Bush and Obama - Iraq and GM

I've been a bit struck lately with some similarities in the American polled attitudes about Iraq during the late Bush years, and the GM bailout now in the early Obama years. While the two are not totally symmetrical, it's getting harder and harder to keep them apart. Consider:

1) The amount of money being thrown at both never seems to come to an end. Nobody seems to have a good handle on how much the taxpayers will have to spend in order for both efforts to ultimately prove 'successful'. Certainly in the case of Iraq, it was legitimate to ask whether the decision to invade and its fallout was well thought through or not, especially given what appeared to be a complete inability to correctly forecast the extent of our commitment in personnel, expense and time. It appears many people are now asking the same question about the decision to bail out GM.

2) The poll numbers are trending somewhat consistently on both issues. The public, while not unanimous, initially supported the Iraq war, at least in plurality. That support held up for a while, but began to tank in Bush's second term, despite some legitimate successes on the ground in Bush's last year in office. Similarly, while not unanimous, a plurality of the public seemed to initially favor a government bailout of GM. In theory, this support was based on the idea that it was very important to the health of the nation that the US auto industry, and all the jobs associated with it, survive. But this support now seems to be flagging, as more money is spent keeping GM afloat despite significant job losses resulting from dealership closings, factory suspensions, and discontinuation of known brands like Pontiac.

3) The rationales offered by the proponents of both issues is eerily similar. When the going got tough in Iraq, Bush and his supporters said we needed to stay the course and that now that we were in there, we needed to finish the job. Iraq war proponents have consistently said that they want to get out of Iraq as soon as Iraq can stand on its own. Yet, all attempts at a timetable were heavily resisted by the former administration. The same thing is happening now with GM. I heard Debbie Stabenow, a senator from Michigan with an obvious interest in saving GM, tell exactly the same story about government intervention in GM that Bush was giving on government intervention in Iraq. She told a sycophantic interviewer on MSNBC that she didn't want the government running GM any longer than necessary, but that government involvement is nonetheless necessary for the forseeable future until GM gets its mess straightened out. She talked about the downside of getting out of GM too quickly (sound familiar? - this is her version of the 'premature withdrawal' argument of the Bush people on Iraq). And like the Iraq war proponents, she heavily downplayed the financial cost to the taxpayer of the decision to bail out GM.

As I said at the beginning, I am not suggesting that these two things are exactly the same, or that their respective support and opposition are based on exactly the same reasons. But there are some curious similarities at work here, and one wonders if the Obama people can see the irony of adopting a number of Bush stump speech justifications on Iraq in defense of their decisions about GM.

New Article Published by 3Mil

Back in May, I submitted an article to ThirdMill titled "Did the Author of the Fourth Gospel Intend to Write History?" The editor of 3Mil's online magazine has graciously agreed to publish the article, and it is now available online. For those interested in reading it, follow the 'My Published Papers So Far' link on the right side of this blog page.

In this article, I interact with the common scholarly contention of the last 40 years that the FG is more or less an allegory about a late 1st century community of believers, rather than a historical narrative about the historical Jesus. I attempt to introduce the issue of literary genre into this discussion, and to pull from a diverse pool of data (topography, historiography, etc) to assess whether this view holds water on the evidence. I argue that it doesn't.

George Tiller, Abortion, and the Imago Dei

I am pro-life. I think George Tiller's medical practice of aborting viable babies in the third trimester was unconscionable. And I think his assassination is equally unconscionable.

This is a difficult issue for me. Tiller wasn't just someone who performed late-term abortions. He was an all-out advocate for such a practice - a culture warrior in his own right. Prior to his killing, Tiller had suffered other physical harm, legal challenges, protests, and harassment. None of this deterred Tiller from continuing his terrible practice. Clearly, Tiller was a man who was completely committed to doing what he was doing. A lot like his killer, I suspect. Which is why I can equally condemn the actions of both of them.

I agree with those who say that the country's gradual shift toward a more pro-life posture has nothing to do with violent acts like this. It has everything to do with the compelling peaceful arguments that have been made by those of us who see God's image in every person, including the unborn. Scientific advances that increasingly demonstrate the viability of pre-born life, coupled with many post-1973 individuals rightly seeing themselves as 'survivors' of a sanitized and sanctioned practice of death, have gradually reshaped the ethos of the abortion issue in far more effective ways than judges, politicians, and laws have done. Tiller's killing may or may not stem this tide. But it clearly violated the basic principles that have given rise to this tide.

Tragedies like this killing always highlight a brutal dynamic of humanity when left unchecked. Everybody has 'reasons' why they do what they do. Nothing that has ever been said or done is purely 'thoughtless' in the sense of having no reasons behind them. Judging the propriety of words and deeds isn't about determining whether there were 'reasons' behind them. No. Parents have 'reasons' for cursing at their children. Children have 'reasons' for throwing their food at the table. Madoff had 'reasons' for ruining the lives of so many. Having a 'reason' for doing something doesn't make it right.

