Warning: liberal nastiness alert

I posted a couple weeks ago about the attempt by disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to challenge Barack Obama’s citizenship status, or something (I never was quite clear on what exactly they thought they were going to prove), and my amazement at how crazy some folks get about politics these days; but what’s going on now as certain elements on the Left try to destroy Sarah Palin (there’s no other word for it) far exceeds that for sheer malignant looniness.The craziest, and ugliest, is the attempt by denizens of the Democratic Underground (way underground, folks, with this one) and Daily Kos to claim that Trig Palin isn’t the governor’s son, but in fact her grandson, and that she faked her own pregnancy to cover up her daughter’s. Their evidence? Gov. Palin didn’t show much (as some women don’t), and her daughter Bristol was out of school with mono and looked a little chubbier. That’s it. The funny thing about this attempt at political assassination is that previously, Palin-haters have criticized her for putting politics ahead of the life of her son, traveling too late into her pregnancy—her water actually broke when she was in Dallas for a governor’s conference, and she didn’t immediately go to the hospital, but instead flew back to Anchorage; now, those who want to tear her down are forced to argue that she faked the whole episode. Which is crazy, because if in fact her pregnancy was a charade, what would adding to the charade accomplish except to create a whole new set of doctors who could testify that she wasn’t pregnant? The whole thing is completely nuts; it will be a sad day in American politics if Gov. Palin is forced to release her medical records to disprove it.Next to that, the garden-variety sexism of CNN reporter John Roberts seems almost wholesome. In case you missed that story, he was the one who wondered on air if it was irresponsible of Gov. Palin to run for Vice President when she has an infant with Down Syndrome. The question clearly floored his colleague, Dana Bash; in reply, she raised an important question: “I guess—my guess is that, perhaps, the line inside the McCain campaign would be, if it were a man being picked who also had a baby, but—you know, four months ago with Down’s Syndrome, would you ask the same question?” Somehow, I don’t think so.Driving this, I think, is rage that the GOP (in the person of John McCain) had the sheer gall to pick a VP nominee who’s a woman who’s off the (Democratic) reservation. I heard some of that even in Rebecca Traister’s piece in Salon, and I’ve heard a fair bit more elsewhere. We’re seeing, I think, the true heart of a lot of liberal feminism. It doesn’t matter to them that she’s a woman with a chance to make history; if anything, that makes it worse—she’s not just a normal infidel, she’s an apostate and a traitor, and so must be destroyed. The fact that someone would actually write this (on DU, quoted here) sums it up:

I will attack her for whatever reason suits the purpose of making her look bad to my audience.When I am among secular people I will attack her for being a religious zealot. When I am among people from church, I will attack her for being of a heterodox denomination. When I am among liberals I will attack her for her conservative views. When I am among conservatives I will attack her for her for anything they are prove to view as shortcomings in ideology. When I am among women, I will deride the obvious pandering of her nomination and the fact that McCain must not think much of womens’ [sic] intelligence, when I am among conservative men who dislike women in authority, I will rub their noses in it.If I can attack her for opposite reasons over the course of an afternoon, I will consider it an accomplishment.Same goes for Johnny Boy.

That’s hatred—flat out, pure, triple-distilled, 200 proof, weapons-grade hatred. That’s ugly.

When the Slave Is Your Brother

(Deuteronomy 23:15-16; Galatians 3:26-29, Philemon)

As we talked about last week, Onesimus had a problem, and that gave Paul an opportunity. Or rather, Onesimus had two problems. The first was that he was a slave. Legally, though everyone agreed he was human, he didn’t exactly qualify as a person—he was instead a living, breathing, walking, talking, two-legged piece of property who belonged to a person named Philemon. Onesimus’ second problem was that he had dealt with the first problem by escaping from his master in the city of Colossae and running away to Rome. This obviously got him away from the day-to-day consequences of being enslaved, but it also left him in a dangerous position, because the Roman policy on fugitive slaves was simple and inflexible: if caught, they were returned to their master, who could do whatever he wanted to them. And I do mean whatever.

