Go On as You Began

(Deuteronomy 10:12-22; Colossians 2:6-23)

In understanding this section of Colossians, it’s helpful to flip back a few pages, just for a minute, to the letter to the Galatians. As I’ve mentioned before, the opening to that letter is an unusual one for Paul. After the greeting, where we would normally find the thanksgiving and prayer, instead he jumps right into the body of the letter with these words: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” They began by following Christ, believing in his gospel, but now they’re being led astray by a false gospel; they’re turning off the true path. Then in chapter 3, he comes at this from a different angle: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” In abandoning the true gospel, they’re turning their backs on the power of God and seeking to live by a very different power. In chapter 4, he puts his concern in terms of freedom and slavery: “Formerly,” he says, “when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?” That word translated “elementary principles,” by the way, is the same word we have here in this passage. Finally, in Galatians 5, Paul sums up his concern for them in this way: “You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?”

“You were running well—who got in your way? Why did you leave the path?” That’s Paul’s question to the Galatians, it’s the concern he has for them, and though he’s less urgent in this letter because the situation is less urgent, it’s the concern he has for the Colossian church as well. They started off in Christ, led in the gospel by some whom Paul had discipled, but now other teachers have been working on them, and they’re starting to drift; they’re starting to turn away from their freedom in Jesus and back to slavery to the powers and authorities that rule the world. They’re starting to think about trading in the religion of grace, the good news of Jesus Christ, for a religion of human teachings and human rules, and so Paul stands up to tell them, “Stop.”

The problem is, living by grace is a hard balance to keep, because it costs us nothing yet asks everything of us; it flips our transaction-based thinking on its head. We’re used to obeying orders and earning our way. They train us to do that in school—someone tells you to do something, you do it, and then you get graded. You get a job, they tell you to do something, you do it, and then someone else gives you money and tells you you’ve earned it. It’s a transaction—we do, and we get back. Most religions operate the same way—you do, and you get back. But then God comes along and says, “No, no, no—I do, and you give back—not because you have to in order to get, because I’ve already given you everything, but out of love and gratitude, because it pleases me and you want to please me.” Living by grace means living to please God, not in order to earn his favor, but in grateful response to his unearned favor.

The trick in that is, we’re used to working to a line, measuring ourselves against a standard, that says “Good enough.” You work x number of hours, you do y number of things, you sell z amount of product, and you’ve done good enough, and you get to keep your job; add ten or fifteen or twenty percent to that, and you get a raise. Perform to a certain measurable level, get the results you want, and then you can stop and say, “That’s good enough,” and go do something else with the rest of your life. The trick about living by grace is that it means we can’t do that with God, because it means we’re motivated not by the need to reach a certain standard, but by gratitude—gratitude for an infinite gift; and if the gift is infinite, then where does gratitude stop? Where do we get to the point that we can say, “That’s enough—that’s adequate thanks for what Jesus did for me”?

The fact of the matter is, we don’t. However much we do, the movement of gratitude for the gift of Jesus Christ continues to draw us on to do things and work at things and make efforts for which we will earn nothing in return, and which will serve not to show everyone how wonderful we are, but rather how wonderful God is; and that’s not how we’re accustomed to living, and it doesn’t fit with our ideas about what we deserve. As such, it isn’t something we can do just by working harder, because that will tend to turn our gratitude into resentment; it’s been well observed—by the science-fantasy writer Anne McCaffrey, of all people—that gratitude is an ill-fitting tunic that can chafe and smell if worn too long.

The only antidote to that is to keep changing that tunic on a regular basis—to keep renewing our gratitude, to keep reawakening our sense of the heights of God’s glory and goodness and holiness, and the depths of our own sin, and the incredible, world-shattering thing Jesus did to lift us out of those depths and up to his heights, and the horrifying price he paid to do so; that’s why the life of grace begins with worship, why we need to worship together to stay spiritually healthy, because this is part of what our worship is supposed to be about. Worship keeps it ever fresh in our mind just how much we need God’s grace, and how much reason we have to be grateful. Without it, we lose the balance of grace and fall off to one side or the other, into legalism or lawlessness.