The propriety of our conduct is about whether our reasons are good or not. But this leaves us in another dilemma. How exactly are we to determine whether our reasoning is good? In my view, an ethic of word and deed that is not based, either explicitly or implicitly, on the doctrine of imago Dei is one that leaves us in chaos. It is the Christian doctrine of humanity made in God's image that gives us common cause, mutual respect, a real ability to bridge differences, and most importantly, a fundamental dignity that cannot be revoked by any man or woman. The practice of abortion, and the killing of abortionists, are both rooted in a denial of imago Dei. Both practices, in the end, embrace the antithesis of imago Dei, for they betray the belief that one person gets to decide whether another person has intrinsic value or not - or in the case of abortion, one person gets to decide whether another person is really a person or not.

The breakdown of the imago Dei ethic doesn't just show up on the issue of abortion. I'm convinced it is the primary reason why America is disintegrating into all-out individualism and factionalism. The isolation, mistrust, and even hatred it has spawned is, in my view, irreversible absent a return to the only ethic that ascribes permanent value to humanity as a whole. All of us, especially those of us who are Christians and claim to embrace biblical ethics, need to take a hard look in the mirror. If we really believed in the imago Dei, would we really be treating others the way we are? Considering that Tiller was apparently a churchgoer, his abdication of imago Dei is only an acutely grotesque example of less newsworthy but far more common abdications that many of us, including me, silently exhibit in our attitudes and 'reasons' for treating people the way we do.

The danger of an increasingly post-Christian America isn't just about the waning influence of the Gospel, Jesus, and the need for salvation in our current zeitgeist. It is also about a deterioration in the ethic that binds us together and instills mutual respect and responsibility to each other as fellow image-bearers. The loss of this ethic results in the basis for Tiller's grisly practice, as well as his grisly execution. One would hope that both would cause us all to take a step back and do some serious assessing of where we are and where we're headed. But civilization has paved over over an abundance of such moments throughout time without barely missing a beat. The dangers of this are numerous, obvious, and imminent.

Let's Go Caps

As a long-suffering Washington Caps fan who has watched countless good Caps teams go down in flames early in the playoffs, last night's tough victory over the Rangers was more exuberant relief than anything else. As a fan who still rues the day the NHL realigned the divisions and took the Caps out of the old Patrick Division, beating an old Patrick Division foe was especially gratifying. Caps fans like me who learned to love hockey by watching intense divisional encounters with the Rangers, Islanders, Flyers, and Penguins have had great trouble replacing these rivalries with the Canes, Thrashers, Bolts, and Panthers in intensity. But come playoff time, seasoned Caps fans are allowed to have the rivalry juices flow again when we tend to meet our more traditional rivals. Last year, it was the hated Flyers. This time, it was the Rangers. But unlike last year, this year we move on.

Next comes the Pens. The Pens are to the Caps what Spurrier's Florida was to Georgia and Tennessee, what Michael Jordan was to Cleveland, and what Babe Ruth was to the Red Sox. Namely, not just a competitor, but a tormentor. In 7 playoff series between the Caps and Pens, the Pens have won 6. Moreover, it's not just that the overall outcome in the series has been lopsided, it's also the manner in which each individual series was lost that continues to bewitch the Caps fan base. In many of the 6 series losses, the Caps outplayed the Pens early in the series, only to have the Pens find their composure, unnerve the Caps, and pull it out in the end. There was no question that the Pens mystique got into the heads of the Caps players, organization and fan base.

But now, a new slate of players from both sides is poised to renew the rivalry. To what extent have they embraced the history of the rivalry? They would probably say it's old news and irrelevant, and maybe it is. But for this Caps fan, heartache isn't easily forgotten, particularly when it's been inflicted by the same tormentor over and over again. On paper, the two teams are about even. But I fear that in reality, the matchup is as lopsided as this rivalry's playoff history. I hope I'm wrong; I desperately hope I'm wrong. But I think the Pens win in 5.

Good Friday, 2009

It can be argued quite well that Good Friday is the singlemost revolting day on the Christian calendar, certainly for non-Christians, and even for some within the church. For it is on this day that Christians ponder the awful death of Christ on the cross. Holy days like Easter and Christmas are much more high profile than Good Friday, and certainly arouse their share of opposition. But in the end, Christian observance of the birth and resurrection of Christ tend to be dismissed rather than derided by those who have a problem with Christianity. Good Friday is different.

The redemptive significance of the crucifixion of Christ has been derided as the 'gospel of gore' for some time. More recently, it has been popular to attack the notion that the Father's judgment against sin was satisfied through the substitutionary atonement of Christ as a form of 'divine child abuse'. What kind of Father would allow his Son to be brutalized, and what kind of Father would turn his wrath against sin against his own Son who committed no sin? How can Christians possibly 'celebrate' such a disgraceful thing?

