Excellent blog post and descriptive of my own journey away from the water down Americanized version of Christianity…
Authorship
A Tempest in a Coffee Cup?
One may think from the news coverage that Christians are out, torches and pitchforks in hand, looking for coffee shops to burn. The story is that Starbucks isn’t exploiting Christmas enough and this lack of proper capitalization for a profit of holiday has offended the sentiments of the unwashed religionist hoards.
This fury seems to have originated with a humorous poke at a bland Starbucks holiday cup design. It was escalated by a fuddy-duddy blowhard extraordinaire (aka Joshua Feuerstein) who, apparently not seeing the joke, posted a video that urged a movement to trick hapless minions of secularism (aka Starbucks employees) into saying Merry Christmas.
And, since then—like that bar fight where nobody knows which drunken idiot started it or why they are fighting to begin with—the story of angry Christians has exploded into a media fiasco. But strangely the two main characters in this brawl do not seem to exist as much more than mythological creatures and that has led some to wonder if the whole ordeal is a fabrication.
Where are these offended Christians?
In my cadre of conservative Christian social media commentating friends, I have yet to see one who is offended by the Starbucks design. In fact, of my coreligionist friends voicing an opinion, I have observed two main camps:
1) The Apologists, or those annoyed by other Christians who are offended by Starbucks cups and have taken to social media to scold these theoretical entitlement-minded embarrassments to the Christian cause.
2) The Sanctimonious, or those who are suspicious that this controversy is created by the liberal irreligious media and take their high horse to condemn those annoyed as being pawns in this imagined nefarious plot.
Then there’s one last group made of non-religious friends:
3) The Amused, or those who watch with a little gleefulness, are not overly suspicious of the media and have little trouble imagining Christians that feel they are entitled to special treatment or would become outraged over something as silly as Starbucks cup.
My own opinion is that the whole thing has gotten blown out of proportion. It has likely only gained traction because we are already accustomed to the cultural wars that take place over issues similar to this. There is usually a skirmish or two this time of year (whether arguing for and against nativity scenes or some other cultural expressions of Christianity) and this has primed our pumps to expect it.
I also do contend, again, that Joshua Feuerstein represents a small segment of the general Christian population. There’s always those who are perpetually offended on behalf of their own tribe (look at the Halloween costume controversy at Yale and the chaos at Mizzou as examples) and yet whether or not these outspoken activists represent much more than themselves is an open question. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that those outraged by the cups are, at the most, a fringe element even amongst fundamentalists.
What’s with the media coverage, anyhow?
If one wants to study the interplay of the media echo chamber and social media viral phenomena they should start here. There seems to be a positive feedback loop at work in this where a one-man movement on YouTube, picked up by the mainstream media, was then sifted through the amplifier of social media and each step promoting more to add their own opinions. This has gone through several cycles of growing in magnitude. Even Donald Trump weighed in suggesting a boycott of the mermaid logo brand.
I do not think this is a media reporting this ‘controversy’ is a coordinated attempt to discredit Christians. Professional journalists are not any different from the rest of us and will report on what is the latest buzz as we do. In the age of social media the feedback loop is faster and the amplification quicker than ever. By the time people start breathing again, we all feel a bit duped and start to wonder how the insanity got started.
Newsflash: All news is manufactured!
And, furthermore, we all participate in manufacturing news when we share about events that interest us. We present a product of our own perspective whenever we tell other people about anything. As a professional news reporter, we also select the facts we believe are relevant and omit those that seem inconsequential. We carefully craft our words to reach our target audience and create a narrative based in our own worldview.
The adage “if it bleeds it leads” holds generally true. We are drawn to controversy and this latest fracas over Starbucks cups has struck a cord or we wouldn’t be talking about it. There are evidently enough perpetually outraged Christians like Feuerstein to make a premise of widespread butthurt believable. He may be a crude caricature of us, but there’s a reason that he’s not taken as parody and that’s likely because he’s representative of a type of person we know does exist.
My decaffeinated analysis of the issue…
Yet, the bigger story is that most people (Christian and secular alike) are seemingly more offended by the controversy itself than the plain red cups that started it. So maybe we should be careful not to get too carried away in our own outrage over the outrage that may or may not be an outrage at all. There are plenty of people sharing dumb opinions (Bill Nye on abortion for example) and this is probably a good reason to reserve judgment until the facts are spoken.
Anyhow, for the record, the only problem I have with Starbucks is the inferior quality of their brackish liquid. I prefer my coffee with milk, sugar, in a Dunkin Donuts cup and agnostic. If that offends you, then please, by all means, do complain and start a movement or something—I will sip away amused as my blog views climb.