The good thing for Onesimus was that by the sovereign grace of God, he fell in with the apostle Paul and ended up part of Paul’s household as the apostle was under house arrest in Rome. This was good for him spiritually, as Paul led him to Christ during that time; it was also good for him physically, as Paul was the man who had led his master to Christ, and thus could be an advocate for him with Philemon. As we saw, this gave Paul the opportunity, when the time came to send a letter to the Colossian church, to send Onesimus back with it, with his own letter to Philemon to give him protection; it gave Paul the opportunity to rearrange Philemon’s thinking, and through him the thinking of his whole congregation, about Onesimus specifically, and about slaves in general. It gave him the chance to confront Philemon with the fact that this slave of his, this man whose body and blood he owned, was now also his brother in Christ, and as free in Jesus as Philemon himself; and in so doing, it allowed him to force Philemon to consider very carefully the consequences of that fact.

To what purpose? Well, to understand that, having looked last week at verses 15-16, let’s go back and start with the beginning of the letter. Paul opens it in typical fashion, with a greeting, a thanksgiving, and a prayer, but it’s worth noting a couple things here. First, it’s a personal letter, but not only a personal letter. It’s addressed to Philemon—clearly someone whom Paul holds in high regard—to a woman named Apphia and another man, named Archippos—beyond the fact that both are Christians, we don’t know who they were—and to “the church that meets in your home.” That’s very interesting, because it means that while this letter is to Philemon, with requests and persuasion for Philemon, the whole congregation is going to be reading it over his shoulder, if you will, as he reads it. Partly, that might be to encourage Philemon to do what Paul wants him to do, since if he doesn’t, he’ll look bad in front of everyone; but more than that, I think this tells us that Paul isn’t only concerned about Onesimus and Philemon here. He has some things he wants to teach the whole church in Colossae through this episode.

Sometimes in Paul’s letters, the thanksgiving and the prayer are pretty clearly separated; here, they’re interwoven. He starts off, “I always thank God as I pray for you,” and then he finishes that sentence one half at a time. First, in verse 5, he says why he thanks God for Philemon: because of his faith and his love. The way this is structured in the Greek makes it clear that his love is not just for the people of the church, but also for the Lord Jesus, and that his faith isn’t just for himself, but that in fact his faith is a source of strength for the church.

And then look at verse 6—what do you see? “So that.” The NIV isn’t very helpful here; they have it in the middle when it should be at the beginning. You see, the verb “to pray” isn’t in this verse; that verb is back in verse 4. The interesting thing about verse 6 is that it doesn’t actually give the content of Paul’s prayer, strictly speaking—it begins with “so that” and gives the purpose of Paul’s prayer. It’s a small difference, but it’s an important one for us in understanding this letter. You see, Paul isn’t just saying, “I’m praying this for you, I’m thankful for you, Amen, now let’s get down to business.” Instead, he’s saying, “This is why I’m praying for you, this is what I want to see happen in your life and through your life, and it’s for that reason that I’m going to say what I’m about to say to you.”

What we need to understand here is that when we see “so that” in the Scriptures, we need to pay attention, because this is going to answer the “why” question. I may have said this here before, but the preacher’s question is “so what?” As a preacher, whenever I tell you something, I have to consider that you have the right to say—not in a nasty or disrespectful way, but as an honest question—“so what?” So what’s the reason you’re telling me this? So what’s the reason I should care? So what difference does this make to me in my life? And when you ask “so what,” the answer should come back, “so that”—and so it does here. This is Paul’s purpose for Philemon, it’s what he wants to see happen in Philemon’s life, and so this is the other pole of this letter. I said last week that verses 15-16 are the keynote of this letter, the keystone of its argument, and so they are; but verse 6, the purpose of his prayers for Philemon, is also the purpose of this letter toward which that argument is focused.

