Michael Jackson--a hallowed vessel: The Enthrallment Phenomenon

Michael Jackson has provided the masses with an opportunity to embrace entrallment. Who knows who Michael Jackson really was? Even his closest friends found him enigmatic. What we have in the memorials and kudos since his passing is the "use" of Jackson as a national, even international, moment for emotional catharsis. The human, Michael Jackson, is irrelevant. And considering his personal pains and failings, we conveniently and graciously seem to be granting him his due as a talented entertainer, as a way of putting aside his idiosyncrasies in order to embrace entrallment. We--the media, his fans, his famous friends and fellow performers at least--are erasing, even denying, his weirdness. And those with any decency allow this moment of eulogy at the person's demise. We are casting his symbolism and filling it with accounts of his genius, sensitivity, and talent. There is authenticity to these testimonies as far as they go. But in the process, his faults become only frailties. The waves of adulation become the phenomenon. Michael Jackson turns into what we need him to be. He had enough obvious star quality to fill the bill. But what we witness is the turning of a human into a man (or child) for the ages. We are doing it for the cathartic effect. We are, for the moment, entralled. The actual Michael Jackson becomes the illusion. And that is fine, as long as we admit what we are doing. Doug Good

"I Am Not A World Citizen!" N. Gingrich: The Arrogance Principle

Republicans are casting about, looking for a spokesperson who can unite and enliven their party. As the key speaker at a party rally this week, Newt Gingrich rose to the challenge and offered a new phrase in hopes of catching the spirit of America in troubled times. He asserted firmly, “I am not a world citizen!” Some may think such a retort is the shining hallmark of true American pride. But transparently it was a partisan response to President Obama’s efforts to set a new direction for our international relationships. President Obama’s travels to Arab countries have stirred up the indignation of the conservative right by announcing a new direction for our relations abroad. People like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, who are super sensitive about image and respect, think the new President is groveling. They announce that this approach invites the terrorists to trick us into crippling concessions. They feel the President‘s pandering makes our great nation appear naïve. Shame on this Muslim lover who spites our glorious history of might and power and goes around apologizing for our former alleged mistakes. As Rodney Dangerfield, the comedian who “never got no respect,” might say it, “I’m an American, and don’t you forget it!” Gingrich said it more soberly with his “not a world citizen” remark, but I think our founding ancestors would have hoped for better than haughty self-pride from their descendants to whom they passed the torch of democracy. Defiant narcissism is not what our early leaders were about. Yes, they stood up to an overbearing Parliament and fought against the king’s troops, but their pride welled from the buzz that comes from the power felt in cooperative action and the thrill of new responsibilities as they signed on to an innovative democratic experiment. One smug commentator I read insisted that America has won the right to be arrogant. With our causes always honorable, we have earned the right to swagger. After all, he might have said, we did not “win the West” by apologizing to the Indians. A leader, he intoned, does not apologize without losing the advantage necessary for success. The way to put terrorist wanna-be’s in their place is to show them who is in charge. I have a different take on this. Arrogance is not a positive quality, and certainly not enviable. By promoting arrogance, Republicans, of course, are rejecting diplomacy. In contrast, our founding father, George Washington, handled our first international crisis by arranging, in 1796, a treaty with Muslim terrorists (pirates off the Barbary Coast). John Adams then followed suit, settling the XYZ affair by sending a peace commission to France, thereby quieting his nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, who was clamoring for war. Those who choose diplomacy ahead of war recognize that arrogance has no place at the diplomatic table. An arrogant diplomat is an oxymoron. But putting aside arguments over strategy, arrogance is not something to be proud of anyway. A person displaying arrogance should be brought down before he drags the rest of us into the lonely drink with him. If Americans are arrogant, of course we should apologize. Three reasons: 1. First, arrogance is self-defeating; it isolates the bearer, shutting off avenues of cooperation that could make the difference between success or failure of one’s endeavors. 2. Second, arrogance fuels antagonism unnecessarily; it creates enemies and encourages ill will, which puts everyone in a fighting mode, which is a juvenile response to problems. 3. Third, arrogance is not a Christian attitude. Jesus would have none of it. And as the apostle Paul said, if eating meat offends his brother, he will refrain from eating meat. Obama will be judged by how well he maneuvers us in the stormy waters of international conflicts, not on how intimidating he is as a wild western cowboy. Actually, apologies clear the table for the exercise of more mature strategies. Apologies that work can be a sign of strength. They put the enemy off-guard, and confuse him. The better image from our frontier days is “circled wagons,” which on the international stage means “surrounding” or “encasing” the enemy. By temperament, terrorists have no answer for this attractive, friends-winning attitude.

