Isn’t the election over?

And didn’t Barack Obama win?  And if so, shouldn’t somebody clue him in so he can stop campaigning and start governing?If you’re wondering that, too, after President Obama’s appearance in our neck of the woods to campaign for the so-called “stimulus” bill, take heart, because we’re not alone in our reaction.  Granted, he’s a very effective campaigner, and his campaign appearance might do the trick—this time.  Over the long haul, though, you can’t govern a country by giving stump speeches.  Making your case to the American people is an important part of the process, true (Ronald Reagan was a past master at this), but while that may help you get the rudder over to keep the nation on the course you want, it’s not going to do much to propel the ship.  The president needs to have more in his arsenal than going out and holding campaign rallies if he wants to have a successful term in office.The question is, why is President Obama still operating in campaign mode rather than in governing mode?  I’m tempted to say that it’s because campaigning privileges style over substance, and that plays to his strengths.  He knows how to campaign effectively, but when it comes down to getting things done, put me down as one of the increasing numbers who don’t believe he really knows what he wants to get done, let alone how.  How else do you explain the fact that he articulated an ambitious plan for the stimulus package, then not only didn’t have anyone in his administration draft legislation to enact his plan, but rather let the House Democrats write a vastly different bill that doesn’t meet any of the standards and qualifications he laid out—and is now laying all his political capital on the line to defend that very different bill?  This is bad governance; but it’s right in line with the way he ran his campaign.  Unfortunately, now it’s time and past time for him to stop campaigning and start governing.

This makes sense

One of the things that’s been hard for me to understand about our president is how all his talk of bipartisanship—and his apparent firm belief in his ability to work in a bipartisan fashion—squared with his extremely partisan voting record.  In her column today, Carol Platt Liebau makes a point that I think explains this:

From his days on The Harvard Law Review forward, Barack Obama gained a reputation for “bipartisanship.” The problem? His much vaunted bridge-building was always a matter more of style than of substance. He would treat those who disagreed with him with great politeness and civility, listen their views, and then ignore them.In environments like a law school campus, or Chicago city politics, or Illinois state politics—where liberals overwhelmingly outnumber conservatives—bipartisan words, without action, are enough. Where conservatives are otherwise completely disregarded and routinely treated with contempt, respectful words can secure their support and even a certain degree of affection. Throughout his life, Barack Obama has blossomed primarily in liberal hothouses; perhaps it’s no surprise that he concluded that a little lip service would fulfill the demands of bipartisanship. . . .Perhaps that’s why the President believed that simply talking to Republicans would be enough to secure their support for the stimulus package, even though the final product reflected none of their input.

Of course, as she goes on to note, real bipartisanship requires more than that—and more than that the Obama-Pelosi administration wasn’t willing to give.  You can always find a few marginal members of the GOP to pick off, but that’s all they could manage; the result isn’t real bipartisanship, it’s what we might call “RINO bipartisanship” (kudos to Glenn Foden):

Coming home empty

And [Jesus] said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’
And they began to celebrate.“Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive;
he was lost, and is found.’”—Luke 15:11-32 (ESV)

Mary Hulst, “Coming Home Empty”


download

Another of the high points of this year’s Worship Symposium for me was Mary Hulst’s sermon on this passage.  I actually would have liked her to go further in talking about the grace of the Father and the gracelessness of the older son, but even so, her message was a powerful evocation of God’s grace and love, coming straight out of the fact that, as a pastor preaching to a congregation of pastors and other church leaders (which is to say, people who play the “older son” role for a living), she knew us cold.  I encourage you to listen—especially, but not only, if you’re another one who does the church thing professionally.

Credo ut intelligam

With Anselm of Canterbury, I believe so that I may understand—because I understand that that’s just how it works, for everybody, whether they know it or not.  (This is part of the reason wrong belief is important:  it produces wrong understanding.)  As a candidate for ordination as a pastor in the Reformed Church in America, part of my task was to write a credo—a reasonably full statement of what I believe.  Last year, I broke that credo up into ten parts and posted them.  Those ten parts cover the following topics (among other things):

For various reasons, I wrote this as a conversation between myself and someone I knew fairly well at the time, so the sections do flow into each other to some degree.