While such objections to the atoning death of Christ are potent and clearly resonate, they distort not only the nature of God, but the nature of Christ as well. In John 10.18, Jesus makes it clear that he is voluntary giving his life for his sheep. He makes clear that nobody takes his life, and nobody has the standing to do so. He is the one who has the authority not only to lay down his life of his own accord, but to take up his life again. Because the Father (Acts 2.32), the Son (Jn 10) and the Spirit (Rom 8.10-11) are all said to be involved in Christ's resurrection (not to mention the creation of the universe and the salvation of the world), we know the three members of the Trinity were unified in the divine purpose of the story of redemption, including the crucifixion.

Jesus is not an unwilling participant; he is not an unwitting victim here. His suffering and death was not necessitated by a bloodthirsty Father who became a follower of Marquis de Sade before de Sade was born. As John 10.11 makes clear, the salvation of sinful humanity was the purpose behind the awful crucifixion. The horror of Christ's death highlights the horror of the sin that required such a remedy. As the wrenching hymn of Johann Heermann says,

Who was the guilty who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee:
I crucified thee.

This is what is really so offensive about the crucifixion - our sin put Christ on the cross. When another hymn asks, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?", I am compelled to answer, "Yes I was. My sin put him on the cross."

But why was the crucifixion necessary? Wasn't there some other way to address the sin problem? No. As 1 Peter 3.18 makes clear, Christ died for sins once for all; the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. Without the substitution for sin that Christ became, terms like 'righteous' and 'unrighteous' lose all meaning. Far from being the gospel of gore, the crucifixion is part of the gospel of intercession, where a righteous God intercedes for the unrighteous who are dead in their sins, and dies on their behalf so that they might have life. 'Divine child abuse' would be seeing masses of humans made in God's image who are without hope of redemption, and doing nothing about it. Christ's willing sacrifice to make me a child of God despite my sins that made his sacrifice necessary is the kind of extraordinary and unprecedented love that never ceases to make me weep in both anguish and joy on Good Friday.

Preaching on Barley

A good preacher can find at least one good sermon on the significance of barley in the Bible. In point of fact, any sermon focused on the feeding of the 5,000 would be deficient if the barley angle wasn't explored.

It is clear from both Scripture and agronomy that barley bread is a lesser bread than other kinds of bread, particularly wheat bread. Barley has a lower gluten content, a low extraction rate, is less tasty and more indigestible. Barley was the grain of choice in arid regions in Bible days, because it is less sensitive to soil salinity and demands less water than wheat. Put simply, barley was the poor man's bread, because while heartier and less tasty than wheat, barley grain grew better on less desirable lands (ie: lands that the poor would work) and required fewer natural resources (ie: water) to grow. Barley was the grain used to feed the animals (1K 4.28).

2 Kings 7 makes it clear that barley meal was worth only half as much as wheat (2K 7.1,16,18), with Rev 6.6 also considering wheat to be of greater value than barley. When God is pronouncing judgment on false prophets who gave false reassurances to the people in Ezk 13, the depth of the prophets's betrayal is understood all the more when God highlights how the prophets profaned God 'for a few handfuls of barley' (13.19). This is a stinging indictment. The false prophets haven't forsaken fidelity to God in pursuit of gold or other worldly riches, but for the least valuable kind of grain. They sold out God for nothing, which makes God's impending judgment all the more righteous.

The barley motif gets especially interesting when we arrive at the Gospel of John, and its account of the feeding of the 5,000 in John 6. Of the four Gospels, only John specifies the type of bread loaves used at the feeding. You guessed it - barley (6.9). By making a point to tell his audience that barley bread was used to feed the masses, John is telling us something about the crowd. These people, by and large, were poor. Barley is what they grew, and it's what they ate.

But just as importantly, John is also telling us at least two things about Jesus. First, John's version of the feeding of the 5,000 most closely parallels Elisha's feeding of the 100 in 2K 4. In the initial Elisha miracle, barley is again the bread that is miraculously multiplied to feed the multitude (4.42). The feeding of the 5,000 is unquestionably patterned off this OT miracle. John's very deliberate barley notation would have cemented the link between this miracle and the Elisha miracle with his audience. The Gospel of John goes to great lengths to demonstrate the uniqueness of Jesus by showing that Jesus did things nobody else had done before. But what often goes unnoticed is that John also stresses the uniqueness of Jesus by showing that Jesus did things other people did as well, but is doing them on a completely different and unheard of scale. This would have made just as big an impression on his audience.

