill the unconscious Goliath by running him through with his own sword, or was it the beheading that killed Goliath?

I am not arguing for any particular answers to these questions, nor for their great significance. Only musing about thoughts that linger after spending a week with the story.

A Question of Fair Balance

Moravian Daily Texts is one of the resources Candy and I use for our evening devotional time. Last night included these two pieces that strike me as speaking to current issues in this country.

 

2 Corinthians 8:13-15

I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.”

 

Psalm 72:2-4

May he [the king] judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.

 

The Corinthian letters were written to churches, not governments or economists, centuries before capitalism was invented. Nevertheless, it strikes me that something is drastically wrong when people of wealth accumulate far more than they can ever use while many others struggle to provide food, shelter, and clothing for their families.

 

The quote “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” is a reference to God’s provision of manna in Exodus 16:18, which was a model for the recurrent calls for justice by the Hebrew prophets, which 2 Corinthians extends to the economic values for the Church. The US is not a theocratic country as ancient Israel was; and Psalm 72 never mentions the personal piety of the king, but is clear that justice for the poor and prosperity for all are the legitimate responsibility of government, which might be addressed in a variety of ways.

 

On Churches not Going back to Business as Usual after the Covid-19 Pandemic

As the pandemic seems to be easing in the US (or at least responses to it), and everyone wants to get back to normal ASAP, I think churches are particularly vulnerable to the danger of returning to business as usual. I have long loved this quote from Annie Dillard and find it powerfully relevant right now, not just with regards to the pandemic but also with how the malignant polarization of US society has infected the churches.

Annie Dillard: “On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us out to where we can never return. ” Teaching a Stone to Talk

My thinking about the Church in the US, which is what brought to mind the Annie Dillard quote, is that the pandemic has given us a chance to pause and look at how we have made church life too comfortable, and now we have an opportunity to open ourselves to God's power in our shared life as communities of faith. As I reflect on my own journey with Jesus and his Church, I feel I have been drawn out to where I can never return.

The pandemic is only one of several factors and forces at work in our time that I believe call for a deep spiritual awakening. This didn't start in 2020, but last year saw what seems to be an unprecedented convergence of political, racial, violence, environmental, and other issues. It reminds me of the time in which Eberhard Arnold and others recognized at the early emergence of the Nazi movement in Germany that business as usual Christianity was not adequate for the challenge. Out of that was born the Bruderhof in Anabaptist tradition. In that same time frame in both Lutheran and Reformed settings the same realization that business as usual Christianity wasn't up to the challenge, and from their efforts, the Confessing Church and its monumental Theological Declaration of Barman emerged. I am not suggesting too many direct parallels between the Nazi era and our time, but I am convinced that business as usual Christianity is not adequate for our challenges, and the interruption of the pandemic gives us an opportunity to tap into the dramatically transforming power of God and escape business as usual Christianity. For quite a long time I have been suggesting the Church in the US would benefit from a heart searching encounter with the Barman Declaration.

 

 

The Threat to Consistent Character from the Banality of Evil

Yesterday (Sunday, May 16, 2021) Troy Loether (pastor of Kettlebrook Church in West Bend, WI) was the guest speaker for Meadowbrook Church in Wauwatosa, WI where Candy and I worshipped.

His message was on Daniel 3, the familiar story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being thrown into the fiery furnace for refusing to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. The theme of the message was consistent character with the pressures of living in exile. The text and the message emphasized that the Jews were being pressured into idolatry. However, it is also clear that the call for “peoples, nations, and languages” (vv. 4,7) that this was a political attempt to bring all who had been conquered by Babylon into a unified empire.

The message identified three ways the consistent character of the Jews was been attacked.

            Authority and Intimidation – the emperor was commanding obedience

            Conformity – everyone else was going along

            Penalty – the fiery furnace

The message suggested ways we may feel similar pressures to compromise our character in our daily experiences. Though nothing was said about the recent developments with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, I am sure I was not the only one thinking of parallels to their situations.

Then, this morning I read the reflection from Richard Rohr of the Center for Action and Contemplation on the “banality of evil” which shed incisive light on my incredulous wrestling with so much these days. The Modern Disguise of Evil — Center for Action and Contemplation (cac.org)

 

 

 

Matt Gaetz: Another Saga of Sex, Money, and Power

I can’t say I have followed the Matt Gaetz story. I seldom see it on PBS, BBC, or AP unless it intersects with something with broader ramifications, such as medical marijuana. But tantalizing details keep showing up in a variety of “popular” news media outlets, both left and right, as some sort of unfolding soap opera entertaining with salacious teases.