Rivers in the desert

“Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old.
Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.”—Isaiah 43:18-19 (ESV)This is one of the more startling moments in Scripture.  It’s startling because this section of Isaiah is full of appeals and references to “the former things,” to all the things he’s done for them in the past; indeed, immediately before this, God has anchored his promise to bring his people back home in the story of the Exodus, in the reminder that he’s done it before.  And then he says, essentially, “But forget about all that.”  So what’s the deal?It seems safe to say that God isn’t commanding his people to collective amnesia; nor is this a license, as many Western theologians want to think, to throw out all that stuff that God says about sin (at least the sins we don’t want to believe are wrong) and judgment.  Rather, this is hyperbole designed to jolt Israel into opening their eyes and ears and actually hearing him, and seeing what God is doing. God is not only present and active in the past, but also in the present—theirs and ours—and they had no sense of that. They had no concept of what God was doing in their own time, or what he might be calling them to do; they knew all about the Exodus, they’d heard about it a million times before, and they would no doubt have told you they believed God had delivered their ancestors from Egypt. What they didn’t believe was that that had anything to do with their lives and circumstances. They believed God had saved, but not that he would save—and that makes all the difference. It’s not that hard to believe that God has done miracles in the past—but that he’s still in the miracle business now? That’s another matter.And so too often, we as Christians in this country are like those Jews in captivity in Babylon—we have this nice little box labeled “God” full of all sorts of things God did a while ago, and it really doesn’t have a lot to do with how we live our daily lives. We pray, though maybe not that much, and we read our Bibles, at least a little, but when it comes to the issues we face and the choices we have to make, a lot of us are functional atheists—we do things just like the world does. Not only do we not ask God to guide us, a lot of the time, we don’t even take him into account—we base our decisions solely on “practical” considerations, things we can see and touch and quantify. And that’s not how God wants us to live. God wants us to remember, in everything we do, that we are children of the Lord of the Universe, that he loves us, and that he’s working for our good—including in ways we can’t predict, or see coming. He wants us to walk by faith, not by sight. He wants us to hear him saying, “See, I’m doing a new thing—it’s springing up right before your eyes. Don’t you see it? I’m making a road for you through the wilderness, and streams of living water in the wasteland. Can’t you see? Look. Open your eyes. See.”

Redefining evil for convenience

Here’s Judea Pearl, UCLA professor of computer science and father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, on “the normalization of evil”:

Somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism—the ideological license to elevate one’s grievances above the norms of civilized society—was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable “tactical” considerations. . . .The clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel.” Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices. . . .When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas—the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains—to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

Wal-Mart Confidential

Charles Platt, a former senior writer for Wired, went to work at a Wal-Mart in Flagstaff, Arizona and wrote about it for the New York Post.  He has some interesting things to say about his experience:

My starting wage was so low (around $7 per hour), a modest increment still didn’t leave me with enough to live on comfortably, but when I looked at the alternatives, many of them were worse. Coworkers assured me that the nearest Target paid its hourly full-timers less than Wal-Mart, while fast-food franchises were at the bottom of everyone’s list.I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem. They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious.In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don’t create an equal amount of additional value, there’s no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer.This is Economics 101, but no one wants to believe it, because it tells us that a legislative or unionized quick-fix is not going to work in the long term. If you want people to be wealthier, they have to create additional wealth.To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn’t pay people more. The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills. So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?In fact, the deal at Wal-Mart is better than at many other employers. The company states that its regular full-time hourly associates in the US average $10.86 per hour, while the mean hourly wage for retail sales associates in department stores generally is $8.67. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. Also every Wal-Mart employee gets a 10% store discount, while an additional 4% of wages go into profit-sharing and 401(k) plans. . . .You have to wonder, then, why the store has such a terrible reputation, and I have to tell you that so far as I can determine, trade unions have done most of the mudslinging. Web sites that serve as a source for negative stories are often affiliated with unions. Walmartwatch.com, for instance, is partnered with the Service Employees International Union; Wakeupwalmart.com is entirely owned by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. For years, now, they’ve campaigned against Wal-Mart, for reasons that may have more to do with money than compassion for the working poor. If more than one million Wal-Mart employees in the United States could be induced to join a union, by my calculation they’d be compelled to pay more than half-billion dollars each year in dues.Anti-growth activists are the other primary source of anti-Wal-Mart sentiment. In the town where I worked, I was told that activists even opposed a new Barnes & Noble because it was “too big.” If they’re offended by a large bookstore, you can imagine how they feel about a discount retailer.The argument, of course, is that smaller enterprises cannot compete. My outlook on this is hardcore: I think that many of the “mom-and-pop” stores so beloved by activists don’t deserve to remain in business. . . .Based on my experience (admittedly, only at one location) I reached a conclusion which is utterly opposed to almost everything ever written about Wal-Mart. I came to regard it as one of the all-time enlightened American employers, right up there with IBM in the 1960s. Wal-Mart is not the enemy. It’s the best friend we could ask for.

For Those Who Will See

(Isaiah 6:8-13Isaiah 43:1-21Matthew 13:10-17)

I said last week that in Isaiah 40-55, we see God’s plan for the world shifting into a new phase, away from his servant Israel and toward a new Servant who will be faithful to carry out God’s mission for the world—a Servant whom we will ultimately see as the suffering Servant, a role Israel had refused to play. I noted that a lot of people miss this because of the way modern scholarship has taught us to read this section of Isaiah—they read it as disconnected from the rest of the book, and so they fail to note the fact that this shift isn’t a new or surprising thing. In fact, it’s something which God told Isaiah was going to happen all the way back at the beginning of his ministry, when God first called him as a prophet. God brings Isaiah into the throne room of heaven and says, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” Isaiah answers the call, and God gives him his message and his marching orders—and is it a message of hope and redemption? Is it the mission to go out and bring Israel back to the Lord?

No; in fact, it’s anything but. God tells Isaiah, “Go tell this people, ‘Keep listening, but never understand what you’re hearing; keep looking, but never make any sense of what you’re seeing.’” Then he says, “Make the heart of this people fat”; the NIV translates that “calloused,” which isn’t bad, but isn’t quite right, either, because it’s not really that the people of Israel are hard-hearted, but that they’re sluggish and self-indulgent. The Old Testament scholar John Oswalt puts it well when he says, “A ‘fat heart’ speaks of a slow, languid, self-oriented set of responses, incapable of decisive, self-sacrificial action.” So far from being roused from their complacency and self-satisfied self-centeredness, Israel will only sink further into it. God continues, “Stop their ears and shut their eyes; otherwise they might see, hear, and understand, and they might turn and be healed.”

In short, Isaiah has been told to tell Israel, “Don’t listen to me, because God wants to destroy you.” Now, does that sound like God? Does that sound like the God who was so determined to bring the people of Nineveh to repentance that he sent a fish after Jonah? Does that sound like the God who sent his Son to earth to live and die and rise again that we might be saved? No, it doesn’t. It’s easy to understand why the people of God have struggled with this passage from earliest times, and have often chosen to turn the commands into mere predictions. The key is, though, is that God isn’t really sending Isaiah out because he wants the people of Judah to reject his message; his command to his prophet is ironic. Indeed, irony will prove an appropriate response to Isaiah’s situation, and will mark much of his preaching. God sends him out to preach both warning and promise, both judgment and salvation, knowing that the effect of Isaiah’s preaching will not be to lead Israel back to their Lord, but only to drive them further away, toward judgment. And so for Isaiah, this isn’t a statement of purpose, but a warning as to what he will actually accomplish in the ministry God has given him.