Second, when Jesus multiplies the bread, he doesn't turn barley into wheat, a la turning water into wine. He multiplies the barley. We know this because v15 indicates that the type of bread left over from the feeding was barley. What this tells us is that Jesus' miracles aren't always about rags to riches. No sermon on the feeding of the 5,000 by a Prosperity Gospel preacher will flush out the significance of the barley, because it's a black eye for the Prosperity Gospel. It is significant that one of the very few miracles recorded in all four Gospels is a miracle in which the poor man's bread is served to everyone, including those who stay loyal to Christ amidst opposition. There is no hint here of the 'special stuff for special faith' formula of Prosperity theology. Instead, the formula crashes on the hearty density of the barley.

While barley was considered an inferior grain in Bible days, it can serve as a superior preaching topic today.

A Nation of 'Cowards'?

So says Eric Holder, our current Attorney General, in regards to the nation's ability to converse constructively on issues of race. Predictably, due both to his prominence and the language he chose to employ, his comments have once again kicked up the dust on the well worn racial playing field of America. My issue is not with Holder per se, but with some of his defenders, particularly Michael Eric Dyson. More on that in a minute.

Understand that I come to this issue as someone who many would consider a conservative, but who takes somewhat unorthodox positions on issues of race. For example, I favor affirmative action, not as a form of payback or compensation for past sins, but because I sadly believe it continues to be necessary to help provide legitimate earned opportunity for those who face present-day racism. It is disproportionately difficult for African Americans to get access to credit and capital. The extreme difficulty in gaining clear title to property greatly inhibits many African Americans from owning their own homes, making improvements to properties, and improving the condition of neighborhoods. 'Urban education' is something mostly learned outside the classroom, since what passes for education inside the classroom is often not very educational. These are real disadvantages with real consequences, and thoughtful solutions that transcend political or public relation notoriety is urgently needed from folks on both the left and right.

So from this perspective, let me say that Holder may be more right than he thinks, and certainly far too correct for folks like Dyson to be praising him for what he said. Yes, we are a nation of cowards on race. Race, not Social Security, is the third rail not just in American politics, but in American culture too. The election of Barack Obama may (temporarily) lower the voltage, but the third rail still exists and can still deliver a painful and even fatal shock to those who touch it. Enter Michael Dyson.

Dyson is the prototypical academic celebrity. He's well spoken, his oratory is impassioned and inspiring, and he makes an effort to be cutting edge. But, I'm afraid, Dyson is the exact kind of 'coward' on race who needs to take a good look in the mirror. In praising Holder, Dyson argues that we need to move beyond our racial cocoons and get on with the business of unity. This is a wonderful sentiment, and breathtaking in light of Dyson's unfortunate rhetoric in perpetuating what has become one of the most debilitating crutches preventing candor on race discussions in America. That crutch being to shut down talking about 'unkind truth' by labeling all such discussion as 'racist' or, in the case of Dyson's view of Bill Cosby, indicative of someone who's 'lost his mind'. I don't totally agree with Bill Cosby's much trumpeted diagnosis of black poverty. But Cosby's thoughts were ironically a lot like Dyson's in technique - provocative, designed to stimulate uncomfortable discussion, and an attempt to move us away from our familiar places on the stage in order to have a real discussion.

In both newspaper columns and in a full-length book, Dyson not so subtely accused Cosby of being an Uncle Tom when Cosby dared to suggest that the plight of many African Americans cannot be reduced simply to racism. Repeatedly, Dyson accused Cosby of giving in to conservative talking points and appealing to dangerous stereotypes. Put simply, Cosby was selling out. To his credit, Dyson did at least interact somewhat with the substance of what Cosby was saying, though his interaction was too often heavy on disdain and light on alternatives that strayed even a little bit from 'liberal talking points' that have been tried and tested, and found wanting. But by doing so, he did more than many of his brethren in the academy who engage in exactly the kind of personal stereotyping devoid of engagement with ideas that Dyson thinks Cosby did. But his unwillingness to more thoughtfully engage Cosby and choosing to resort to the exact tactics that wholly dissuade honest discussion of race makes Dyson among the least honest brokers to advance a constructive discussion on race. It strikes me as quite sad that Dyson seems to lack the level of self-awareness to realize that such an approach is, well, cowardly. Shutting down legitimate debate and discussion with polarized and charged accusations that are only applicable because he says they are is cowardly, not constructive. That Dyson has a rather unrepentant history of doing this makes his approval of Holder all the more astonishing. He simply fails to realize that when it comes to race, there are cowards on all sides, including his, including him.

I say all this as someone who cautiously agrees with Dyson some of the time. I don't think Dyson is wholly wrong. But my issue is not with the social and political positions he takes. My issue is with his tactics and his very selective employment of them. This, frankly, is what all of us need to move beyond. That one of the foremost authorities on race in America can't seem to do that tells us all we need to know about the difficulty of moving the racial discussion forward and closing the racial divide among us.