This land is whose land? A further reflection on Nikabrik’s candidate

Posted on 26 February 201615 April 2016 by Rob Harrison | 1 Comment

I think Stephan Pastis, in this strip from this past Valentine’s Day, has gotten a lead on what this election is really about. Bill Curry made a similar point in Salon (with less clarity in far more words, as my father-in-law pointed out) with an article titled “‘It’s the corruption, stupid’: Hillary’s too compromised to see what Donald Trump understands.” Curry’s subhead argues, “The key 2016 issue is outrage over a rigged system by special interests.” I think the article is weakened by his predetermined partisan animosity to the Citizens United decision, which causes him to misread it in some important ways, but his essential point (and Pastis’) is correct as far as it goes. As he says,

Voters [in 2008] knew the problem wasn’t “partisan gridlock” but a hammerlock of special interests. . . .

Clinton bristles at any implication she’d ever stoop to a policy quid pro quo. I don’t think she would. But that’s not how soft corruption works. Politicians spend more time talking to their donors than to their children. As in all intimate relations, each learns to see the world through the other’s eyes. It affects everyone: pollsters, policy advisers, reporters, pundits.

The limitation in Curry’s analysis is that he sees this almost entirely in economic terms, through the materialistic and technocratic lens held in common by classical Marxism and contemporary capitalism. What he’s unable (or unwilling) to see is that the developing crisis—which was described much more insightfully in Salon a few months ago in an interview with the Rev. Dr. Chris Hedges, as I noted at the time—is far broader and deeper than mere concern for material well-being. Read more→

Antonin Scalia, RIP

Posted on 17 February 201617 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

I’m late noting this, I realize, but I’m just getting over a nasty bug that laid me out for more than a week. Even late, though, I couldn’t just let this go, because I believe Antonin Scalia’s death is a great loss to the Republic. Justice Scalia was indeed “one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the Court, and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation,” as Lesley Stahl described him in the introduction to his 60 Minutes profile.

He was also, by the testimony of his fellow justices, a good colleague and a good friend. Though a passionate conservative in matters of law and society, his closest friend on the Court was its leading liberal mind, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom he had a close relationship going back to their days on the D.C. Circuit Court. (Hence Justice Ginsburg in the thumbnail for the first video above.) That didn’t mean that he pulled his punches; he always treated her with respect, which meant in part that he knew she was tough enough and smart enough to argue hard. Ginsburg once commented, “I love him, but sometimes I’d like to strangle him.” On the whole, though, she appreciated it:

We disagreed now and then [!?], but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation.

Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots — the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.

Seeing the darkness

Posted on 8 February 20168 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

Brother, if any man thinks ill of you, do not be angry with him; for you are worse than he thinks you to be. If he charges you falsely on some point, yet be satisfied, for if he knew you better he might change the accusation, and you would be no gainer by the correction. If you have your moral portrait painted, and it is ugly, be satisfied; for it only needs a few blacker touches, and it would be still nearer the truth.

—Charles Haddon Spurgeon

If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom, Spurgeon’s insight is the beginning of the fear of the Lord. This is in part because it’s the beginning of self-realism, and thus clears the decks for true knowledge of ourselves, and thus for true knowledge of God. Read more→

In praise of humility [REPOST]

Posted on 8 February 20168 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

NOTE: I ran across this post from November 2009 while I was looking for something else, and was struck by it, so I decided to repost it.

There’s a fascinating piece up on Time‘s front page entitled, “The Case for Modesty, in an Age of Arrogance,” by one Nancy Gibbs. Gibbs begins,

Virtues, like viruses, have their seasons of contagion. When catastrophe strikes, generosity spikes like a fever. Courage spreads in the face of tyranny. But some virtues go dormant for generations, as we’ve seen with thrift, making its comeback after 40 years in cold storage. I’m hoping for a sudden outbreak of modesty, a virtue whose time has surely come.

In truth, what she really wants to talk about is not modesty but humility (which, as she notes, can be practiced in many ways: “Try taking up golf. Or making your own bagels. Or raising a teenager”); but I don’t have a problem with that, especially as she has good things to say about humility and its importance.