The world, of course, pulls us toward lawlessness; it may be happy enough to deal with “spirituality,” but only with all sense of obligation removed—it wants nothing to do with “religion.” Some churches go that way, too, drawn by the culture; the rest of the church, though, tends to call them “liberal” and react against them, which has the unfortunate tendency to pitch us into legalism. To be sure, the legalism of our own day and age tends to look rather different on the surface than the legalism of days gone by, but it’s the same underneath; as the Nashville pastor and writer Jared Wilson puts it, “the smiling face that self-help ‘Christianity’ puts on evangelicalism claims to be setting followers free from rules and judgmental religion. But really, by making discipleship about helpful hints and positive power for successful living, it’s really just making a works religion in our new image. In an odd twist, the Oprah-ization of the faith is really just optimistic legalism. Because what is Pharisaical legalism, really, but self-help with bad p.r.?” And as Jared continues, there are a lot of people who love this, because “they want to be told religion is not about rules and regulations while at the same time being told each week which four steps (with helpful alliteration) they need to do in order to achieve maximum what-have-you. They want to be reassured that works don’t merit salvation while at the same time convinced salvation is about trying really hard to do things that unlock the power or secret of God’s such-and-such.”

What’s the appeal? Well, partly, it makes things simpler; if you have a list of things to do, then all you have to do is those things, and you’re home free. You can measure yourself against the list, and you know if you’re good enough; you can look at where you stand and where the line is, where the fence is, and know which side of it you’re on. And you know just how far you can push it without going over. Living by grace, you can’t do that; infinite gratitude calls for more than just a limited response. And partly, if it’s just a matter of doing this list of things, and you do do them all, then you can take the credit for that; you can point to them and to yourself and say, “Look at me, I did that. Am I not wonderful?” There’s plenty of room in legalism for ego-stroking; that might be why it’s such an appealing thing to preach, too, because you get to hold yourself up as the model for everyone else to follow. If you’re the sort of person who has it all together—or are good at looking like you have it all together—that can be a great way to attract followers, and attention, and praise, and build a big successful ministry. Like Groucho Marx said of sincerity, if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

And so, throughout its history, the church has been tempted into one form or another of legalism. The Colossians weren’t even the first—that would have been the Galatians, who got hit with it in its purest form: go back to being Jews—and of course they were far from the last, because this spiritual weed just keeps popping up. Whether it’s the belief that you have to follow this set of rules in order to appease the spiritual powers that can block your ascent to God, as Paul denounced to the Colossians, or the belief that you have to follow that set of rules because grace only gives you the ability to earn God’s favor, leaving you to earn it, as the Reformers denounced in the medieval Catholic church, or the belief that you have to follow yet another set of rules (only they call them “principles” these days) in order to experience the fully fulfilled life God wants for you—leaving modern-day Pauls to stand and say, “No, in Christ you have been given all fullness”—it’s all the same thing at the core: salvation by doing stuff, rather than by Christ alone. That’s the enemy’s game. He’s always trying to convince us that salvation is not in Christ alone, that he’s not enough, that what he did is not enough, that we need to add something of our own, because he knows that to add anything to Christ is to lose Christ.

And that, Paul says, is trading in truth for falsehood, reality for shadow, and freedom for slavery. Such rules are all about things that only matter in this world, that have no real eternal value; it’s only in following Christ that we can find things of true and lasting value, because it’s only in him that we find the reality, the substance, of which this world is an imperfect copy. It’s only in Jesus, as we talked about two weeks ago, that we can find true fullness of life; it’s only in him that we can find forgiveness for sin and freedom from the burden of our guilt and our regrets. Indeed, it’s only in him that we can find freedom from the powers and authorities of this world; to turn back and follow them, as the Colossians were beginning to do, is to put ourselves under the thumb of their human representatives.

It’s to put ourselves under the thumb, let’s say, of the preachers who say, “If you just follow the rules I lay out, you’ll have that perfect marriage and those perfect kids—and if you don’t, then it’s your fault for doing it wrong.” It’s to submit, perhaps, to the power of sexual desire in our lives—which means, effectively, to some one person who’ll use that power to control us. It’s to put ourselves in thrall, maybe, to the markets, and the economic news, and the gurus. It’s to buy the line, most likely, of one or the other of our political parties, who will be only too happy to tell us that salvation comes from winning this election or voting for this candidate. In short, it’s to live in slavery to what the world tells us we must do, rather than to live in freedom in Christ and what he will do.

