Adding Insult to Injury

I had never even heard of the Susan G. Komen foundation, much less ever donated money to it.  Yes, I had heard of “Race for the Cure” and I am certainly sympathetic to any organization that wants to fund breast cancer research, but I never knew the specific name of the foundation associated with such an otherwise worthwhile effort. 

Though I have given to plenty of worthy causes in my life, this just happens to not be one of them.  I just never thought to do so.  My bad.  But whatever the merits of breast cancer research, the Susan G. Komen Foundation (SGKF) will certainly not ever be getting a dime from me now--not after the events of the last few days.

SGKF recently came to the realization that Planned Parenthood did not meet their criteria for receiving  funds or grants,, so they announced that they would not be funding P.P. … for now.  You would think I would say “Hooray!” because they had struck a blow against the disgustingly profitable abortion industry.

On the contrary, my first question is “Why was SGKF funding P.P.  in the first place?”  Is P.P. involved in breast cancer research? (No).  Do they even provide mammograms? (No again.)   Is P.P. involved in anything whatsoever that would advance the cause of finding a cure for breast cancer?  (Thrice no.)  On the contrary, the medical research and evidence is quite clear that there is a higher incidence of breast cancer (in addition to other physical and emotional maladies) in women who have had an abortion. 

So what was SGKF thinking in the first place?!?!?!  I wonder how many people who had enthusiastically participated in Race for the Cure or otherwise given to the cause knew that they were funding the abortion industry? 

It’s bad enough that P.P. makes money hand-over-fist by providing abortions, and supplements their coffers by sucking at the teat of the government and of ostensibly charitable organizations; they also scream bloody murder if anyone dares to threaten the flow of largesse from any source.  This past Friday, SGKF knuckled under to the bullying tactics of P.P. and their allies on the left and reversed their decision. But given SGKF’s unconscionable support of P.P. in the first place, this reversal was just an anti-climactic addition of insult to injury.

The Iron Lady

I wasn't really sure I wanted to see Meryl Streep’s rendition of Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady.  The little I had read about the movie in pre-release reviews made me suspicious that it was going to be another left-wing hatchet job.  It was understandably causing a furor in the UK because of the film’s setting and approach, portraying the prime minister’s otherwise remarkable and admirable career as a series of flashbacks in the mind of an ailing, demented Margaret Thatcher.  Throughout the movie she is shown having hallucinatory conversations with her long deceased husband Dennis, hardly a respectful and dignified portrait of one of the great world leaders of the twentieth century.

Despite the screenplay’s uncomplimentary setting, it portrayed Margaret Thatcher’s life and career in very positive terms: Her humble beginnings as a grocer’s daughter, being taught at a young age to not follow the crowd, to stand up for your convictions in the face of criticism, to stick to your ideas not because they are popular but because they are right, and to persevere in the face of adversity, fierce and unfair criticism and even violent opposition.

That is the type of spine that was needed in the second half of twentieth century Britain, a nation in moral and economic decline, in the stranglehold of debilitating social welfare policies and corrupt trade unions, self serving politicians resorting to class warfare and demagoguery, claiming to stand up for the poor and the little guy, but really accomplishing nothing other than increasing the intrusive scope of government and dependency.  Sound familiar?

The unfolding scenes of the movie caused me to remember and relive the transformative decade of the 1980’s, when great leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan faced fierce opposition and blistering criticism for the stands they took for conservative principles of individual freedom and responsibility.  She did what was required to turn around a nation in decay, stating “Yes, the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it.” Throughout the movie I found myself muttering, “Oh, how we desperately need leaders like that today!”

I am not sure about the screen-writer's intentions in portraying Margaret Roberts Thatcher as frail and ailing, slipping into dementia.  It certainly seems disrespectful, particularly given that she is still alive.  Whatever the writer’s intentions, I personally choose to view this portrayal as appealing, perhaps not in political terms, but definitely in theological terms. God created us to love and serve Him, giving each of us a calling and mission. In the movie, a young Margaret Roberts says, “One’s life must matter”.  Toward the end, an elderly Margaret Thatcher states, “All I wanted was to make a difference.”  Indeed, she did, and the world should be grateful.  But in the end, no matter what we accomplish, this life is fleeting.  We are frail and finite; we decline and, at the time of God’s choosing, we die.  Whether we achieve great things like Margaret Thatcher, or lead humble and obscure lives whose impact is limited to family, friends and acquaintances, our calling is to be faithful to Him.

A Christmas Story

Christmas past…..

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. [Luke 2:8]

It had been about four hours since the sun had set.  The three shepherds were trying to stay warm, and Simeon was lost in his thoughts….