“…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:26-28)
The Obession of Avoiding Stupidity
StandardWe all like to think we know something. Every person has knowledge, from the sophisticated intellectual with a large vocabulary to the redneck who touts their common sense, and for most this can give a smug sense of security. However, the more I study science and history the more I get the feeling that we all probably know far less than we think we know. Perhaps knowing to be humble in what you know is more important than having the dictionary memorized? Perhaps both redneck and professor have knowledge that the other would benefit to know?
Anyhow, here’s a blog by a smart young woman worthy of being read….
Do you remember how it feels when they find out that you’re actually stupid?
I do.
I remember the day they discovered that I didn’t know where Honolulu was. When they found out that I didn’t know the freezing temperature of water. When they snickered in the corner because I thought that a bacon cheeseburger just had bacon on it for the meat, and no hamburger.
Clear memories, etched deep into my brain, because that’s what I was insecure about as a teen. I wasn’t insecure about my looks or my popularity or all those other things girls in books were insecure about, but I was insecure about my intellect. I even wrote myself a list of “Rules for Learning Things Without Looking Stupid.”
(Tip #1: If you don’t know something, don’t ask. Look it up on Google later. Tip #2: If you don’t get the joke, pretend you just…
View original post 878 more words
A Community Perspective of Mass Murder
Another well-armed angry young man goes on a murderous spree and again political ambulance chasers jockey to take advantage to win points for their pet projects.
President Obama used the recent massacre at an Oregon college as an opportunity to campaign for gun control measures that would not have prevented it. Militant 2nd Amendment gun rights advocates responded with the tired ‘good guys with guns’ arguments and arming teachers as the solution. Others ranted about correlations between pharmaceuticals and deranged minds. (Well, duh?)
Those using the issue for their various (political) causes seem to be vastly misunderstanding the actual issue. Their response is a knee-jerk reaction rather than a careful analysis of fact and their canned solutions show the functional fixedness in their thinking. There are too many assumptions that steer the current conversation and could be distracting us from addressing the real problem.
Many seem to assume that killers are simply incurable killers and we simply need to better secure ourselves (with more guns or gun control laws) against this inevitability of angry men. But could a killer be stopped before they stockpile weapons and act out their violent fantasies against those who they blame for their unhappiness?
Perhaps more guns, curbs of liberty and drugs (more or less) are not the solution to the real problem?
The root issue is that a young man made a choice to act violently. He had reasons, rational or irrational, for the choice that should be understood. (Note, I am not saying that the choice was justified, I believe murder is always immoral and a sin.) We should acknowledge the choice as a choice and at least explore the possibility we can help those who are tempted by violence to choose rightly.
#1) Understand the Problem is a Person
I think often there is an urge to sanctimoniously distance ourselves from the bad actors of society. Simply labelling the perpetrator of violence as a “thug” or “monster” or “animal” allows us to build emotional wall of separation between ourselves and evil deeds. If we were to acknowledge the humanity of the person doing the evil act we would be tying our own humanity to the evil and in a sense making ourselves responsible.
Fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias is an assumption that another person’s behavior is all a product of their defective character. (And, again, I do absolutely believe in personal accountability and responsibility for choices.) But then, what it comes to our own bad choices we always have an external excuse or justification and blame circumstance for our choices.
Killers do what we do. Killers often feel justified in what they do like we do because they were cheated or mistreated. They take out their jealous rage against those who they blame for their unhappiness. It is actually their humanity, the fact that they have emotions or just desire for significance—like we all do—that they act. The difference is that they choose to turn to acts of violence rather than grace.
The answer to the perceived offenses we endure is not hate or vengeance and love for our enemies needs to be encouraged. We need to fight against our own urge to be consumed totally by securing our own rights and love others as we would like to be loved. We should distance ourselves from using their evil choices to justify our own. We must love the hurting person behind the choice before they make it.
#2) Recognizing that Social Needs are Real
The elephant in the room is the vast changes in American culture and lifestyle that correlate with the trend of mass murder. We are linked with more and more technology, but are actually less connected (in flesh) than generations prior. Community has been replaced with increasing individualism and isolation. It is not a change without consequence.
People are not good in isolation, people have social needs and can be damaged by lack of adequate human interaction. Just a bit of research into solitary confinement or extreme cases of child neglect quickly show the psychological consequences are profound when social needs are not fully met for extended periods.
Perhaps the ideal of suburbia is not so ideal after all? Suburban life is not extreme isolation. But, in many cases, it is an environment deficient of social interaction—and especially in the case of single child homes. A child without brothers or sisters and separated from regular intimate interaction with other people is probably going to feel a deficit.
The problem is exacerbated for those who are socially awkward or shy. Some people are able to make friends everywhere, they are outgoing, easily put others at ease and popular. Other people struggle getting past that initial barrier of first contact, they watch frustrated as others interact with ease and feel ignored. Nobody wants to be marginalized.
We need to start recognizing that society and lifestyle do have a part to play in the choices of individuals. We need fewer fenced in yards, fewer spiritually empty McMansions and more opportunity for inclusion for those who would otherwise be marginalized by their natural dispositions or disabilities. We need less individualism and more community spirit.