This, I think, is why he responds as he does. He doesn’t ask why he has to do such a thing, or how he’s supposed to do it, because he understands what God is saying; instead, he asks, “How long?” If judgment is coming, how long will it last, and how bad will it be? The answer is harsh: God’s people will be almost completely destroyed—but only almost. A few will survive the devastation, and they will be burned again, but yet, they will not be dead; they will be a stump capable of putting out new growth. There will yet be a holy seed, a remnant that will rise again.

Now, the interesting thing about Jesus citing this passage is that there are a number of parallels between Isaiah’s situation and his own. In both cases, we have people seeing God; just as Isaiah has a vision of God on the throne, surrounded by the host of heaven, and he responds with awe and obedience, so the disciples see God in the flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ, and they too respond with awe and obedience (and also love). Remember what we said last week about blindness and sight; the disciples, like Isaiah, see God and know him for who he is, and respond accordingly. In that, they stand in the sharpest of contrasts to unbelieving Israel, which hears but won’t listen, which sees but will not understand.

Both Isaiah and those who followed Jesus found themselves in a small group set apart from their surrounding culture, at odds with the leaders of their nation; Isaiah’s preaching made him some disciples, but more enemies, especially among the powerful, and the same was true of Jesus. This might seem strange to us; both, certainly, preached judgment, which is never a popular message, but both also proclaimed the grace of God. The truth is, however, that the message of grace doesn’t always soften hearts; sometimes it hardens them. In some cases, I think people steel themselves against it, out of fear or pride, while in others, the only response is contempt; but just as the sun of God’s love melts the ice in some hearts, in others, it only hardens the clay.

Despite that, God doesn’t stop reaching out; he simply shifts his method. That, as Jesus explains to his disciples, is why he teaches in parables. There’s an interesting thing here in the way in which the gospels report this. Matthew, which we read this morning, follows the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, and understands Jesus to say, “I speak to them in parables because ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen or understand’”; if you flip over to Luke 8, though, it reads, “To others I speak in parables so that ‘though seeing they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’” This might seem contradictory—did Jesus teach in parables because the crowds wouldn’t understand, or so that they wouldn’t understand?—but in truth it isn’t; it’s two sides of the same coin.

Many in Jesus’ audience weren’t receptive to the gospel; he preached to them knowing that the only possible effect, and thus the only possible purpose, of his work would be to reinforce their unwillingness to receive him and his message. Since that was the situation, he chose to teach in a manner appropriate to their fatness of heart, just as Isaiah did—but he continued to teach and to do the work of the kingdom of God, so that those who knew their blindness could receive sight, and those who knew they could not hear might have their ears opened, and thus would come to understand and be healed.

We see this same determination at work in Isaiah 43. Last week’s passage ends on a fairly grim note—“Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the Lord, against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law. So he poured out in them his burning anger, the violence of war. It enveloped them in flames, yet they did not understand; it consumed them, but they did not take it to heart.” And this is after the introduction of the Servant; this is, I think, a prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And yet, how does chapter 43 begin? “But now, this is what the Lord says—he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: ‘Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you, and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze. For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.”

It’s a powerful and majestic promise—delivered to people whom God has just declared deaf, blind, and utterly intransigent. Indeed, after declaring the ransom he will pay to buy his people back and his intention to gather them to himself from every direction and the farthest corners of the earth, we get this: “Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.” Israel is summoned into the court together with the nations—because remember, they’re all blind and deaf together now, due to their idolatry—and once again, God makes his case: “Who has predicted this? Who but me saw it coming? Can any of your gods make such a claim? If so, bring in your witnesses to support it—even one. No, only I have any witnesses—my people, you are my witnesses; you can testify to all that I’ve done for you, and all the promises I’ve fulfilled.” And note what God says about why he chose them: “so that you may know and believe me.” Not so that others might know; that was indeed part of the idea, but it was necessary first that they would know God, and come to trust him—and they’d never really gotten to that point themselves. No wonder they had so little effect on the nations around them.