What a miserable existence, spending days and nights in the fields, away from home, watching someone else’s sheep.   Shepherding was once considered honorable.  After all, King David was a shepherd, as were the patriarchs. But this day and age, shepherds are considered lowlifes, not a vocation to aspire to. Not many fathers would relish giving their daughter away in marriage to someone who spent more time with sheep than with a wife and children.

At least Simeon was lucky in that regard.  He and Hannah had been together for more than a decade.  They had two sons and a daughter, not including the one they lost.  Simeon suppressed a pang of grief that surfaced again, diverting his thoughts instead to being home soon, where he would be able to spend a few days with Hannah and the children before starting the cycle all over again, moving sheep from pasture to pasture.

In the meantime, he was cold and tired, trying to make it through the night, small talking and bantering with his companions Jacob and Zechariah. Though the three of them were barely literate, they all had a basic knowledge of the Scriptures that were read in the synagogue every Sabbath.  The rabbis taught them that God had called their fathers to be His chosen people to be a blessing to all nations.  They knew about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, how their descendants were delivered from slavery in Egypt and brought into a promised land.  They knew the story of David, the Shepherd King who firmly established and extended the Kingdom of Israel, safe from all its enemies, a land flowing with milk and honey, and everyone under their own vine and fig tree.  And God promised David that his dynasty would last forever.

It sure didn’t seem that way.  At this point, Simeon had neither vine nor fig tree.  The land flowing with milk and honey was being run by surrogates of Rome, the latest in a long succession of empires that had overrun the land of Judah.  Simeon wondered to himself--though he wouldn’t dare question out loud--if God’s promises were true.  It didn’t seem right that the Promised Land should be under the yoke of unclean Gentiles.  It also troubled him that some of the religious leaders had a much too cozy relationship with their Roman rulers. Then there were the Israelite tax collectors who were selling out their brothers by working for Rome.

Simeon wasn’t too angry at them.  After all, they too needed to make a living.  And he was painfully aware that he had his own faults, more than he cared to remember.  His conscience bothered him.  He had been taught that God was holy and just, but the rabbis assured him that God would forgive sins by accepting an offering.  He wasn’t quite sure how or why sacrificing an innocent lamb would take away his sin.  Did it really? 

Simeon continued to ponder.  Though he looked forward to going home in just a few days, truth be told, he felt weighed down, empty and afraid.  He worried about whether he could provide for his family.  As he thought about the Roman occupation, he also worried about the future, particularly for his children.  

Simeon’s thoughts were interrupted by what he could only describe as brightness.  He wasn’t sure what it was, but he and his companions suddenly had another and more immediate reason to be afraid: 

An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. [Luke 2:10]

Christmas present…..

It’s a winter evening in front of my computer.  The house is quiet, and I can relax after a long and somewhat tedious day’s work as a government employee.

I've been doing it for some twenty-seven years now.  There have actually been times when I enjoyed my job, particularly back in the days when I was a garden variety translator.  Whether the material I was translating was interesting or mundane, routine or ground breaking, I always left work with a sense of accomplishment.  Even after I moved into management there were still times I felt like I was making a difference.  I was once a bit of a mover and shaker, but those days are gone now.  Truth be told, I am bored to tears; my brains are turning to jelly, and I am counting the days until I am eligible to retire in less than three years. 

It used to be that “public service” was considered honorable.  Now it is viewed as a cushy, overpaid job for people who can’t accomplish much.  Though my conscience is clear that I work diligently and competently for my pay, the existing negative perception of government service is all too often justified. I have seen plenty of bloated, top-heavy organizational structures, what I like to describe as “The Department of Redundancy Department.”  It galls me that while people in the real world have to make sacrifices and tighten their belts, life in the government proceeds as normal.

I guess I should be grateful.   At least I have a job--well paying at that—while about ten percent of us do not.  And even the tedium and setbacks of my current employment have an awakening side benefit.  Unlike in my heady days of when I thought I was a mover and shaker, I am reminded anew that I cannot and should not find my identity in my employment.   There are much more important things in life than the work I do to support my family… such as my family itself!  I am truly grateful.  I have been married to Susan for more than 32 years, and life with her keeps getting sweeter.  We’ve been blessed with three kids and now we have two wonderful grandkids.

Then again, the joys of family remind me of heartaches as well.  I miss my mom and dad, as well as many others from their generation (and some in this generation) who are no longer with us.  Yes, I am confident that they are with the Lord and I will see them in eternity, but I still long to hear their voice and hug them again. 