That, I’m guessing, is why Paul layered this sentence six feet deep with theologically loaded, meaning-full words, as he’s clearly trying to express something powerful here. Unfortunately, one of the things he succeeded in doing is in making this verse all but impossible to render into English. I feel sorry for Bible translators here, because they can’t explain it, or turn it into a whole paragraph—they have to put just a line or two that makes at least minimal sense in English and captures, as best they can, what Paul is trying to say. That’s why the NIV takes the “so that” from the beginning of the verse and moves it to the middle—I think it’s a mistake, but they’re just trying to get all the pieces to fit into the box in a way that lets people see more or less the right picture. For preaching from, though, it’s not so great, so if you’ll look up at the screen, you’ll see my translation of verse 6. It’s not great English, but like I said, this is a tough verse.

He starts off with the phrase “the communion of your faith.” In the Greek, this is koinonia tou pisteos. Koinonia is the word we most often translate “fellowship”; it’s from the word koine, meaning “common,” and it means doing, sharing, owning, living in common, being involved in something together and being involved in one another’s lives. It’s hard to translate in the simplest of cases because it’s a much richer word than just “fellowship,” with a much deeper meaning than we usually give that word; but here, when it’s combined with “faith”—and specifically, Philemon’s faith—what does that mean? There are, I think, two parts to that. The first is that Philemon’s faith isn’t just his own, but is a faith held in common with the whole Christian church, and indeed that it came to him through the Christian church; he is one who has received this blessing from the church, and thus is indebted to it. The second is that in living out his faith, and especially in serving as a leader in the church, he has expanded that communion, that circle of relationships—his faith has formed a community, and there is a koinonia which has resulted from his faith, including perhaps people whom he personally has led to Christ. The communion of his faith is the communion, the part of the body of Christ, which has shaped him and which he himself has shaped in his turn.

Paul’s hope is that that communion might become effective—this is the word from which we get our word “energy”; in fact, one commentator translates this, “might be a source of energy.” The idea is that the communion of Philemon’s faith, that this community of which he is a part and which he is responsible to lead, would be energized to produce results, to accomplish things. But to accomplish what? The aim here, Paul says, is “full knowledge of all the good that is ours into Christ.” Now, that sounds strange, in the first place because we’re used to thinking of knowledge as a head thing. You go to school, you read books, you listen to the teachers and the professors, and you learn things, and then you take tests and put those things down on paper to show that you know them. In the biblical mindset, though, knowledge isn’t a head thing, or at least not purely so. Sure, it has intellectual content, but it’s more than that. First, it’s active—you don’t actually know something until it’s reflected in how you live your life each day. Second, it’s relational—to know someone is not simply to be aware of facts about them, but to experience them and be in relationship with them.

Thus, when Paul talks about “full knowledge of all the good that is ours,” he’s not talking about possessing a set of facts about what’s good and what isn’t, he’s talking about experiencing in our own lives the good which Christ has given us—experiencing God’s work in our lives, and living accordingly, and so embodying that good in a way that the whole world can see. This is what Paul wants Philemon’s faith to produce, in his own life and also in the broader church, through his leadership of the communion of faith of which he is a part. This sort of witness is what he wants to see in Philemon’s life, and what he wants to see Philemon lead others to through his teaching and example. The desire to see this is the reason why Paul writes this letter.

Now, that doesn’t quite finish verse 6, of course, but don’t worry, I’m not leaving Jesus out of this sermon; I’ll come back to this verse in a minute. Before I do, however, I want to point you to perhaps the most interesting feature of this letter. Look at verse 8: “Therefore”—because this is what I want to see happen in your life—“although in Christ I have every right to tell you what to do here, I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’m going to ask you to do this out of love.” Out of love for whom? Well, partly for Paul, clearly; but this is also more general—out of love for Christ, out of Philemon’s love for the church, out of the love that is chief among “all the good” that he’s just been talking about in verse 6. He goes on to ask two things: first, that Philemon welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul himself; and second, that he would send Onesimus back to Paul—and perhaps even first set him free from slavery; I think that’s what Paul’s hinting at in verse 21—so that he could once again help Paul in his ministry in Rome. But where Paul could have simply ordered Philemon to do all these things and been certain of being obeyed, he doesn’t; instead, he just asks him. Why?