And despite what the world will tell you, there’s no need for that slavery. Christ has stripped those powers and displayed their impotence before the whole world—we do not need to submit to them. We do not need to acknowledge them. We do not need to give them power in our lives. In him, we have the power to live free, trusting that he will take care of us, trusting that he will meet our needs—for we give these authorities power over us when we believe that we have to submit to them to have our needs met and to find the kind of life we want to live; but we don’t have to submit to them, we don’t have to give them that power, because Jesus is faithful and he will supply all our needs, and we already have that fullness of life we desire in him. We’re free just to live in Christ—to live our daily lives in the awareness of his presence, open to his voice, seeking his will, trusting him for his guidance and his provision. We’ve been invited simply to enjoy Christ, to rest deep in his presence and his character, so that that will be the foundation of our lives and of everything else we do. The more we walk in him—spending time talking with him each day, practicing the habit of giving him each moment we live and each step we take, learning to keep our eyes and ears always open to see his face and hear his voice in the world around us—the more he works in us to build us up into a strong tower that will stand the storms of life, from which his light will shine into the world.

Kudos to SNL

You have to give Lorne Michaels and the rest of the folks at SNL credit: they’ve done a really good job with this election season. They haven’t pulled their punches—in fact, at points, they’ve showed more willingness to tell the truth than the reporters whose job it is to do so; the skit they did on the bailout is perhaps the most obvious example of that, since it was so blunt that NBC felt the need to edit it:

Here’s the edited version, which is still quite good:

The one that really got me, though, was their skit of the first presidential debate where they had Obama insisting that under his plan “most members of the Chicago city council, as well as city building inspectors” would get a tax cut “because my plan would not tax income from bribes, kickbacks, shakedowns, embezzlement of government funds, or extortion.” I suppose they figured since their McCain followed that with a non sequitur, it was okay, but I still find it hard to believe they actually put that in there.In line with this, I thought they handled Sarah Palin’s appearance quite well. It posed some interesting challenges for Lorne Michaels, as he noted in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, but they rose to the occasion. They didn’t hand her anything, but they let her play to her strengths, and I think both she and the show benefited as a result. The way they handled the open was, I think, particularly interesting:

To be sure, Gov. Palin has actually been talking to the press a fair bit lately, but that’s fine; as Michaels says, SNL deals with perception, not reality, and the McCain campaign’s early folly in sequestering her (courtesy of Rick Davis, who should have been booted all the way out when Steve Schmidt came on board) created this perception. She now has to deal with it in turn—which SNL helped her do. Credit to them.

The myth of fingerprints

I spent a while earlier today thinking about fingerprints, courtesy of Heather McDougal—courtesy of both her own rumination on the subject, which considers various aspects of the whys and wherefores of fingerprints (such as why we have them in the first place, and how they work), and of a 2002 New Yorker article raising questions about the forensic use of fingerprints. They’re very different articles, obviously, but both are quite interesting; check them out.

On this blog in history: May 2007

Continuing with the historical links posts and jumping back to 2007, here are the highlights from that May:The coldest case of all
This was my response to a Cold Case episode that was an ugly and unsubtle commercial for euthanasia.AI: Amnesty International, or Abortion International?
Protesting Amnesty International’s decision to become an abortion-rights organization—and their initial determination to lie to the public about having done so.Robert E. Webber, RIP
What a great leader of the American church . . .Musings on worship, illustrated by the Songs of the Week
On how not to make worship about God.Tributes
Taking note of the death of Jerry Falwell, and of Charles Taylor winning the Templeton Prize.

Put not your trust in princes

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.
Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever; who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.

—Psalm 146:3-7a (ESV)

O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.
O Israel, hope in the Lord from this time forth and forevermore.