The King Is Not Dead! Long Live the King!

Despite our most basic notions, history does not develop linearly. Rather, it is just there (past, present and future--or simultaneously). No, it is not static--it is creatively vibrating --but it doesn’t press into an unknown future leaving a trail of exhaust behind. History masquerades as linear simply because that is just how each of us experiences it. When George Washington died, the history in which he was involved continued on unabated. The fact that Washington died only meant he was no longer participating. George Washington’s acts aren’t finished, only he is. There is no separation, division or barrier between what he did and what we are doing. And if there is no wall between the past and the present, neither is there any actual distinction between now and the future. Now is only what we make it to be. I separate (my) now from other time-moments because now is the limit of my focused consciousness. From this perspective--that history is not just a completed record of the past but an unfolding course in which I find myself participating--I have found a heightened interest and connection with the past. I feel a new fraternity with those dead people I used to just read about. History can be likened to an ocean. As a wave moves toward shore, every molecule (historical event) in the wave is part of the same wave that every other molecule occupies (in that wave). I am a part of the past because the past is not passed. When the wave waves, the molecule doesn’t move forward (in time or space) it just fluctuates up then down as the trough rises to a crest and back. The molecule moves no closer to the shore but is in the same water as the molecules that are crashing onto the beach. I mistakenly think my memories are in the past and my idea of writing a best-selling book is only hope or fantasy that keeps me entertained. Actually my high school graduation is as much a part of my present as is the writing of this note. And the thought that I may have a best-seller in me is not lunacy. It is all a matter of focus. I have to focus to function. My memory of my wedding day has lost some clarity in my mind, and I’m unable to imagine my writing fame. But when I die, I’ll be freed from my restricted vision. If I die suddenly tomorrow before I get my book written, then the book wasn’t in my future. But as long as I am still living, it may be that I have the future publication already present in my 3-phased time. If I am going to write a book, the book is already written because my future is not separate from my now. My birth and death mark only the brackets of my material life. Where I find myself within these borders by the briefest of moments called “now” does not alter my relationship to either the past or the future. My life encompasses all three phases at once. My past and my future are not distant from me because the light of my awareness of now is but a pinpoint of a moment. And it is the same with my relationship to other people, both dead and not yet born. We are all in each other’s past and future. Thomas Jefferson is my contemporary in this broad sense of time. I just can’t rub elbows with him because when the Declaration of Independence needed penned he was on hand biologically, and I wasn’t. But when I read about his assignment by the Continental Congress to do this authoring, I sense that I am there looking over his shoulder. I feel like I know Tom. And the writing of the Declaration, like all events, is still happening. The way we raised our kids, the way I relate to my wife, the way she will handle my funeral arrangements, the way I teach my classes, the way I will vote in the next election are all my portion of the playing out of the Declaration. Jefferson did his part; I was involved then too. So was (not yet born) Abraham Lincoln, who ended slavery, the demise of which Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration. If it is true, as I am informed, that some of the exact same atomic particles in the wood of Noah’s ark, for instance, likely are in my very living body in its current seven-year interchanging cellular cycle, then why wouldn’t all events (past, present and future) be present together. You might respond that this is merely an imaginative (theoretical) way of scrunching everything together and is not the way we actually live things out. But who is to say that the imaginative is not reality. I think imagination comes to us as hints of the hard-to-see actuality. The genius and the visionary get it righter and the rest of us catch on later, and the miraculous becomes astoundingly, happily the way it is. Then science comes in to verify it all. The miraculous is only surprising while we wait for the physicists to get the explanation down for us. I notice the physicists and theologians today are starting to sound like mimics. They just aren’t reading each other’s books. The Christian Gospels tell the life story of a man whose birth can be characterized as an event in the 3-phases of time, pulled together in the consciousness of a Bethleham embryo named Jesus. He lived a biological life just as we each do, but tried to persuade his closest friends to see time as a tense-conflated run of experiences highlighted by now-awareness moments.. He talked about himself as prophesy-in-motion, and the future as the present (the Kingdom is come). Similarly, but without the charisma and inspiration, today’s physicists tell us the same thing--that the laws of physics work the same whether going forward or backward. In a scientific (as opposed to experiential) sense, time is reversible. If Jesus and Nobel prize winning scientists are right, the history books should be written differently. New paths into the knowledge of life stories can be an exciting tour. Rooting around in otherwise dull facts can be turned into a realization that the present leads to the past, and the other way around too. Knowing the past can be facilitated by knowing the present and looking for the present in the past. Hey--it’s all one thing. The past is alive, and it is now. And the future has a hand in how today plays out. This is not scary; it is comforting. At the time of my own father’s death, I realized that I do not follow in my father’s footsteps--I am my father stepping. Doug Good