Paul doesn’t spell this out, of course, but I think we can see the answer to that in the letter. It’s all about love, and about the communion of Philemon’s faith becoming effective in the full knowledge of all that is theirs into Christ. For Paul, this isn’t just about Onesimus being protected, or getting Onesimus back; there’s something larger at stake here as well: the growth of the Colossian church, which now includes Onesimus. Paul doesn’t just want Philemon to do the right thing, he wants him to do the right thing for the right reason—because if you know the love of Christ in your life, this is what you do; this is what it means to live out that love, first toward Onesimus, and then toward Paul—and he wants him to do it in full view of the church (that’s the main reason this letter is supposed to be read to them as well) so that in doing it, he will set an example for them as they go out and live their own lives.

This, I think, points us back to the end of verse 6, where Paul talks about “all the good that is ours into Christ.” Now, that’s a literal translation, and it’s bad English, but I think it’s important for us to catch the meaning of that little preposition. You can just take it to mean “in,” as the NIV does, and just talk about the good that is ours in Christ; or you can translate it as “toward,” as other commentators do, and focus on the fact that the good that God does in us is supposed to focus our attention on Christ, and move us toward him. It seems to me that we need to hang on to both those aspects and remember that we’re still in process: we’re already in Christ, and in Christ we have all this good that’s beginning to be realized, but it’s only beginning; we still need to be closer to him, and we’re still being drawn closer to him. We need to remember, as Hannah sang earlier, that it truly is in Christ alone that our hope is found, not in anything else. We need to remember that we find our true life in Christ alone, for Christ alone, and that the hope and the goal toward which we live is Christ alone. Let’s pray.

One more reason Sarah Palin won’t get Quayled

There are a lot of folks raising the concern with Gov. Palin that, as a newcomer to national politics, she’s likely to make mistakes, and if she does, she’ll be hammered for them by the liberal media and end up a drag on the ticket. Jonah Goldberg put it this way:

I’ve been thinking about it and I think the bottom line on Palin is pretty simple. If she does a good job at the convention and survives about three weeks of serious media scrutiny—no horrible gaffes, no unforgivable I-don’t-knows to gotchya questions (fair and unfair), no botched hostile interviews—she will emerge as the single most inspired VP pick in modern memory and she will give the Democrats migraines for a long time to come, assuming there are no terrible skeletons we don’t know about. But, if she screws up in the next three weeks, gives the press and the late night comedians sufficient fodder to Quayelize her, she’ll be seen as anything from a liability to an outright horrible pick. That’s it.

For my part, I’d been agreeing with this analysis—confident that Gov. Palin will do well, but still in agreement with the consequences if she doesn’t. Now, however, I’m not so sure. Think about it: why did Dan Quayle get Quayled? George W. Bush didn’t see a similar media reaction bury him, and he and the English language have a considerably tenser relationship. I think the answer is that it wasn’t only Democrats who thought Quayle was a lightweight and not worthy of his position: Republicans didn’t either. When Bentsen hit him with the “you’re no Jack Kennedy” right cross and he went down for the count, his own party believed he belonged on the mat. That’s what was fatal to him. With W., that didn’t happen, and so he won two terms in the White House even as every comedian in the nation painted him as an ape in a dunce cap who couldn’t spell his own name if you spotted him the “B”and the “u.”This is, I think, relevant to our evaluation of Sarah Palin. Consider that unlike Sen. Quayle, she has evoked a deep and impassioned positive response from national Republicans; Jonah Goldberg (again) is representative on this:

Whatever else you want to say about Palin, the undeniable fact is that she has generated staggering enthusiasm among Republicans. Every few minutes I get another email like this:

Jonah,
Three days ago, I was telling my fiance that I might stay home in November. I could never vote for Obama, and there were things McCain could do (such as a VP pick) that would prevent me from voting for him.Well, I did it. Today I made my first ever political contribution, and it was to the McCain-PALIN campaign. I’m sold on Palin. And since he picked her, I’m now sold on McCain too.Sincerely,
[name withheld]