#3 Bringing Outliers into our Community
There are some people who are probably gone beyond hope unreachable. There are some who have a defect that makes them almost impossible to relate to and interact positively with.
However, I do not believe that is the case in all cases or even most cases and we could do better at finding a place for those who need a place to belong. There is no amount of entertainment or material wealth that can fill the void of purpose caused by social isolation. We should not underestimate the role of community in shaping individual attitudes and mental health.
I see a solution in intentional community. A friend recently posted a story about a preschool in a nursing home. It was a beautiful example of the social needs of elderly being met by their inclusion with children. That is the type of mindset that could be applied more broadly.
But intentional community doesn’t need to start with a collective managed structural change like melding elderly and child care. It can start with how we as individuals interact with the outliers among us. It starts with our being aware that there are those who are marginalized and suffering from social isolation. If we look for it we can be a help.
It takes a change in perspective. Perhaps the weirdo is weird only because they have no friends to help them assimilate? Are you willing to be that weird person’s friend and bring them into your circle of friends? Forget mass killers even, what if we could prevent one suicide by being more proactive and inclusive? What if we could make one person’s day better?
#4 Know the Individual Power You Wield
I believe many of us underestimate our own influence. We turn to solutions like guns and laws because we feel too small to fight the demons of our culture without them. We look for ‘silver bullet’ solutions (pardon the expression) and forget that people are complex social creatures. One-size-fits-all solutions are not the best answer.
We need to fight back against evil, but not with superior firepower which is often misused or increased enablement of governments that often ends in abuse. We need to overcome evil with good. We need to fight isolation with inclusion, beat social awkwardness with understanding and prevent the seeds that lead to violence from ever taking root.
It takes a community of willing individuals to solve community problems. Violence against the community is intended as an attack on the community and must therefore be addressed as a community. But the community is not those we elect to represent us, the community is us and the problems of community require us as individuals to take part in being the solution.
Stop looking side to side or over your shoulder waiting for someone else to save society from its own destruction. Instead use your own unique talents and abilities, search out the needs in your own community and fill them. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and maybe even just a hug or smile can make a life changing difference.
#5 The Example of a Social Physician
Jesus was an advocate for unpopular people. The religious people of his day criticized him for what they perceived as his lack of judgment for his inappropriate mingling with women and men who they saw as inferior. Jesus turned the tables, he condemned the socially powerful and popular, he spoke for those marginalized by society.
There are many Gospel accounts like this…
“While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:10-13)
We don’t like the IRS today, but tax collectors in Jesus day were traitors who had sided with the Roman occupation of Palestine and were hated by the Jews. In the eyes of his accusers he was guilty by association. How could a great man find company with traitors, prostitutes and other sinners? But what is greatness without mercy to those who need it most?
Jesus was greater because he was merciful to all people, even the least of society and we should follow the lead he offers. We should be doctors of social ailments. We do not excuse or offer justification for sin anymore than a doctor is an advocate for disease. No, we, like a doctor, need to diagnose the true problem and provide the right cure.
We can exercise the same power to heal as Jesus did. We have a choice to create a better society. We can choose to respond to problems with love and not fear. We need to be the solution in the same way as Jesus, by overcoming prejudice through self-sacrificial love and love for the enemies we face every day.
God bless. Be strong. Be a solution not a spectator.
Love: Feeling or Choice?
StandardThis blog is about ideas and the idea that ideas matter. I believe the ideas people have can dramatically influence the direction of their lives. Our choices, based in our ideas, could actually help shape reality in a ways not previously understood.
The view that seems popular today makes people simply products of the universe. We emphasize the role of genetics and the influence of environmental factors in shaping what a person is, which is an idea that is certainly not without merit. We bear a close resemblance to our parents for a reason and had no choice in determining that. There’s also a good explanation of why I am writing this in English rather than Chinese.
Obviously we have a given nature and are influenced by the nurture we received, which could lead to a ‘it is what it is’ fatalistic view that we have no choice or free will and ability to determine the future. But could there be more than that? Is it possible that the universe is only an influence and not a dictator of our consciousness? Could it be that our own consciousness acts as a co-creator of the future universe?
Advances in physics have opened a whole new realm of possibilities. The wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics is a paradox that suggests there is a bigger picture of the universe and one that could put our own consciousness in a far more important role than previously understood. If our observation actually shapes reality at a quantum level (collapsing the wave function) then the future may not actually be determined outside of our own mind and will as is a common assumption.
If the future is not a destiny and is in fact something we co-create, then that could change many things including our ideas on love, which leads to the question…
Is love an existent feeling or a willful choice?