Modesty in private life is attractive, but in public life it is essential, especially now, when those who immodestly claimed to Know It All have Wiped Us Out. The problems we face are too fierce to accommodate arrogance. Humility leaves room for complexity, honors honest dissent, welcomes the outlandish idea that sweeps past ideology and feeds invention. We want to reimagine the health-care system, confront climate change, save our kids from a financial avalanche? The odds are much better if we come to the table assuming we don’t already have all the answers. . . .

Humility and modesty need not be weakness or servility; they can be marks of strength, the courage to confront a challenge knowing that the outcome is in doubt. Ronald Reagan, for all his cold-warrior confidence, projected a personal modesty that served his political agenda well. I still don’t know what President Obama’s core principles are, but the fact that he even pays lip service to humility as one of them could give him the upper hand in the war for the souls of independents—a group that’s larger now than at any time in the past 70 years. . . .

But I heed Jane Austen’s warning that “nothing is more deceitful than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.” If Obama appears proud of how humble and open-minded he is, if he demonizes opponents instead of debating them, if his actual choices are quietly ideological while his rhetoric flamboyantly inclusive, he will be missing a great opportunity—and have much to be modest about.

Interesting closing comment, that.

Looking back from the last year of Barack Obama’s second term, Austen’s warning was aptly noted. The President missed a great opportunity. Here’s hoping somebody learns a lesson from his example; another term or two of that sort of attitude—from either party—could be disastrous. The alarm Gibbs was sounding was urgent six years ago; it’s only the more so now.

Image: Black hole Cygnus X-1. Image credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss. Public domain.

Poem of the Week

Posted on 7 February 20167 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

As Kingfishers Catch Fire

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s
Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves — goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying Whát I dó is me: for that I came.

I say móre: the just man justices;
Keeps grace: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is —
Chríst — for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s faces.

—Gerard Manley Hopkins, 1877

Song of the Week

Posted on 6 February 20166 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

This is one of my favorites from Van Morrison. The video below, though, is of Phil Keaggy performing this song at Creation in 1992; yes, it’s a cover rather than the original, but I love Keaggy’s guitar work on this one.

When Will I Ever Learn to Live in God?

The sun was setting over Avalon
The last time we stood in the west.
Suffering long time angels enraptured by Blake
Burn out the dross, innocence captured again.

Standing on the beach at sunset,
All the boats keep moving slow
In the glory of the flashing light,
In the evening’s glow.

Chorus
When will I ever learn to live in God?
When will I ever learn?
He gives me everything I need and more
When will I ever learn?

You brought it to my attention that everything was made in God.
Down through centuries of great writings and paintings,
Everything lives in God,
Seen through architecture of great cathedrals
Down through the history of time,
Is and was in the beginning and evermore shall be.

Chorus

Whatever it takes to fulfill his mission,
That is the way we must go;
But you’ve got to do it in your own way:
Tear down the old, bring up the new.

And up on the hillside it’s quiet,
Where the shepherd is tending his sheep.
And over the mountains and the valleys,
The countryside is so green.
Standing on the highest hill with a sense of wonder,
You can see everything is made in God.
Head back down the roadside and give thanks for it all.

Chorus out

Words and music: Van Morrison
© 1989 Barrule UK Ltd.
From the album Avalon Sunset

Getting outreach backwards

Posted on 3 February 20163 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

A great frustration for many pastors is the common expectation of church members, including lay leaders, that it’s the pastor’s job to grow the church. The truth is, most pastors have less ability to grow the church directly than any committed member of the congregation. That might seem strange to say, given that so much of the American church has convinced itself that programs and style are the keys to growth, but it’s true. Programs and style may help one congregation steal members from others, but they will not grow the church. Dean Inserra makes the point well:

“We need an outreach event to bring in some young people.” I hear that from Christians often about their church, assuming it must be the key for City Church in getting the “young folks.” Other times I eavesdrop on conversations at Chick Fil A, where a table of staff members from another church in town are hoping their pastor will take off the tie and “go contemporary,” since they want to be “relevant,” and “reach the young people.”

– Do an outreach.
– Change the music.
– Dress in jeans.
– Use more technology in the service.
– Increase social media presence by getting on Twitter.
– We need to be more creative.