This is profoundly significant, because it means that if she does put her foot in it and give the media the opportunity to label her a lightweight, out of her depth—I’ll be surprised if she does, but even the best of us do it at the worst of times—Republican voters aren’t going to buy the line. Instead, we’ll defend her against it to anyone who will listen, and some people will. Would a gaffe or two on her part deflate the campaign somewhat? Sure, just as Sen. Obama’s have deflated his somewhat. As long as she keeps her cool, though, I just don’t see it knocking her or the ticket as a whole off their stride.

Note to Sarah Palin searchers

Well, things have calmed down considerably since yesterday’s spike (more hits in one day than I’ve ever had in a month; from what I can see, this was pretty common among pro-Palin sites, as the Net went crazy with people trying to find out who the heck is Gov. Sarah Palin), but the traffic is still running pretty high; and there seem to be two real themes here. First, people looking for dirt on Gov. Palin. Sorry, nothing there but the accusation that she abused the powers of her office in an attempt to get someone to fire her brother-in-law the child-tasering state trooper who drinks beer in his police car and threatened to kill her father—an accusation which a) doesn’t seem like much of an accusation (actually, getting the guy fired sounds like a pretty good idea to me), but b) doesn’t seem to be true anyway.Second, I continue to have crowds of folks land here searching for info on Sarah Palin’s church, religion, and the like: and for you, I now have an answer. Go here, scroll down to the seventh line, and you will know what churches Sarah Palin attends, or has attended.

GOP angle: the experienced reformers ticket

The best media piece I’ve yet read on the Palin pick is Michael Medved’s. For the most part, he makes the same points that those of us who’ve been agitating for Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket have been making for a while, but what really makes his analysis, I think, is this comment:

Yes, this undermines McCain’s future use of the experience issue, but that’s almost certainly a good thing, too. The experience issue has never worked well in presidential elections: Gerald Ford tried it against a one-term Governor of Georgia (the worthless Jimmy Carter) and lost; Carter tried it against Reagan (no foreign policy experience as Governor of California!) and got wiped out; George H.W. Bush tried to make it stick against Bill Clinton and the result was the lowest percentage of the vote for a Republican candidate since Wiliam Howard Taft. The line McCain’s been using “He’s Not Ready to Lead” is still viable—and should emphasize a discussion of Obama’s policies, not his job history—his radicalism, not his resume. Meanwhile, we should invite comparisons of Governor Palin’s experience with Obama’s: won’t the PTA connect more with middle class voters than “community organizer,” and property tax-cutting small town mayor count more than slippery State Senator who voted “present” a disquieting proportion of the time. In any event, both tickets now balance experience with youthful energy—but McCain is balancing it the right way, with the experience at the top.

I think this is right on target, for two reasons. In the first place, every Democratic soundbite against Gov. Palin on the experience issue is also a soundbite against Barack Obama. Charles Schumer, for instance, said this: “While Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling.” OK, Senator, so riddle me this: doesn’t that mean that Sen. Obama’s lack of experience makes the thought of him assuming the presidency troubling? After all, Gov. Palin has considerably more governance experience (technically, infinitely more, since Sen. Obama has none), and a considerably longer list of achievements to her name; how is it that her lack of experience troubles you, and his lack doesn’t? Check this out (HT: Carlos Echevarria):

Or, the thought strikes: does Sen. Schumer really mean (consciously or otherwise), “don’t worry about Sen. Obama’s inexperience—he’s just out front running the campaign; when it gets down to brass tacks, it will really be Uncle Joe running the show”? Is this a Freudian slip here? I’ve suspected for a while that that’s how the Democratic leadership on the Hill sees Sen. Obama; have we just seen that confirmed?In any case, going back to Medved’s point, prior to Steve Schmidt taking over to run the McCain effort, I remember seeing quizzical headlines asking, “Why is John McCain re-running the Hillary campaign,” pointing out as Medved does that running on “experience” doesn’t work well when your opponent is running on “hope” and “change.” The danger always was that Sen. McCain would lean on that too heavily—and now the presence of Gov. Palin on that ticket both makes that impossible and pulls the campaign back to a hope/change/reform emphasis of its own. The key now is to make the case that John McCain and Sarah Palin are experienced reformers who will put country first, working for the common good, serving the people above all. That, I think, is a message that works for them, since it fits what they’ve done in their careers, and what they care about as individuals; it’s a message they can back up from their own stories and their accomplishments in life; and it’s one that can win in November.