Both religious and secular people have seemed to have embraced a fatalistic view of love. We could be scientific and point to natural explanations like pheromones, cultural expectations, chance opportunity, etc. It is basically to conclude that love is something pressed out of a myriad of factors that all combine at the right time—which is a view that makes love seem sort of like sausage. The religious, on the other hand, may turn to a meant-to-be (or God-did-it) rational to explain love and downplay choice.
Our culture, religious or otherwise, tends to emphasize the feelings of attraction above all else. Love is something we are told we should ‘fall’ into and that there is a ‘right’ person out there for everyone. The idea is that attraction produces a feeling that produces a choice that produces commitment and ends with happily ever after.
Unfortunately, I believe this is a view of love that has produced a great deal of disappointment and disillusionment in our day. It doesn’t work for many people. For some the problem is that they never find someone who produces that feeling of attraction enough to make them commit and they remain single or go from one relationship to the next in search of it. The problem for others is that they marry based in superficial feelings, eventually those feelings fade away and they want out of the commitment.
In both cases (above) the idea of love centers around feelings of attraction and presents love as a product of circumstances outside of our own control.
But what if there is an alternative view? What if we flip the order of things and put commitment first? Or, rather than love being a fate produced by an initial attraction that eventually ends in commitment and happily ever after, could love be a commitment to love that lead to a continual choice that produces a deepening relationship that produces a feeling of love and marital bliss?
It is my view that love is less of an ‘it is what it is’ fate and more an ‘it is what we make it’ choice. I believe the idea of love as a choice would produce healthier more sustainable relationships than the current popular view. We believe we would see a reversal in trends towards non-commitment if we stopped waiting for the ‘right’ feeling to come and started to be more actively loving to others even when the feelings do not exist.
What is the (proper) Christian view of love?
In the American church there is a heavy emphasis on experience and emotion in worship. We want music, we want excitement and entertainment, because the more feeling we have in the moment the more we love God, right?
Wrong.
Christian faith is not supposed to be primarily about feelings or ‘spiritual’ experience. Christian faith should be about obedience to the Spirit of love and that is the true evidence of faith according to Jesus:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Many Christians have confused positive emotions for spiritual depth. A person who proclaims the loudest how great God is and puts on the biggest public display of praise is not necessarily the one who loves God the most. The Gospel presents a different view of love that doesn’t resonate as well with our feelings based culture. Jesus says, “if you love me, keep my commandments,” (John 14:15) and equates love with obedience.
To obey Jesus means to love others as we wish to be loved (Luke 6:31) and to love perfectly like God does:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48)
If Christian love were a feeling and emotion how would it be possible to love our enemies? Enemies are, by common definition, the people we do not love because they have in some way offended us or they are out to destroy us. But, perfect love is not a feeling. Perfect love is a choice to obey and love in action even when the feelings aren’t there. Perfect love is a choice rather than a feeling, perfect love is the kind that sacrifices our own selfish ambitions for the good of others, and without that kind of love we are not actually true disciples of Jesus:
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” (1 John 4:7-21)
Christian love is preemptive. Christian love follows the example of Jesus who loved us BEFORE we loved him. True love is not based in initial attraction nor does it wait in fear of not being reciprocated. True love steps out in faith. Perfect love is not a pursuit of an immediate feeling or instant gratification.
Love is a choice to invest in the good of another person even when we do not feel like they are worth our investment. Love means a choice to obey and the choice to obey is a choice to follow the example of Jesus.
So, if love is a choice, then feelings do not matter?
No, not exactly. I do believe feelings do matter. But, a love based primarily in initial superficial attraction is a shallow love and deep love is only possible with deep (and self-sacrificial) commitment. Deeper love is a continual choice to love more than a fleeting feeling of love. For that reason we should be emphasizing the choice to love over the feeling of love and not the other way around.
This is not to say that those who started with a feeling of superficial attraction never develop depth of relationship—some do and some do not. But I will say that love that is a choice and a commitment in faith is starting at a deeper level. The better love is not a feeling. The better love is a choice to put aside fear (or hate) and invest in the betterment of another person. It is a love that is based in faith rather than feeling.
If love is a matter of will rather than a determined or predestined fate, then when a person says that they cannot love a person what they are really saying is that they unwilling to love that person. The feelings can never develop in a person who is not willing to step out in faith. Therefore, if you want to find love, be willing to bring love into the world and give it away in faith.
Love first. Plant seeds of love in the world. Do not wait on feelings to arrive before investing in the good of others. Do not expect the Spirit of God to come to you (or the world) unless you live in obedience to the command to follow Jesus and love self-sacrificially by his example. Love before you expect love to arrive. Yes, this is absolutely a paradox, a causality dilemma, but that is the nature of our reality in a quantum universe.
Do not be resigned to an idea that we are haplessly tossed about without a will of our own. Instead, consider the last lines of Invictus, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.” Choose to love supernaturally. Be a co-creator of a higher and deeper love rather than a mere consumer of the feelings produced by base human nature.