—Psalm 131 (ESV)

The tendency to put one’s trust in rulers and other political figures is, of course, a universal one, a temptation to which we’re all prone; it’s not just a problem in American politics, by any means. This is not a respect in which America is exceptional. I do think, though, that we’ve been taking it to unusual heights of late, and especially during this election season—and this isn’t just a problem for one side, either. Certainly a number of conservative pundits grumbled about the response to Sarah Palin, calling it nothing more than a bad case of celebrity worship, and I can’t count the number of e-mails I’ve received with subject lines like “We MUST Win!” Well, no, sorry, we mustn’t. I firmly agree it would be better if we did and that bad things will happen if we don’t, but what of that? Even if we’re right, it might very well be better for the long term that the Democrats have their day to do whatever they want. And of course, one must always be humbly aware that one could easily be wrong.

That said, trust in princes is a greater problem on the Democratic side of the aisle, at least this time around; the Obama campaign was built on it right from the beginning—not just in the messianic language about epiphanies and “this is the moment the planet started to heal,” but in the whole theme of his campaign. The basic appeal has been, from day one, “Put your hope in Obama.” When you do that, this kind of thing is the logical consequence (HT: Bill):

To that I say, no; even if I were voting for the guy, I wouldn’t do that. The man is a politician, and a Chicago politician, no less. Anyone who puts their trust in politicians—any politicians—is a fool in the full biblical sense, and I use the term completely advisedly.

Put not your trust in politicians, for in them there is no salvation. Vote, yes; vote wisely, yes; understand the issues and decide carefully, yes, yes, yes. And then leave the results to God. Do what you consider he leads you to do, but don’t presume to judge what MUST happen, or to conclude that if the results don’t go your way that God must somehow have failed. To know the future and what must be is too great and too marvelous for us. Calm and quiet your soul in the presence of God, and rest lightly in him; pray for the winners, and for the losers, and for all of us, and put your trust and your hope in the only one worthy of them: in the Lord. Put your hope in him alone for this troubled time, and for the time to come, and you will be blessed, for your help and your hope will be the one who “who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever; who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry.” He takes care of his people, even when he leads us through the valley of the shadow of death, and he will take care of you.

The return of yellow journalism?

To borrow a phrase from Isaac Asimov, future generations of historians will look back and somewhere in the last eight years, they will draw a line and say, “This marks the fall of the mainstream media.” (Always assuming the world lasts that long, that we don’t blow ourselves up or something.) Orson Scott Card, the science fiction/fantasy author and writing professor, lays out the reasons why in a blistering attack on the MSM: they’ve chosen to ignore some stories, downplay others, and spend their time inventing new ones, in order to advance the cause of their chosen agenda and candidates, and in the process have become “just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party.”This is not a new thing, nor should it be surprising. As my father-in-law pointed out to me a while ago, the rise of modern standards of journalistic integrity, of the idea that journalists should be fair and impartial and treat all reasonable points of view equally, was driven and made possible by the rise of mass media that made it possible for the first time to market products on a nationwide basis. If you’re going to try to sell things to the whole country at once, you need to appeal to the whole country at once, which means that for your news division, a convincingly impartial approach is necessary so as not to turn anyone off. As Jon Shields, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado—Colorado Springs, has pointed out, this was made possible by the consensus-oriented, largely unideological centrism of post-World War II American politics.The problem is, both of the foundations of that approach to journalism are gone; Dr. Shields’ article tells the story of how liberal activists shattered that 1950s centrism, and mass marketing has largely been replaced by niche marketing. You pick a segment of the population and you make money by giving them what they want; along with that goes telling them what they want to hear. The only things left of the grand postwar era of American journalism are the major media corporations it created, which are now in varying states of disrepair, and their abiding conviction that they are the arbiters of truth and impartiality. (Hence their flaming contempt for that upstart Fox, which challenges the latter and competes with them for money.) We on the outside are free to see that that conviction is an illusion—and always was, really—and that the man behind the curtain is the abiding form of journalism in a capitalist society, to which we have returned after a brief aberration. Call it yellow journalism if you like (I for one think that’s fair), but don’t be surprised by it; remember, the highest award for journalism is the Pulitzer Prize—named after, and established by, none other than Joseph Pulitzer.Remember, you can’t count on the media to tell you what’s true. You have to figure that out for yourself.