I will not comment on his political activities and opinions or the believability of his denials of anything illegal in paying for sex with a number of women, allegedly including a 17 year old taken across state lines. From my perspective all the attention focused here avoids what to me is obvious from his own words. This man has no moral compass. He has acknowledged a history that would otherwise have been labeled as promiscuous, and he has dismissed any problem with that by saying that he’s not a monk and wasn’t married.

Even though I am a retired Christian pastor, my concern about the lack of a moral compass is not about sexual prudishness or adhering to the sort of biblical ethics I taught all my career. No, I am concerned for what seems a crass disregard for the dignity and full human value of women and the wonder of sexuality in healthy human relationships. I do not intend to single out Mr. Gaetz nor to rant about “the media.” Rather, I am dismayed that such behavior and attitudes seem to not only be accepted but even expected among men in many walks of life who are climbing the ambitious ladder of power, or even think they have arrived at the pinnacle of power in their realm.

Personal Pondering the Derek Chauvin Verdict

 

Not that my opinion matters to anyone else, nor that it will change anything, but I have this urge to clarify for myself my convictions when so much confusion is swirling around. Furthermore, I have no interest in getting embroiled in pointless debate that only damages relationships. Therefore, I am posting this in my Writing Workshop blog and will only link to social media if something significant prompts it.

 I want to be clear that I respect and support law enforcement and the essential role they play in society. I also want to be equally clear that I believe police can and should be held accountable for civil and criminal misconduct.

 I believe all people need accountability. In my own experience with clergy colleagues, I have witnessed, and I must say been wounded myself, the tragedies and damage when leaders of churches and religious organizations do not have authentic accountability. Police are no exception to this universal human reality.

 I was not on the jury for the Derek Chauvin trial and did not receive all of the evidence and instruction they did. Thus, though I have a sense of justice here, I will refrain from either affirming or second guessing their verdict. However, almost instantly what was, and should have only been, a legal matter became politicized. A number of pundits and politicians have vociferously objected to the verdict as an attack on all police that weakens all law enforcement. Though I haven’t seen it directly and overtly stated, I get the strong impression that they do not believe police should ever be held accountable for civil or criminal misconduct. I am left pondering what boundary would have to be crossed for police to face consequences for misconduct.

 

 

Not Showing Up for Senate Trial

 Lawyers know that having the defendant testify is risky. They might just say something incriminating. I don't know if Trump just doesn't want to be held accountable (the unconstitutional argument seems to me to be a crock). But if I was a lawyer representing him, I wouldn't want him to show up. If he loses his temper at Republicans who voted to confirm the Electoral College results, he could just lose enough of their votes for a conviction.

Actress on Demand

These paragraphs comes from a character in my (unpublished) novel Standing Outside the Door that I wrote in March 2017. The events of this week (January 20, 2021) brought this poignantly to mind. Martha is the wife of a pastor whose career has collapsed in scandal. She is talking to a clergy colleague of her husband Ron.  

 “I told you I’ve been working on this plan for a long time,” Martha moved on. “My awareness of what was happening didn’t dawn on me instantly, but very slowly came into focus. I knew I could continue quite a while after intimacy ceased, and especially when I claimed my own space behind the work nook doors. When I started taking classes at the community college, I quickly realized that I needed something more substantive than office skills, but a way to present myself as a professional, even if I didn’t have a degree. I focused on accounting until I could get certified as a CPA, and some business management classes. I could handle the part-time receptionist job for the medical clinic along with taking classes. I spent the money I made on classes and put the rest in a savings account. My real livelihood was still coming from being actress on demand for the Pastor Ron Show. I still feel no regrets about doing that while I prepared to launch my plan with adequate resources to be sure it would work. What I didn’t realize was the perfection of the timing of Ron’s departure and the invitation of the medical clinic to become their full-time office manager. I suppose some pious people would say God was manipulating the timing. I can certainly acknowledge God’s role in putting my plan together, but I was the one who had to work it.”

...

Martha took a deep breath before going on. “Though it took a few weeks for this to play out, the die was cast the next day after you came to me and to the children on behalf of the Committee on Ministry. By then, not only were Ron and I not sleeping together, we were not communicating except for essential business matters required to project the model couple and family of a prestigious pastor. Ron, Jr. and Renee seemed to stay in character even in the face of their daily experiences to the contrary. I would have to say that with puberty, Rhonda recognized the charade for what it was. On Sundays she played her role perfectly: dress, vocabulary, biblical facility, demeanor. I don’t know that she ever complained about the family or exposed her father to her friends. As near as I could tell, she was building her life without us. I don’t know how she did it, but she figured out that her father had a series of other women, one after another, before I moved into the work nook." 