For Sale: 2001 Jaguar XJR and a duty to impress…
Little brothers must be impressed. It is a rule of being a big brother.
Several years ago my brother Brent, still in school, had a fixation with jaguars. He was both a fan of the NFL franchise of that name and also the automobiles of that same denomination.
Brent had mentioned a Jaguar for sale and wanted me to check it out. But I really had no need of another vehicle, I had two already and felt that was plenty. However, one day I was in town with some spare time and then spotted this beautiful machine at a used car lot.
“Hmm, that must be the Jaguar Brent has been talking about…”
I decided to inquire about it. The salesman ended up tossing me the keys just in time for me to pick up my little brother at the school bus platform. The look on his face was priceless and enough to convince me to do my big brotherly duty to impress him.
I purchased that Jaguar XJR a few weeks later. The “Grace, Pace, Space” slogan of the brand fit this car. Classic lines, the power of a muscle car and luxury combined perfectly. It is a supercharged 370hp beast that beat out the Beemers, Benzes and Porsches of It’s day—it is still faster than most.
It has served me well. It has been the source of many grins. It possess every bit of the charm and sophistication of Daniel Craig playing James Bond. It is an impressive machine. I have not regretted my decision to do my big brotherly duty.
Seasons have come and gone. I have decided it is time to part with the XJR in order to free up garage space. It is in excellent condition and I will probably regret selling it.
But Brent is now married and away, so maybe it is time?
A Shameless Arrival — Mission Accomplished!
I arrived at Lock Haven’s Piper William T. Piper Memorial Airport at precisely 9:59 a.m. The plan was to meet at 10:00 and fly to the Ponderosa cabin north of the airport.
I parked my little Ford next to a handsome Porsche. I stepped out of the car, a twelve year old again, and full of anticipation as I took in my surroundings. I scanned the tarmac through the security fence for the Cessna 150 or my brother. I could not identify machine or man, so I headed to the office adjacent to the parking lot.
Inside I struck up a conversation with the natives. They had not seen my brother, but they did share my enthusiasm for flying and soon I found out the man I was speaking to was an instructor. I got the full sales pitch for flight lessons from an instructor. I probably could’ve been signed up on the spot.
“Lock Haven traffic, Cessna 11479 is 4 to the north, inbound for landing 27 right. Full stop landing. Lock Haven.”
The words over the radio sounded. “That’s your brother?” I quickly opened the email that told me what Cessna I was to expect and indeed, it was! I quickly stepped outside looking and listening for that distinct buzz of a boxer-type engine.
It took a minute or two until I spotted the small aircraft on approach. He came in over the trees and levee as I cringed as if trying to help him fly, but he nailed the landing with a chirp of the tires and was soon taxing towards me.
I suppose I am allowed some brotherly pride, right?
The Cessna 150L was remarkably small inside, only two seats, and was a bit hot without air movement, but was comfortable enough. I put my headset on as Kyle switched on the intercom and yelled “clear prop” as a precaution before turning the engine over…
Life! The four cylinders sputtered to a relatively smooth idle…
We continued through the pre-flight rituals designed to identify those things that could end a sunny day with a violent death and before long we were looking down the length of the runway with the intent to defy gravity.
The engine revved, the brakes released and we were rolling. The little Cessna still had what it took!
Soon the ground slipped away and the town of Lock Haven turned into the world’s most wonderfully detailed model train set. We gained altitude, then turned north towards the sea of trees and swells of mountains north of the town below. We flew over a baseball game between people who looked like flees. We passed a gas drilling rig in the wilderness…
It didn’t take long before we spotted the small airstrip cut out of the trees.
We were later than the initial plan. But as we swooped in for a high speed pass we could see the crowd of spectators gathered. Our siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, parents and grandparents wanted to witness this historical event and also to prevent anyone from crossing the driveway that bisected the small strip while we were on approach.
We circled around for a practice run and were too high. Kyle corrected for the final approach. The runway sloped upward at a slightly awkward angle and I made sure my brother was aware of that tall tree nearly blocking the trajectory we were on.
Kyle wagged the wings ever so slightly to avoid the obstruction as we dropped through the trees and set down on terra firma again. We survived! No violent death or unexpected drama either…
(Click here for a video of our departure and other pictures.)
Sunny with a chance of violent death…
StandardIt has been a serious few weeks for me. I had been cruising along until then ran smack into a brick wall of reality and have been sorting the damage for what I can salvage since.
But, still, amid disappointments and deliberations, I have found enjoyment in various things, from meeting new and interesting people to learning more about quantum mechanics. I have things to look forward to in the coming months, one right around the corner and that the chance to fly with my little brother.
My little brother actually isn’t too little. He outgrew me to about 6′-2″ and is a (mostly) responsible adult. He also followed through on a childhood dream a few years ago by earning a pilot’s license. However, sad as it is considering he was my first ever wingman, I have not yet taken the opportunity to fly with him.