The far country, and the road home

When you lay me down to die . . . just remember this: when you lay me down to die,
you lay me down to live.
—Andrew Peterson, “Lay Me Down”As I mentioned in my previous post, Sara and the girls and I went up to hear Andrew Peterson last night, which was a very great lift to our spirits. Before kicking into the songs from his new album, he opened with this one to set the theme. It reminded me of a time a couple years ago where I seemed to be surrounded by death. That was the time when Louie Heckert, one of the patriarchs of our little congregation and also one of the sweetest spirits I’ve ever met in a human being, was attacked and killed by a rogue bull moose; if you didn’t hear that story at the time, click the links—and even if you did, click on his name anyway, because if you didn’t know Louie, that was your loss. Around the same time, one of our long-time part-time folks died out in Missouri, as did two other long-time residents of Grand County for whom our church had been praying.To top it all off, my grandpa died at the same time, and his funeral ended up being the same time as Louie’s. As I was conducting Louie’s funeral, an old family friend was leading Grampa’s; and I could not break down, for Grampa or for Louie or for anyone else, because there were things that needed to be done. That, I think, is the hardest thing about doing a funeral, and the better you knew and loved the person who died, the harder it is: in order to honor Louie properly, in order to create the necessary space for everyone else to deal with their feelings of grief and loss, I had to keep strict control on my own. That’s just how it works. It doesn’t mean that the grief goes away, just that you don’t get to do anything with it.Nobody tells you when you get born here how much you’ll come to love it and how you’ll never belong here.—Rich Mullins, “Land of My Sojourn”As hard a time as that was, the good thing was that it all happened just before Easter, meaning that we were able to respond to all these deaths with the celebration of the Resurrection, because that is God’s answer to death; as one hymn we sang that Easter morning declares, “Christ is risen, we are risen!” because in his resurrection, “Death at last has met defeat.” That is the anchor of our faith, and it’s an anchor we particularly need when the death of someone we love dearly rocks our world. It’s not just because we want the assurance that we will see them again or because we want to believe that they are in a better place, either, though both those things are part of the equation. At a deeper level, encounters with death remind us that no matter how hard we try, we really can’t make our home in this world, because we can never fully belong here; we are temporary, and the world goes on.God is at home. We are in the far country.—Meister EckhardtWhat we tend to forget, though, is that the world’s perspective on death is something of an optical illusion; in truth, it’s this world which is temporary. It wasn’t meant to be that way—it’s the result of human sin—but we live in a world which is going to be replaced. The reason we cannot be fully at home here is because this is not the home for which we were made; we were made to live with God, and we live in a world that has rejected him. Our sin, our insistence on our own way, has opened a chasm between us and God—and the tragedy is that as a result, we have created a world for ourselves that we can’t live in, a world which can never be our home. As the German mystic Meister Eckhardt understood, we have made ourselves exiles in the far country, for no matter how hard we try, our only true home is still with God.I believe in the holy shores of uncreated light; I believe there’s power in the blood.
And all the death that ever was, if you set it next to life, I believe it would barely fill a cup.
—Andrew Peterson, “Lay Me Down”Another of the small graces of that difficult month was the release of Peterson’s album The Far Country, from which this song comes. The album’s title was of course taken from the Meister Eckhardt quotation above, and the album is primarily a meditation on death and Heaven. As I listened to the album, and in particular to the song “Lay Me Down,” I was blessed by the strong affirmation of our resurrection hope from a non-standard perspective. The problem, really, isn’t that we die; the problem is that we aren’t at home, we’re exiles in the far country. In this far country, we die, and those we love die, and it brings us great pain; but God is still at home, and he is here as well in this far country with us, and he sent his son Jesus to make a way, to be the way, for us to get across the gap, to go home to be with him. That’s why we affirm that death has been defeated, that it has lost its sting, because by his death and resurrection Jesus has transformed it; it’s no longer the final curtain in this far country, but the door that opens onto the road back home.I’ll open up my eyes on the skies I’ve never known, in the place where I belong,
and I’ll realize his love is just another word for Home.
—Andrew Peterson, “Lay Me Down”For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.—Philippians 1:21

The gospel is resurrection

My last post, being focused on the political and international scene, could give one the idea that my concerns are solely with the impending regime change in Washington, DC. That isn’t the case, though. While the foreboding I’ve been feeling is certainly partly due to the political situation, there are a number of personal elements in play as well; I just have the sense of some combination of things coming together, and I don’t know just what, or to what purpose, and it’s been weighing on me.