I hear it all. It once made me sad for these nice folks who I do believe sincerely are trying to reach more people, but now I just roll my eyes. An unbeliever doesn’t care about any of those things because, wait for it . . . he’s not a Christian. Why would someone who isn’t a believer and doesn’t attend a Sunday church worship service, care about the music at the local Baptist church? Have you ever met a new believer who in his or her testimony mentions that he or she heard the pastor didn’t wear a suit, so this new believer decided to try it out, heard the gospel, and was baptized? Maybe that story exists somewhere, but I haven’t heard it. Why would an unbeliever follow your church on Twitter? I’ve never heard someone who came to church because the pastor sits on a stool rather than standing in a pulpit.

Very few see it, but there’s idolatry underlying the folly Inserra critiques. “Relevance” has been a major idol in the American church for decades, and on the whole it has gone largely unchallenged. Read more→

Nikabrik’s populism: A further thought on the appeal of Donald Trump

Posted on 3 February 201615 April 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

In her brilliant short essay “Nikabrik’s Candidate,” to which I linked last week, Gina Dalfonzo identifies the core of Nikabrik’s evil as a corrupted virtue.

There is absolutely no room in Nikabrik’s mind for the idea that a Telmarine could be good. And at first we can sympathize; his people have suffered greatly under the Telmarines, and he is fiercely loyal to his people—a good quality. But as Lewis frequently warned us, good qualities can be twisted and used for evil purposes. . . .

When his friend Trufflehunter reminds him that the Witch “was a worse enemy than Miraz and all his race,” Nikabrik’s retort is telling: “Not to Dwarfs, she wasn’t.” His own people and their safety are all that matter to him now. Instead of being an important priority, this has become his only priority—and any attempt to remind him that other considerations exist brings only his contempt and anger.

This is how good people with strong, ingrained values—people who have invested time and money in the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and similarly noble causes—can come to support a man who changes his convictions more often than his shirts. This is how people concerned about the dignity of the office of President end up flocking to a reality-show star who spends his days on Twitter calling people “dumb” and “loser.” This is how some who have professed faith in Jesus Christ are lured by a man who openly puts all his faith in power and money, the very things Christ warned us against prizing too highly. As one wag on Twitter pointed out, “If elected, Donald Trump will be the first US president to own a strip club,” and yet he has the support of Christians who fervently believe that this country needs to clean up its morals.

It’s important to understand this. Nikabrik is full of hate, but it’s not because he’s “a hater.” He’s unalterably and bitterly prejudiced against Telmarines, but it’s not because he’s “a bigot.” Those are shallow characterizations for what are usually shallow attitudes, even if strongly held. Nikabrik’s moral ill is far more perilous because far deeper, and rooted in legitimate emotional/spiritual needs. Read more→

God will not be without a witness

Posted on 2 February 20162 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

. . . no matter how hard the world might try to make it so.

Muslims are coming to Christ in amazing and mysterious ways. Men and women have met Christ in a dream or vision. Many others read the Qur’an in their own language for the first time (they memorize the Qur’an in Arabic) and realized they were lost. When they turned to the New Testament and learned more about Jesus they decided to give their lives to Christ.

In spite of growing persecution against Christians and major challenges converts face, there is a growing movement of Muslims turning to Christ. Missionary David Garrison stated, “We are living in the midst of the greatest turning of Muslims to Christ in history.”

I’ve been hearing these stories for a decade now, more and more frequently as the years have gone on. There are some astounding stories related to visions of Jesus, including healings and people being raised from the dead. Where his church cannot go, he still can.

Voting with a compass

Posted on 2 February 20162 February 2016 by Rob Harrison | No Comments

I think Joe Carter is a little off to call this a single issue—it’s bigger than that—but aside from that caveat, he nails it:

The single issue that determines my vote—and I believe should determine how all Christians vote—is justice.

As Hunter Baker has explained, justice results from enforcing a moral order, which protects the freedom of human beings from malignant interference. A key component of this moral order is the recognition of human dignity as the foundational principle of freedom and human flourishing. Although the terms are not interchangeable, I believe the term “sanctity of life,” as defined by David Gushee, could serve as the standard definition for human dignity:

The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

Yes.