The Christ Child: Re-view of a central doctrine

WAS JESUS BORN OF A VIRGIN? The longstanding answer is yes. Pregnant Mary was a virgin in the human sense. A virgin birth is not only one of the listed fundamental doctrines, but the key upon which sound Christian faith can stand or fall. Had Christ been born of Joseph’s seed, it is explained, the infant would not only be merely human as the rest of us are, but would thus be tainted with sin. But if Mary’s moment of conception was “immaculate,” Christ at birth would be the Son of God; his physical body could house God incarnate in this material realm on earth. If Jesus had been born from human semen, God could not inhabit his body literally, and Jesus would not have the power to resist the sin that brings damnation to contaminated humans. But God, incarnate in Jesus, conceived immaculately, could save us from the sin that humans cannot escape in our sinful nature. As a man living among us, Jesus had all the physical temptations and feelings that plague the rest of us, but immaculately conceived, he lived with divine power undiminished. This doctrinal explanation embraces certain assumptions and corollaries to which some might take exception. I will attempt to answer these issues and suggest how the doctrine can still stand scrutiny. Assumption 1. Because Jesus (in his humanity) felt temptation as we do, he could empathize (in his divinity) with our dilemma. Unaddressed Issue: Empathy is not the same as actual experience. Assumption 2. Jesus understood his “difference.” He felt comfortable and natural with it. Unaddressed Issue: He obviously felt sure of his status with God, but is not on record claiming his own virgin conception. Assumption 3. Jesus displayed no ungodly air of superiority; he was unusually humble. Unaddressed Issue: If this carpenter were actually “superior,” his humility would be no achievement. Assumption 4. His believing followers knew he was fundamentally different; but they did not question the paradox of divinity and humanity combined. Not being theologians, they came to accept it. Unaddressed Issue: How did they live that close to a man who had frustrating habits, probably had body odor, and needed sleep like the rest of us--typical human short comings-- yet they thought he was perfectly holy? Assumption 5. Mary kept the “method” of conception a secret, with Joseph‘s complicity. Unaddressed Issue: There are no contemporary reports of a virgin birth. The idea was introduced later in the memoirs, named the Gospels. It is understandable that Mary would not speak to others about such unbelievable information, but she seems not to have accepted, or at least not understood, the implications of it for explaining Jesus’ “difference.” Assumption 6. The Council of Nicea later determined that Jesus was one substance, 100% human and 100% divine. Unaddressed Issue: Unless we, too, are equally human/divine, such a unique combination makes Jesus abnormal, which is to say he wasn’t a limited human as we are. This throws a wrench in the doctrinal mechanism of substitutionary atonement, i.e., Christ vicariously carrying for us other guilty humans the judgment for our sin. To be sound doctrine the Virgin Birth needs to clear up these assumptional issues. But do not despair. With some re-viewing, the notion can be seen as a remarkable display of God’s power and glory, securing all that Christians hold dearly. Why wear poorly fitting clothes when a guaranteed, tailored suit is on the rack? Here is how Jesus’ divinity can be straightforwardly understood. The following view addresses the questions raised about “virgin birth” assumptions by showing how the doctrine can simply carry the highly profound meaning of Christ’s divinity. Instead of trying to explain how Jesus was so different from us yet was just like us humans, consider how similar we are to Jesus who was just like us in his divinity. In other words, Jesus so thoroughly identified with us because he learned, as God’s creature, that he did not have to deny his humanity to be aware of his divinity. He repeatedly explained that all of us are children of God, capable of the same divine awareness to which he was alert. Humanity and divinity are unitary not dualistic qualities. It is quantum physics, not Newtonian materialism. It boils down to this. If Jesus was in any way different from each of us, his “atonement” for our sins would be ineffectual; it would be paternalism--good enough for slaves and pets. But if Jesus was just like us, then we have the same divine spark he had. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth as traditionally propounded risks leaving us with only the promise of adoption, when we actually are family. The usual explanation of virgin birth leaves us with Dualism--the idea that we are alienated from God, and by grace receive no more than undeserved entrance to heaven, where we will be eternally joyous but always stepchildren. I suggest that a re-viewing of the phrase, “virgin birth” makes Jesus’ message and teaching consistent, plain, and exciting. There is still room for virginal conception if we rid ourselves of images of a sex act and think of conception as the moment when the physical kindling is brought to heat (life) by the inbreathing of God’s spirit--when the divine/human union is manifested in the physical universe as a “new born” baby. The “second birth” Jesus told Nicodemus about was an awakening to what it means to be an “image” of God. Jesus was “born of a virgin” in the sense that conception begins with God’s Spirit bringing to “life” the divine/human connection in a particular human body. It does not matter where the semen originates. The miracle is the life-giving. Creator and creatures are and ever have been enjoined. The “life” given to Jesus (of Nazareth) was and is the same as the life given to each of us. God is especially illuminated in Jesus, but we are all “begotten” of God. What about the Gospel’s announcement that Jesus was God’s “only beloved” son? This statement does not set him apart as an only child. It means he was unique in the degree to which he understood and appropriated the benefits and powers of the divine/human conjoining. God chose “only” Jesus for a key role in his revelational manifestation, but each of us is a chosen manifestation of God also. We are all virginally born. Jesus saw his mission as encouraging us to join with him in heaven as “joint heirs.” I see no hint in the New Testament of Jesus acting as if he were special, displaying an attitude of paternalism toward us.. Jesus did not have to be born without a human biological father to be part of the God concept, to be divine. The traditional method of explaining a virgin birth presumes that somehow Jesus was affixed to God in a way we cannot be, despite his explicit prayer (John 17) that his disciples be one with God as he was. If we take Jesus at his word (he said his disciples would do greater miracles than he) we are no more irreparably separated from God’s nature than Jesus was. To think so is to touch hands with Docetism, the heresy that diminishes Jesus’ humanity. Such anemic thinking cheats us from access to our true selves as the image of God. If we cannot ingest this more glorious heritage for ourselves, we will ever be dependent on Jesus’ difference from us, and will always be guests in heaven rather than family. Our salvation will be good luck rather than the fruit of true grace. Actually, “virgin birth” as commonly articulated, and “grace,” are competing concepts. God did not “send” Jesus to earth. God was already here, in all of us. The spiritual umbilical cord was never cut; Adam and Eve only stopped breast feeding. Our understanding (as the human race) has been clouded by materialistic fixation.. Jesus, our fellow human, simply participated more easily in God’s effervescent grace; he understood more clearly our (his and our) divine relationship. Grace is not given in response to our renouncing sin. Grace is something to experience as we turn our attention toward God, leaving sin to fade away. We don’t earn forgiveness, nor even need we beg for it. We open ourselves to God within us. Jesus does not stand outside our door knocking to come in. He is inside us already, as God, knocking to wake us up to who we are. Please understand I am not saying we each are God in God’s fullness, just that I am simply a connected “image” of divinity. The less I am captured by materialism, the more heavenly I become. Jesus shook off the shackles and invited us to do the same. God created neither robots, nor retards, which is all dualistic theology claims for us. I realize this sounds heretical; it is not the perspective in which I was raised in conservative circles. But conservatives insist that dualistic theology is what Jesus taught; that it is what the New Testament is about; and one must believe the Bible. Well, I take the Gospels seriously. I see dualism hanging around like a heavy fog, but I also see Jesus shining a different light, constantly preaching and guiding his followers into a “new” perspective. Dualism is an understandable notion for humans immersed in a material world; and it is a convenient tool for religious leaders to use to manipulate followers. But Jesus spurned any advantage he might have claimed as one specially positioned (by virgin birth) for mediation. I and God are not antagonists. God does not need to be persuaded to befriend me. Jesus’ role as mediator is as a bridge, not as a defense attorney. He told his friends to follow him not as imitators but as claimants. Sanctification is an experience, not a gift. Holiness is not a second birth reward; it is the cleaning up of the original, material afterbirth effects. God did not create unsanctified images of divinity. That would make us oxymorons. Jesus preached it differently. And I believe the Bible. I am a true child of God. It has taken me awhile, with the help of Jesus’ preaching, to realize this. But I am wary of the temptation is to become cocky. A professor at Cascade College once told me that he had not sinned in decades because he was sanctified. I did not believe his sanctimoniousness, for he sinned against me once in class, if unfairness is a sin. Holiness is a goal. When we “arrive,” we more than likely will be physically dead; that is, of no earthly good, at least in the minds of the unarrived. For most of us, physical death arrives before we figure things out. Jesus was not so slow to understand..