That’s why Sara and I, even though we’re still feeling the effects of this stomach bug that swept through our family, decided we needed to get up to South Bend last night to see Andrew Peterson in concert. He’s touring solo (absolutely solo, without even Ben Shive) in support of his new album, Resurrection Letters, Vol. II (apparently Vol. I will be coming later), which released on Tuesday. It was a joy to hear him sing his new songs, and a lot of fun to hear him talk about the stories and Scriptures behind each of them; it was a greater joy to be lifted up by the theme running through them, the celebration of the power of the resurrection of Christ in our lives.

This is critically important, because the gospel isn’t about empowering us, or fulfilling us, or satisfying us, or any of that; all of those are effects of the work of God in our lives, but they aren’t its essence or its purpose. The gospel is about a living God raising dead people to life. We were dead without him, we are dead without him, we become less alive every time we turn away from him; and every time we do, his Spirit is at work in us to raise us back up out of the depths into which we keep trying to cast ourselves. He isn’t simply changing us, he’s remaking us, and indeed has already remade us; he’s making all things new, and he won’t stop until he’s done, no matter what this world might do to try to stop him.

This is the answer to my foreboding: whatever may come—for our nation, for our world, for me personally and my family—it’s all in God’s hands, and all accounted for in his plan. It’s all a part of him making us, and all things, new. It’s all a part of the process, begun and sealed in our baptism, by which he’s putting our old selves to death and raising us to new life in him. And in him, by his grace, though things may be dark and troubled along the way, though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we need fear no evil, for he is with us; and we may be sure that in the end, as that great saint of the church Julian of Norwich put it,

All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

Scanning the horizon

I’ve been feeling a real sense of foreboding lately. Part of it (though only part) is political, as anyone who reads this blog can tell, and so there’s definitely a component to this which is merely partisan: I’m convinced our next president is going to be a (very) liberal Democrat, and I don’t believe the policies which liberal Democrats support are best for America, which is why I typically vote Republican. That’s a matter of differences of opinion, nothing more; part of the deal in a democracy is that sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and in the long run by the grace of God you hope it all balances itself out. So far in the history of this nation, in the long run by the grace of God it mostly has.

I don’t believe a liberal Democratic administration will be good for our economy, but that doesn’t really bother me; I’m probably too spoiled anyway, and even if the times wax comparatively bad, my family and I will still have things infinitely better than some of our friends elsewhere in the world. The children who will never be born due to liberal Democratic policies on abortion weigh far more heavily on me (and don’t try to argue the canard that GOP policies have raised the abortion rate—that one’s been thoroughly debunked), as do other likely changes on the social side. But even so, that’s politics; that’s how the system works.

What isn’t just politics is that I see heavy weather ahead. The “end of history” celebrated by Francis Fukuyama turned out to be nothing more than a Weimar holiday followed by the rebirth of aggressive fascism—this time in Islamic garb—as a major force on the world stage, the rise of China, the reassertion of Russian power, and the ongoing spread of WMD technologies. There are some nasty cancers growing in the global body politic, and they aren’t responding to herbal therapies. This isn’t helped by the current deflation of the global economy, which creates its own set of problems which must be addressed. From a political perspective, one may say that this candidate would be better than that candidate, but there is no conceivable candidate we could put up with the confidence that they would “fix the problems,” because the problems are simply too big. The situation of our world, as usual, is not amenable to a political solution, though it helps when politics at least manages to produce leaders who can move us in the right direction.

This is why what really bothers me about the upcoming election is not that we’re going to electa liberal Democrat, but that we’re electing one who I’m increasingly convinced is manifestly unprepared and unqualified for the job. I didn’t feel this concern four years ago, even though I had far less respect for either John Kerry or John Edwards than I do for either Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and even though I consider McCain/Palin a far superior ticket to Bush/Cheney, and even though I think the issues were just as serious four years ago as now. For that matter, if it were Hillary Clinton running with, say, Harold Ford, I would be far less concerned. Yes, several years ago, I wouldn’t have believed I’d say that, but between her Senate tenure and her campaign, she did a lot to change my opinion of her; and love her or hate her (there seems to be little middle ground), Sen. Clinton is someone who gets things done.