I also worry about the future for my children and grandkids, particularly for my two special needs children.  How will they fare when I am gone? What kind of world will it be? Things do seem to be going to hell in a hand basket.  The economy is in the tank, mob behavior is encouraged and celebrated, and ideas that were once universally disparaged as immoral or absurd are now a matter of serious debate.  Sure, there is always the hope that things will turn around and sanity will be restored.  There were hopeful signs at the ballot box in 2010.  Maybe the turnaround will be even more decisive in 2012. But even if we do reverse course politically, I know I can’t put my hope in man or political parties.  In the meantime we are speeding pedal-to-metal toward the cliff, and I sometimes wonder if our nation will even survive.  The ash heap of history is full of once great civilizations that thought they were immortal but eventually committed collective suicide.  Is it now our turn?  God help us, I hope not.  

I am tempted to get angry at those who have brought us to the brink; liberal demagogues who spout off class-warfare rhetoric as a means of increasing the size and scope of government (and their own personal power); statist busy-bodies who want to run other people’s lives; lazy, under-educated and self-indulgent generations who feel a sense of entitlement.  I could go on and on, but then I remember, there but for the grace of God go I. Good grief, I feel guilty enough knowing that I probably could not earn my present salary in the private sector.  I would like to think that I work hard and conscientiously, but am I too part of the problem? 

Yes, there is that faithful companion called guilt.  It used to paralyze me, even though the Gospel informs me that my sins are forgiven.  I would often find myself quoting the prayer from Psalm 25: 7:

Do not remember the sins of my youth and my rebellious ways; according to your love remember me, for you, LORD, are good.

Christmas always…..

Yes, it does seem I have a lot in common with Simeon, my historical fiction friend from Christmas past.  But whether the issue is boredom and disillusionment with a vocation, heartache and mourning over lost loved ones, anger over waste, fraud and abuse, fear for the future of my family and nation, or even  a gnawing sense of guilt; God has an answer for both Simeon’s fears and mine:

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” [Luke 2:11-12]

Jesus, son of Mary and Son of God has met our greatest need.  The messianic descendant of King David was born in relative poverty and in an uncertain time. He was subject to the same types of joys and sorrows that Simeon, you and I face every day.  He was “in every respect tempted as we are, yet without sin.” [Hebrews 4:15]  He came not as Judge but as Savior. He subjected Himself to the worst this world has to offer, dying on a cross as the innocent Lamb to take away our sins, and rising again.  By trusting in Him, there is assurance that our sins are forgiven, and that He will never leave nor forsake us.  And His Kingdom will have no end.  This is good news indeed!

I wish you and yours all the joys and blessings of Christmas, both now and throughout the year. 

Arius, Athanasius and Jehovah's Witnesses

A couple years ago I wrote about an encounter I had with a Jehovah’s Witness. I wondered then (and still wonder now) how best to carry on a conversation with them. They have some sincerely held beliefs that motivate their proselytizing activity. And they generally are not argumentative or confrontational (at least not with me). I often ask them if they believe the Gospel, that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead, and their answer is usually an unequivocal “yes”.

For those of you who are not clear on the difference between the Jehovah’s Witness’ beliefs and classical Christianity, it has to do with their understanding of who Jesus is. They believe him to be a created being, even the first created being, but nonetheless separate and apart from God Himself, as opposed to the classic Trinitarian belief that God is One Being but somehow Three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Of course, it is hard to fathom and get your arms around the classic Christian belief. Three Persons but One God? I don’t get it! I think it was Augustine who said about the Trinity: “Try to explain it and you will lose your mind. Try and deny it and you will lose your soul.” Indeed the early church wrestled with and finally settled the matter at the Council of Nicaea in 335, prior to Augustine’s birth.

The matter in question was the teaching of Arius of Alexandria, who taught that Jesus was a being separate and apart from God. He was opposed by Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, who contended that Jesus was one in essence with God the Father. The Council declared Arius’ teaching to be heresy and affirmed Athanasius. As the Nicene Creed summarizes:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

Now you might ask, what is the difference, anyway? Isn’t it just like theologians to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I remember years ago discussing this with my dad who, though a believer, had little patience for theologians. Though he affirmed classical Christianity and disagreed with Arian theology, he viewed Arius as some kind of free thinker who ran afoul of a powerful, politically connected ecclesiastical council. Actually, the opposite was true.. It was Arius who was the more politically powerful. Even though the council affirmed Athanasius’ teaching, it was Arius who was the more popular, and Athanasius ended up being banished. According to John Piper,

Athanasius was driven out of his church and office five times by the powers of the Roman Empire. Seventeen of his forty-five years as bishop were spent in exile.  [Contending for Our All (2006, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books), p. 39.]