Well, weather cooperating, I will get my chance to fly with him and I thought those of you with a morbid sense of humor may enjoy are little email exchange. The plan is for me to join him in flying into a family cabin or rather landing on a small airstrip cut in the woods beside the cabin.
Here is my request:
I have a proposal that could maximize your use of a small aircraft and increase my risk of dying a terrible death at the hands of my own brother. My idea is that I meet you in Lock Haven, fly with you to the Moyer cabin and then fly back with you later. I don’t know how that fits in with your plans, but I put it out there as a proposal and under the condition that you agree to ditch only into trees or rocks rather than water. Crashing would be terrifying enough without the prospect of drowning with a broken femur while trapped in the crushed confines of a small aircraft. Burned alive has a far more romantic appeal. So anyhow, bring a contact with correct legal language and I shall consent.
Joel
His response:
Oh fun! Violent death! Yes, it’ll be way more romantic to share those last, lingering moments with someone instead of slipping away unnoticed.
Lock Haven airport was part of the plan. I was going to stop by to refuel on the way back to Franklin (airport of origin). However, it doesn’t add much to stop there on the way to the Moyer cabin as well. It’ll be nice to have someone along to mutter to while I figure out if it’s possible to get the craft down at the cabin. Worst case, we’ll abort the whole thing and go back to Lock Haven. Or, in a shame-induced delirium at a failure to land, we could take it into the pond. There, amidst a flaming slick of avgas, we’d slip beneath the ripples before the horrified paddle-boaters.
Piper Memorial airport (Lock Haven) has public parking at the end of Proctor Street. Time of meeting TBD.
My response:
The benefit to you is having a backup plan for reaching the cabin. We already know the Focus can get stopped on that runway…
We could try to cartwheel across the pond wing tip over wing tip, the visuals would be stunning for all observers. Maybe someone would get our parting moments on video and we’d be a YouTube sensation postmortem? I could try to flash a peace sign out the window or something…
His response:
Good point. It’ll be nice to have a backup plan.
You’ll be the perfect right-seat man. We’ll fly over the place at altitude, do a low pass on the airstrip (to scare away forest critters), and then shoot an approach. If the approach is stable, we land. If not, it’s a go-around. Practice landings yesterday ranged from 800-1200 feet. The strip at Ponderosa is 2400, so we should be ok.
Hopefully, enough glory will be won by a successful landing to make a grandstanding exit unnecessary.
Wouldn’t it be great if all business could be handled that way?
Despite appearances and the risk inherent in flying, I am quite confident that we will arrive safely at our destination. I trust my brother’s hands are capable. But if they and our plans fail, then may our death be glorious! So, if you are somewhere in the vicinity of Lock Haven and the mountains just north this weekend, keep an eye on the sky and be ready for anything.
Anyhow, pictures to follow…
(That, assuming the camera survives two crazy brothers in an airplane. — If things are looking down while we are up I shall attempt one last parting Instagram post before we become one with nature, intimate with the terrain, a flaming mess of twisted metal and broken bones, etc.)
I prefer open racism…
I shook my head as I read a social media post from a well-meaning white friend thanking various “people of color” for not doing him harm because of historical and current injustices.
Many of his friends liked the post—a vast majority of the affirmation, despite his diverse mix of friends, came from his white friends. On the surface his post is contrite or considerate and praise-worthy. What could be wrong about a man owning up to the sins of his own kind?
But under the surface of his post lurks something insidious. It uncovers a secret expectation that “people of color” should be irrationally violent and thus are deserving of his praise when they are not. It is a demeaning and belittling message cloaked in empathy. It actually reinforces an awful stereotype.
Think about it: Would it be praise to thank a white man for being civilized or would it be patronization and a backhanded insult?
What is more disturbing is this persistent idea that a whole race should be held accountable for the sins of one of their own. Apparently I should be judged by the depraved acts of Dylann Roof (and every white man in history) because I share his skin color and gender. But isn’t that exactly the logic of every racist in history and the way of thinking we are trying to escape?
I believe ‘white guilt’ is a symptom of racist thinking rather than a solution. When we thank “people of color” for not harming us as white people we are perpetuating the idea that people should be judged as a race rather than as unique individuals. It is a tribalist suggestion that violence against a whole race is justified therefore we need forgiven as individual members of a racial tribe.
But this thinking is racist to the core. It keeps “people of color” as something separate from us. It treats them as something to be pandered to in a way that we would never do to another white man. (My thanking a white man for not killing me today would be taken as foolishness or sarcasm.) It is also saying that we expect irrationality and violence from them—which is exactly the same reasoning of a racist killer.
We cannot help but see people as white or black. We should not be ignorant of historical injustice or continuing racism either. But we can stop believing that people are fundamentally different because of their skin color. Part of that is not apologizing in a grandstanding fashion for our own skin color. Part of that is not treating “people of color” as inferior by thanking them for things we would not even thank a small child for.