To be sure, I would have disagreed with many of the things she did over the next four years—as, I should note, I’ve disagreed with many of the things our incumbent president has done over the last eight, despite the (R) after his name—and I think her campaign has shown significant weaknesses in her administrative ability, and as such, I personally would not have considered her a good president; but I believe she would have been at least a moderately effective president, and possibly quite a bit more, and one whom Democrats would have judged successful. The key here is that I think Sen. Clinton is capable of saying with Orrin Knox (the fictional senior senator from Illinois in Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent), “I don’t give a **** about being liked, but I intend to be respected,” and as such I believe she can stand up to people and face them down when the situation calls for it. This is a crucially important ability in a president, and never more than in their dealings with the leaders of other nations who bear America ill will.

I do not believe that any of these things can be said of Barack Obama (except that his campaign, too, has shown significant weaknesses in his administrative ability). He simply has no record of serious accomplishment—he’s never been an objective success in the world outside academia, except at campaigning and winning votes. My brother-in-law, an Obama supporter, assured me recently that he’s gotten a good education; my response was that I don’t question that (though I do wonder why he’s so determined to keep his time at Columbia hidden), but I don’t see that he’s done anything with it. He’s a writer, a thinker, a policy wonk; he’s the guy on the staff who makes a great advisor because he’s full of ideas, but has no instinct for turning any of them into reality. He talks about change, but he doesn’t create it; he talks about compromise and bipartisanship, but isn’t willing to give up anything to make it happen.

As well, and most crucially, he has no history of standing up to his own party, to his own supporters, to his own mentors, unless he’s driven to—and when it comes to conflict between them, as it did recently in Illinois between Gov. Rod Blagojevich and State Senate President Emil Jones (Sen. Obama’s personal kingmaker), he prefers to just avoid the scene altogether. To be effective as a leader requires the willingness to be disliked, to bear the full force of the anger and disappointment of others, and Sen. Obama shows no sign of that as far as I can see.

The thing is, before, it hasn’t mattered. He’s been one of a legislative body, and if he doesn’t bother to vote half the time, the votes will still be held and the business of the session will still go on; and if he doesn’t bother to convene his subcommittee, well, the legislature can work around that to get done what needs doing. And besides, there’s always a higher office to aspire to, and another campaign to run. What happens when he reaches the point when there’s only one of him, and the buck stops at his desk, and there’s nowhere else to go—but down? I don’t see anything to give me confidence in the answer to that question.

And so, my deep presentiment that it will not be well when this nation elects Sen. Obama to its highest office is not just about his conviction that offering ourselves to our enemies as their partner in addressing the problems of this world is a bad way to solve those problems (but a good way to get hurt). It’s not even, really, about my broader sense that his instincts in responding to people and situations point in all the wrong directions. These, again, are concerns at the level of political disagreement, and my unease runs deeper. Let me set them aside for the moment; let me go so far as to stipulate that Joe Biden is right, that when the crisis comes, we just have to trust Barack Obama because “he gets it.” My fear is that even if his instincts are in fact right and he does know the right thing to do, he won’t be able to convert that knowledge to action and actually do it in a successful way. That’s going to be an extremely difficult thing to do in the event of, for instance, my personal worst-case scenario: al’Qaeda setting off a suitcase nuke in or near the US Capitol. It would be difficult for anyone, because let’s be honest: the gap from knowledge to effective, timely action is one of the hardest for us to bridge in this life; one of the reasons why we need true leaders is their ability to do so consistently when it matters most. If Sen. Obama has shown anything like that consistency, I haven’t seen it—and I don’t believe it’s going to just show up when he needs it most.

Don’t think this means I dislike the man. I don’t; I’ve never understood anyway how you can dislike someone you’ve never met, but I see little in him to dislike. I see much that is admirable, and much that I believe would make him a joy to know. He’s clearly a very gifted man; if we were discussing him as, say, a potential SCOTUS nominee for another Democratic administration, I think he’d be hard to argue against. What I just don’t see is the kind of inner strength, resolve, and fortitude that it takes to navigate the storms of the presidency to a successful conclusion—and that worries me deeply. I hope I’m wrong; I’ll be praying hard that I’m wrong. But right now, I just don’t see it.