But I digress. What difference does it really make whether Jesus was a created being or whether Jesus and God are one? Isn’t the fundamental issue that He lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead? Paul himself said:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” (I Corinthians 15:3)”

I could cite several Scriptures that make it clear that Jesus and God are one, and indeed I have gotten into such discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and these discussions have generally proven fruitless. But lately I have been thinking of a different approach, and to give credit where credit is due, I must thank the non-Christians, even atheists, who have often come forward with the following argument:

“So you believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son… to die a horrific death on a cross--although he was innocent--so you could be forgiven of your sins? You call that good news? That is terrible! If anything, I would call that cosmic child abuse!”

You know, if Arius and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, if Jesus was in fact a separate being, if God sent such a “son” to suffer and die, I suppose the atheists have a point. That would be cosmic child abuse indeed! However, it was Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea who got it right. God did not send someone else. Rather, He came Himself to bear the penalty for our sins, doing so in the Person of Jesus, the God-Man, and rose again to give us forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  As the Nicene creed affirms:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Ephesus Comes to Wall Street

The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. (Acts 19:32)

The story is told in the book of Acts of a riot that erupted when the Apostle Paul began preaching the Gospel in the city of Ephesus. Indeed, wherever Paul went he stirred up controversy, and Ephesus was no exception. His Gospel message was apparently persuading many people, even in the midst of fierce opposition, partly because God was confirming his message with miraculous signs, but also because of Paul’s ability to persuade with calm logic and reason:

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God…. [He also] had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. (Acts 19:8-10)

Mass conversions to Christianity were obviously viewed as a threat to the status quo, particularly in a land dominated by idol worship. This was especially problematic in the city of Ephesus, which was the guardian of the great temple of Artemis. The temple supported a great deal of local commerce; for example, there were many silversmiths whose trade was to make and sell figurines for the Artemis devotees who came from near and far. A silversmith named Demetrius, recognizing the threat to his livelihood, gathered together his colleagues, stirred them into a frenzy and started a riot. A mob began to gather in a local theatre, shouting in unison at the top of their lungs: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Initially, Paul was foolhardy enough to want to venture into the theatre and reason with the mob, but his friends persuaded him to think better of it. Eventually, the city clerk went in and quieted the crowd, reasoning with them that if they had a complaint against Paul and his companions, the courts were open and they should press charges. But rioting would not be tolerated.

Why this brief foray into biblical history? I was reminded of it in the last week or two as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement started getting attention. I know I will be denounced by handwringers accusing me of mixing religion and politics, but the parallels are striking:

• Like the shouting rioters in Ephesus, much of the OWS crowd does not seem to know why it is there. Theirs is a potpourri of disjointed gripes and agendas: Some want their student loans forgiven. Others want free health care. They are all against “the wealthy” (whoever they are) and believe that corporations should be less “greedy” and fork over their money. (Forgetting that corporations are owned by shareholders, who happen to represent the vast majority of the American people, whose individual savings and retirement accounts include stock in corporations.)
• The OWS movement is an unruly mob that has been stirred up by people and interests who, like the Ephesian silversmiths, see a threat to their comfortable status quo. Today’s status quo is represented by a bloated bureaucracy, runaway deficit spending, crony capitalism, unholy alliances between politicians and public sector unions, and class warfare. Because this unhappy set of circumstances suits some people just fine, they view conservatives and the “tea party” as a threat. If it takes a mob to stop them, so be it.
• By contrast, the much derided tea-partiers have not been known for rioting. Their gatherings have been orderly and peaceful. Like Paul in the lecture hall of Tyrannus, they gather together, have their say, leave the site cleaner than they found it, and then quietly get back to their jobs and businesses. Most importantly, they have effected change through the ballot box, not by trampling on people’s private property in a menacing manner.
• If the rioters had a legitimate grievance against “the wealthy” or “big banks” or “evil corporations” or “the 1%”, they would go to a court of law and prevail. But having no legitimate grievance that would pass muster according to law, the rioters simply clamor loudly that other people should simply  fork over their stuff. Because they cannot possibly prevail by means of law in a civil society, only a riot will do.

The most disturbing parallel between the rioters in Ephesus and the OWS crowd is actually a conspicuous non-parallel. Unlike the situation in Ephesus, there is no city clerk at Wall Street or at any of the other OWS gatherings urging calm and reasoned discourse via the institutions of a civil society. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg has so far lacked the courage to clear the OWS mob from the privately owned property it is occupying. Worse still, the President of the United States and the Democratic Party are egging the mob on and identifying with its cause. This is unconscionable and dangerous.