We recognize calling a black man “boy” may be insulting. We also see the battle flag of the Confederacy (the “rebel flag”) as symbolic of racism. However, do we see subtle racism of those who’s words betray an expectation that black people should be irrational and violent?
I myself prefer those who display their true colors openly, because then we know what we are dealing with and don’t need to dig through the layers of carefully hidden prejudices to find the truth.
The People Want a King…, Part 1
StandardI felt like the dog who finally caught the car. I was perplexed with a question: Now what?
My goal in blogging is to make a difference with the ideas that I share. I know ideas are powerful. I want to share good ideas and debunk or discourage destructive ideas. It has been my goal from the beginning to write things worthwhile in hope of creating dialogue.
It was exciting when Good Men Do Not Blame Women quickly surpassed my previously most viewed blog in a matter of hours. It was also terrifying that my words were being read by hundreds of people rather than just the usual handful of friends and followers.
But, amid worries about if I had proofread enough and given fair treatment to a complex topic, I enjoyed my new found popularity. I enjoyed it so much that I worried that I enjoyed it too much.
I worried that maybe I was ‘going negative’ instead of sharing something helpful and constructive. Just a week or so prior I had remarked to a friend that people who criticize other people (not like them) seemed to build a fan club quicker than those who shared good ideas.
I had to think there’s a danger of becoming a different version of what we preach most passionately against. I do not want to contribute in an overreaction in the opposite direction and abandon what is good in proper order or at the right priority level.
I had a taste of power that I both liked and that I did not like. It provoked many questions in my mind about what would happen if I gained a following. Would I be an example of the ideals in my mind of leadership? Or would I insulate myself from criticism and become arrogant?
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” (Lord Action)
The good news is that my blogger stardom was very short lived and—besides a few new friends—I’m back to blogging to my usual small audience. It means less pressure. I feel I can share again without worrying as much about my imperfections being amplified over a large audience.
The people want a king to lead them…
In the beginning God was sufficient to lead his people. The patriarchy of Abraham gave way to tribal elders and officers. Later Moses acted as a prophet and arbitrator in disputes. However, eventually it was too much for Moses, the task was taking all of his time from “morning to evening,” which led to his visiting father-in-law to ask him why:
“Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.” Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.” (Exodus 18:15-23)
Moses took the advice, he delegated the task of settling disputes to other capable men and that became the system for hundreds of years.
It was a sort of anarcho-theocracy. The prophet was the liaison between God and the people, the messenger of God, but not a ruler per se. The laws handed down by Moses were the standard for judgment. Enforcement of the law was carried out by the people rather than delegated to a few people and judges a final arbitrator between parties as needed…
“At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance. In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” (Judges 21:24-25)
There was a time after the Exodus of freedom from oppression and obligation. Judges came and went as heroes who did God’s work to save the people from captivity. Judges were representatives and deliverers of the people, but not rulers like a king. However, eventually, when a worthy successor could not be found for Samuel amongst his sons, the elders of the people made a fateful demand:
“So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.” But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord . And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” (1 Samuel 8:4-9)
Samuel went on to warn how kings would take their sons for wars and daughters as workers. He spoke of how the future kings would take the best of their possessions for themselves and for their own purposes. Still, despite the warning, he did not persuade them, the chapter continues:
“But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” (1 Samuel 8-19-20)
The people were delusional just like their forefathers who begged Moses for a return to slavery and Egypt. Despite Samuel’s warning of conscription, they apparently had an idea a king could miraculously do all the fighting for them and they ignored all rational concern.
A couple of the kings were good, David and Solomon notable examples, but a majority were more concerned with themselves, they all took special privileges for themselves and loaded the people down with increased burdens. The prophecy of Samuel became reality—the people traded their greater freedom for a false security and eventual rule of tyrants. Instead of protecting against oppression the kings became oppressors themselves.
Consequence #1: Increased Burden
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” (Gerald R. Ford)
Kings and government leaders promise big things to their people. But what often is forgotten by the enthusiastic crowds is that nothing is free. When a Pharaoh promised a pyramid for the glory of Egypt Pharaoh, he wasn’t planning to build it on his own time with godlike powers. No, the people paid the price of a king’s grandeur with their own backs and we still bear the weight of the audacious promises of our leaders.
The burdens never seems to be lightened either. Consider when Rehoboam took over after his father Solomon and was confronted by the people:
“Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you.” … The king answered the people harshly. Rejecting the advice given him by the elders, he followed the advice of the young men and said, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” (1 King 12:4-14)
King Reheboam was more concerned with pleasing his young peers than he was in listening to the people or the elders. As a result some did not accept his rule over them and the nation was divided. It is interesting to see this same pattern play out today. Leaders pursue their own vision, they increase the burden on the people without ever easing up, which leads to division and eventual rebellion.