“To serve the common good”

This still revs me up whenever I think about it—we did it. The longest of longshots happened. John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate—and for today at least, she blew the roof off the place. If you didn’t see Sen. McCain’s introduction and Gov. Palin’s speech (which, judging by what I can see of his reactions, took him by surprise, it was so good) in Dayton this afternoon, the video is below (it’s about 27 minutes).“A ship in harbor is safe—but that’s not why it is built.” —Gov. Sarah Palin

The Palin conundrum for Barack Obama

Several months ago, I was interested to read an article in Salon by one Rebecca Traister on the sexism of some of Sen. Obama’s supporters, one which suggested the beginnings of disaffection with him among some female voters (including some who were supporting him over Hillary Clinton). Earlier this week, I began to notice signs that that disaffection had become very real, such as his dropping poll numbers among women, not to mention the blogger who asked, “Why is Barack Obama so afraid of women?” I posted on that, but unfortunately, I didn’t get it phrased quite the way I wanted it, which resulted in a discussion in the comments that never really explored the key question: is Sen. Obama dealing with a perception problem among women—is he giving women the feeling that he doesn’t like or appreciate them properly, or that he has a problem with powerful women, and if so, how can he address this? (The latter is a question which I didn’t try to answer, because I don’t have an answer.) To my way of thinking, the idea seems absurd—would he have married his wife if he had a problem with powerful women? From where I sit, aside from the Senate service, she’s more qualified for this race than he is. I’m starting to think, though, that after the long, bruising battle with Sen. Clinton—and perhaps more importantly, his treatment of her after he secured the nomination—that maybe a lot of people, and especially women, don’t find it so absurd. If that’s so, then it seems to me that would add up to a real problem for Sen. Obama.In light of that, I was quite interested to hear Dick Morris, in the middle of a paean to Sarah Palin (whom he called “great” and “brilliant” and a terrific pick for John McCain), say this:

She’ll demonstrate that the Republicans, unlike Barack Obama, are open to women and believe that women ought to be promoted. Now you have Barack Obama, who spent his whole primary trying to stop a woman from being President, and now he’s going to spend the whole general trying to stop a woman from being Vice President, and he’s trying to do that with women’s votes.

Ouch.I’ve been arguing hard for two months now for Gov. Palin on the GOP ticket because of all the things I have been and remain firmly convinced (despite the naysayers) that she brings to Sen. McCain’s campaign; but I’m starting to think, as a political matter, that the challenge she poses to the Obama campaign might be important as well. (Update: so does the New York Post’s Kirsten Powers, who calls the pick “a brilliant trap” for the Obama campaign.) I said earlier today that I thought the Democrats were making a mistake trying to dismiss her out of the gate as “Geraldine Quayle,” a lightweight, rather than taking her seriously, because she isn’t another Quayle, she isn’t a lightweight; but as well, from some of the reactions I’ve seen, I’m starting to think that kind of approach has real potential to tick off female voters. Honestly, the GOP should take Morris’ quote and plaster it everywhere they can find the wall space, because the more people look at the matter in that way (and I’m starting to think that a lot of folks already do), the more of a problem Gov. Palin is going to pose for Barack Obama and (especially) Joe Biden. I think they’re going to find that she’s a lot harder to attack than they realize, regardless; but the more voters see the race in the terms in which Morris casts it, the greater the chance the McCain/Palin ticket will really have to peel away not only conservative but also moderate Democrats, and the better their chances of getting to 270 in November.