We see here God calling out to his blind, deaf, fat-hearted people, summoning them to bear witness to all the ways in which he had blessed them—and in so doing, perhaps to see that themselves for the first time, and actually begin to understand themselves as the people of God. The problem doesn’t appear to be that they’ve forgotten that God did all these things—they can bear witness to that easily enough—but rather that they’ve lost any sense that that means anything to them; they don’t see it as connected to their lives. They don’t understand that it means that God is their deliverer, their savior, and the only savior there is or ever can be, even though their very existence and the history of their people is the evidence for that truth. Time after time, God has made promises to his people and then fulfilled them, and used those fulfilled promises as the basis for new promises, which he has then fulfilled in turn; time after time, he has delivered his people, and time after time, he has pronounced judgment which has then come to pass. Israel has seen it all—and yet they have seen nothing.

Even so, God says, they will be his witnesses yet again, as he does it yet again; the one who led his people out of their exile in Egypt by the way through the sea, drowning the pursuing armies of the Pharaoh behind them, will bring his people out of their exile in Babylon as well, and back once more to the land he promised their ancestors. God will be faithful to his people even though they have not been faithful to him; in John Oswalt’s term, his “passionate grace” toward his people will not permit him to do otherwise. But look: having just reminded them of the Exodus, having just used that to identify himself as the one who delivered and will deliver them, having just summoned them to bear witness to all the things he has done for them, what does God now say to his people? “Forget the former things—don’t dwell on the past. See, I’m doing a new thing!”

Why does he say that? Obviously, it’s not a command to collective amnesia. Rather, I think, Isaiah is using hyperbole to startle his audience into opening their eyes and ears and actually hearing him, and seeing what God is doing. God is not only present and active in the past, but also in the present—theirs and ours—and they had no sense of that. They had no concept of what God was doing in their own time, or what he might be calling them to do; they knew all about the Exodus, they’d heard about it a million times before, and they would no doubt have told you they believed God had delivered their ancestors from Egypt. What they didn’t believe was that that had anything to do with their lives and circumstances. They believed God had saved, but not that he would save—and that makes all the difference. It’s not that hard to believe that God has done miracles in the past—but that he’s still in the miracle business now? That’s another matter.

And so too often, we as Christians in this country are like those Jews in captivity in Babylon—we have this nice little box labeled “God” full of all sorts of things God did a while ago, and it really doesn’t have a lot to do with how we live our daily lives. We pray, though maybe not that much, and we read our Bibles, at least a little, but when it comes to the issues we face and the choices we have to make, a lot of us are functional atheists—we do things just like the world does. Not only do we not ask God to guide us, a lot of the time, we don’t even take him into account—we base our decisions solely on “practical” considerations, things we can see and touch and quantify. And that’s not how God wants us to live. He wants us to remember, in everything we do, that we are children of the Lord of the Universe, that he loves us, and that he’s working for our good—including in ways we can’t predict, or see coming. He wants us to walk by faith, not by sight. He wants us to hear him saying, “See, I’m doing a new thing—it’s springing up right before your eyes. Don’t you see it? I’m making a way in the desert, and streams in the wasteland. Can’t you see? Look. Open your eyes. See.”

On this blog in history: January 1-20, 2008

Spiritual discipline?
Considering whether blogging can be a spiritual discipline, and if so, how—a question I revisited last month.The fantasy of the Real
On Chesterton, Tolkien, and the value of fantasy and science fiction.Gospel witness
A comment on what it means to bear witness to Christ.God’s own fool, part II
On the preposterous idea of a crucified Messiah.God’s own fools
On being fools for Christ.

Faith in action: George W. Bush’s greatest legacy

He doesn’t get much credit for it from the country—it wasn’t in the interest of his political opponents or the media to let that happen, since it would have interfered with the narrative of all the bad things they wanted you to believe about the man—but what George W. Bush did to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other diseases in Africa was an unprecedented good on an amazing scale; and for all the difficulties with the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that effort on the part of his administration has done a great deal of good as well.  Eventually, once the politics are out of the way, he’ll get the credit for these things that he deserves.