Consequence # 2: Increased Corruption
“Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation [of power] first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Kings and government leaders represent a consolidation of power and with consolidation of power comes increased opportunity for corruption. Many leaders rise to power on their idealistic vision, but once they have power the vision fades and the desire to hold or increase power becomes the bigger priority. We may call it “special interests” and political pandering today, but here’s how the Bible describes it:
“See how the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her—but now murderers! Your silver has become dross, your choice wine is diluted with water. Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them.” (Isaiah 1:21-23)
Described above is the chipping away of principles. Many institutions of men are founded with good intentions but become corrupted over time. Corruption is a natural product of consolidation of power. When power is given to one person (or a small body of people) they seem to inevitably try to use that power to secure more power for themselves. There is no system of external controls that seems to be able to keep it in check. Those in power have the tools to manipulate the rules for their own gain.
Consequence #3 Loss Without Gain
“If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost.” (Barack Obama)
Kings and government leaders are established to protect the people against harm. But, not only do they fail to be able to protect a people from harm, they themselves often another source of harm.
The strength of a king is not in themselves as much as it is in the strength of their people. As Samuel had warned, a king takes and can only give back what is taken and thus a corrupted people produce corrupt leaders:
“You are destroyed, Israel, because you are against me, against your helper. Where is your king, that he may save you? Where are your rulers in all your towns, of whom you said, ‘Give me a king and princes’? So in my anger I gave you a king, and in my wrath I took him away.” (Hosea 13:9-11)
Installing a king ultimately did not solve anything. The people still ended up taken captive by other nations as they had before, they also endured the abuses of power hungry and corrupt leaders when not in captivity. They gave away freedom for security and got captivity because they were corrupted themselves.
People want a king to blame…
The paradox of kings is that kings need strong people to maintain power—but strong people don’t need kings. Weak people turn to leaders to do their work for them, but a man wearing a fancy crown and holding a scepter is only empowered by those who do his bidding.
It feeds a vicious cycle. When things go wrong people blame the king. As a result the king is driven to take more power upon themselves or risk losing power they already have. Of course, since their power is derived from other people this means taking more from the people who are able to give. It can only last so long as their are enough strong people to take from—when the weight of dependents comes closer to outweighing those able (or willing) to provide there is nothing a king can do but manage the decline.
Only, it is worse than that, because as already mentioned, consolidation of power is like a petri dish for corruption. So, not only do these kings give a convenient scapegoat, they also are too often the goats among the sheep and motivated by their own gain rather the good of all in the herd. In other words, if a couple sheep get thrown to the wolves and it saves a goat from an undesirable outcome and nobody notices, what sheep, right?
It is exactly what king David did to Uriah. David goofed, he got Uriah’s wife (Bathsheba) pregnant. He evidently didn’t want to suffer the political repercussions and attempted to hide the adultery. So plan ‘A’ was urge Uriah to spend some quality time with Bathsheba and thus disguise the origin of the pregnancy. Unfortunately Uriah, a true warrior, would not go home to his wife while his comrades were still fighting and David needed another plan. Plan ‘B’ was to deliberately set Uriah up to be killed in battle. It worked, except the prophet Nathan knew and he confronted the king with a story about a wealthy man who killed a neighbor’s pet sheep.
And David was one of the good kings and probably mostly because he could admit his sins…
This post is about faith, not kings…
My point here is not purely political or just historical. I am using kings and government leaders as a metaphor for anything (be it an institution, a system of philosophy or theology, a man, etc) that replaces our own obedience to God.
We cannot expect the world to be good if we continually delegate the tasks of our own conscience to others. Faith is about being the solution ourselves and not sending others (who we can conveniently blame for the eventual failure) to do what is impossible for them to do alone. We cannot expect the fullness of God’s blessing when we look to men to lead us. If God is alive in us then we must be the agents of good in the world with our own abilities and be faithful to our calling.
This is not a call for a return to anarcho-theocracy and judges either. Kings and governments rise in prominence because the people aren’t doing their jobs. Therefore, the solution is not to reform government, the solution is to reform people and make government irrelevant. If we were taking care of the widows and fatherless as we ought, for example, what need would there be for corrupt welfare programs? If fathers weren’t leaving their sons to be raised by the brutal streets, what need would their be for police as brutal?
“Every country has the government it deserves.” (Joseph de Maistre)
It is a collective problem when the people demand a king. It becomes an individual problem when the people finally empower a man to do their dirty work. There is always someone all too willing to seize power—those with an appetite for power—who will take the glory for themselves and then delegate responsibility for failure to others, exploits position, etc.
It is a spiritual problem. It is often only our own sloth, envy, pride, mistrust, fears, poor judgments and overreactions that are reflected back to us in the immoral whims of our leaders. We delude ourselves when we abandon accountability to God for kings that are no better than us.
Now, enough said for now, back to chasing cars for me…
Irregular Ideation 