In Praise of Old Lovers - listening

Back in November I posted words that I hoped could become a song: In Praise of Old Lovers. I sent them to my sons and grandsons who are actually musical. As much as I love music, no one would call me musical (probably explains my school days as a percussionist, though I didn't like being called a drummer). Well, my grandson Isaac (a junior music education major at Grove City College, PA: piano and trumpet specialties) wrote a score for the lyrics and recruited his sister Hannah to sing it with him. You can hear them on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/22WWhYMehCc

I have reposted the words here again so you can follow along.

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.

 

Make No Mistake

Those being identified, charged, and arrested in connection with the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 are not being targeted because they are white supremacists, conspiracy theory advocates, conservatives, or Republicans. They are being held accountable for their actions assaulting the core of the US Republic when they besieged the US Capitol and interfered with the orderly business of Congress. Whatever you think of their views as white supremacists, conspiracy theory advocates, conservatives, and Republicans, plenty of them who did not participate in that melee are at no risk of being arrested for holding or expressing their views.

I Can't Help But Wonder ...

 if those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 thought they would be immune from arrest and prosecution because they were there to support the President?

or

not just in the past week, or since the election, or in the last five years but throughout his career, how many  reputations, livelihoods, careers, marriages, family relationships, friendships have been trashed because of loyalty to Donald Trump? 

Could See It Coming

 Revisit Trump's rallies and his demeanor in the debates when he was campaigning for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination, and the events of this past week are not only expected but inevitable.

Personal Responsibility for Actions and Words

Taking personal responsibility for one’s words and actions is a hallmark of human maturity. Personal responsibility is embraced and articulated at the core of conservative social and political philosophy. Of course, personal responsibility is essential to liberal thinking too.

Thus, those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 cannot evade responsibility for their actions by suggesting President Trump or others in the crowd made them do it.

Neither can any who addressed the crowd, including President Trump, evade their responsibility for their words. Words do have power, and once spoken, words cannot be retracted or edited.

To be sure, most of the people gathered in front of the US Capitol on January 6 did not breach the perimeter with its barriers and police officers. Whether they cheered on those who did or dispersed rather than get caught up in the melee, their presence was some expression of distrust and even hostility toward Congress. Still and all, thousands did break through to storm the US Capitol and hundreds made it inside the building. All must be held accountable for their actions as well as their words.

To be clear, I affirm the right of those who gathered on January 6 to assemble and express their objection to the election, even if I disagree or think them misguided. I have always opposed violence and destruction of property in demonstrations, protests, and other first amendment expressions of free speech and assembly, including those causes I affirm. Nevertheless, storming the US Capitol is of unprecedented character and magnitude.   

Donald’s World

Like a number of my recent posts, I am not linking this to social media, but posting it here as a way of getting the rumblings out of my mind.

Donald Trump seems to live in a world of his own imagination. Those who are attracted to this world are welcome to join him, as long as they accept his version of truth. Those who question him are angrily expelled. When reality conflicts with his world, he dismisses it as fake. This was evident in his interaction with his rivals for the Republican nomination for President in 2015-16. Rather than engage in dialog he ridiculed and mocked them. He attacked the institution of the free press as fake news, not just challenges to specific news outlets. Especially in the realms of climate change and environmental stewardship, he disdained science as an opponent of his agenda. When covid-19 was first recognized in December 2019, he dismissed it as a political attack first from his favorite nemesis China and then cast the US CDC as his political enemy rather than accepting it as a partner in addressing the public health of the citizens of the US. The rejection of science carried over into discouraging common sense measure of health protection and promotion of inappropriate and even dangerous prevention and treatments. When he lost re-election in 2020, he has persisted in insisting that he won by a landslide and that the election was stolen by fraud, even though dozens of suits in courts with Republican and even Trump appointed judges – including the US Supreme Court with his own appointees there, Republican governors and legislatures, and Republican election officials – even his own appointees in his own cabinet – affirmed again and again that the election results were correct. Whether he intended it or not, his words to his ardent supporters in Washington, D.C. did incite their storming of the US Capitol. This disrupted and delayed their work of certifying the votes of the Electoral College. Even now he insists he won the election, and thousands who want to live in that world with him persist not just in agreement but determination to continue to fight for the Trump imaginary world. Yesterday’s events do seem to have jolted some politicians with reality, but they will certainly face Donald Trump’s wrath, as he seems unable to tolerate variation of opinion or constructive dialog, even among those who have shared his world.