When Killing is Not a Sin: Babies and Iraqi civilians

I recently engaged in a little back-and-forth emailing regarding last week's Presidential election. My correspondent had indicated to me that the election gave us a choice of voting for either a Christian (McCain being implied) or a non-Christian (Obama of course). I responded that judging a candidate's prospects for reaching heaven is presumptuous, but in my mind Obama's policies had a more Christian foundation than McCain's, and that Obama conducted himself with more Christian grace than McCain; though I expected that neither candidate posed a threat to our nation's Christian or democratic principles. The reply came back that I had to be wrong because Obama was a long time friend of the profane Rev. Wright, and as a pro-choice candidate supported the killing of babies. Indeed, Obama voted in the Illinois state legislature against a ban on partial birth abortion. This appears to indicate conclusively that a vote for Obama would be a vote against God. However, look a bit closer. I'll brush away some cobwebs. First, the infamous quote of Wright saying "God damn America" was not what I would call normal swearing. He was expressing his opinion that God should do what God does at times--damn people. After all, it is not far-fetched to say that God did damn America once for our beastly condoning of slavery by allowing us to suffer a civil war. (Lincoln used the more euphemistic term, "judgment.") If you look at the context of Rev. Wright's sermon, he, himself, was not "damning" anyone, which is how the word is used in regular cursing; he was inviting God to do it. I can understand how black people might feel as Wright does, given the shameful history of racism in our country. Note further that the offensive phrase is not Obama's. Obama did not say it, and I doubt he would say it. He is not a fiery person with a loose tongue. On the other hand, John McCain has been known to curse in a public setting with swear words commonly used by sailors. It is not the vocabulary that is telling, it is the attitude--which leads to my second point. Second, with the profanity issue moot, Obama does not think about America and whites as Wright does. Note his disavowal of Wright's racial retort, and read Obama's historic speech "A More Perfect Union," which is around the corner and way down the block from any "damning" sentiment. Why did Obama attend Wright's church? I have attended churches for the fellowship and the programs where I found the pastor lacking and "human" in certain respects. I'm 65 years old and am still looking for the "perfect church." (I would refer you to my blog on black churches, if you didn't read it when I posted it a few months ago.) Regarding abortion and baby killing. First, abortion is not an "up and down" issue. I too think that abortion kills unborn babies. But there are other matters mixed in that can not be ignored. Pro-lifers do not agree on the issues of incest and rape. And if the mother's health is at stake, it is reasonable to think that her life is as important as the unborn baby's. Then there is the question of when the fetus is more than a biological presence but becomes inhabited by a soul. Neither theologians nor doctors find consensus on this. And would you consider the mother a murderer if she had two young children threatened by death where she could only save one, and by choosing one the other dies? As a society we also must decide who controls the decision; is it the federal government, the state government, the doctor, the mother, the biological father? How much interference in this private decision is appropriate, and how much advice and council, and what kind, is needed? The Supreme Court became the pivot point with the Roe v. Wade decision. But many are unaware how that ruling forbade abortion under certain conditions. Are those conditions fixed in medical cement? The Court has since refined its judgment on several points. And medical developments have changed the arguments. By the way, the reason Obama voted against the partial birth abortion ban was because it did not include a provision protecting the health of the mother. In his mind it was a flawed bill. If it had included the provision which he, as a supporter of women's rights, considered equally important, he would have voted for the ban. He was looking for a better bill. Because the bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional, it's promoters engaged in cynicism by blocking Obama‘s preferred amendment. It is notable to see a politician voting on principle when he knows his vote will be misinterpreted and can potentially damage his career. (Reference JFK's Profiles in Courage) What is happening is that as a society, we are seeking a consensus that answers all the questions, reservations, moral concerns, and practical problems. Even pro-choice people do not want to kill babies. To throw the blunt weapon of castigation at a complex problem without considering the complexity of the issue is like dropping a bomb on a crowded hospital where a terrorist has taken refuge. Legislators seldom have clear "up and down" decisions to make. Some call effective governing an exercise in "compromise"; others call it finding "consensus." That is what democracy is all about--not judging others for failing to see things as clearly as you do. I suggest that when God created humans, the Creator profoundly implemented the democracy principle. God did not decree that all moral matters were covered on the actual stones Moses carried down the mountain. The Israelites recognized that Moses could not scamper back up the mountain for more tablets every time a new issue arose in everyday life. So they took over and amplified the rules until the compendium tottered on its base. Jesus corrected this scaffolding by saying if we love God, our hearts will guide us. This sounds to me like democracy, not theocracy. Democracy is cooperative searching for a common heart understanding of complex issues. (Reference James Madison’s Federalist essay #10) The only way to solve the abortion problem is to recognize the complexities and legitimate concerns of both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Both can agree that killing babies is a very bad idea. Before "judging" a legislator for not approving a bill that gives ground to the pro-life element, we need to know his heart. Sometimes a legislator has to hold his nose in order to implement a move toward reform. Maybe God engaged in nose-holding in giving humans free choice. If we as a people can come to a consensus on this compacted problem by joining hearts, I am convinced that God will smile knowingly. Regarding killing as sin. In the recent Presidential election we only had two viable candidates from which to choose. If one feels our choice was between Obama who would kill babies, and McCain who wouldn't, we need to recognize that the abortion question sits in the same basket with other killings, and we need to do some sorting and moral comparisons. I had much more trouble with McCain's moral sensibilities than Obama's, if you want to talk about killing. I felt the election presented a choice between McCain who would kill innocent Iraqi civilians and Obama who wants to stop it. On abortion, the matter is one on one; it is a largely private choice. Many people choose it, but each choice affects a small circle of directly involved people. On the question of war, the decision of one person (and those who find him persuasive) affects scores of thousands with an indefinite end to the count. One individual making the choice to abort a fetus irresponsibly or immorally may face divine judgment. I feel that abortion is a very wrong choice in most cases. But as I said above, it is not an "up and down" matter, and society needs to find a way to uphold morality without diminishing it in the process. Moral issues often are too personal and too contingent to "legislate." Should we make suicide illegal, obesity punishable, or narcicissm a crime? Maybe school truancy can be corrected by jail time. Selfishness is a blight on our land; shouldn’t we stamp it out? We need clarity on each issue, a consensus, before we "bring people to judgment" for their offensive personal failings. While we as a society have not reached a consensus that resolves abortion and its related issues, on the question of war there is international and philosophical consensus. The homework has been done. No agency has authority to enforce moral opinion on the subject, but scholars and theologians have provided a detailed agreement about what a "just war" is. An unjust war is thereby declared "wrong." In religious terms "wrong" means sinful. While God is "just," injustice is immoral. It is a contradiction in terms to say it is "right" to fight an "unjust" war. Such a statement is definitional nonsense. Therefore, anyone who (willingly) supports an unjust war is under judgment. If the Iraq war is an unjust war, to support the killing of innocent Iraqis in the process has no justification. Sin cannot so easily be pushed aside as necessary "collateral damage." Below I will add a footnote giving a list of standard criteria for classifying a war as just. Check it out later. I don't know how anyone can judge the Iraq war as just after looking at these criteria. Then assuming that the case is convincing, I must painfully say that John McCain believes in killing innocent Iraqis in an unjust war, in multiple thousands. Morally sensitive people, including Protestants and Catholics have found philosophical and theological consensus on this troubling issue. When I apply the test to Iraq, our invasion and continued fighting in that country fails on almost every item on the list. How to fight a just war is not at issue here. Christians should oppose any unjust war, and those who support one should face moral condemnation by definition. I see no difference in supporting the killing involved in an unjust war, and the killing of unborn babies. Not only is the Iraq war "unjust," it has been totally unnecessary. Obama is right about turning attention away from Iraq and refocusing on the real enemy-- Osama bin Laden. Going after the al Qaeda leader could meet the "just" standards. In any case, Obama is the President (elect) of all of us now, and we can judge him on what he does, not on what people "think" of what he might be like. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I expect he will model Christian principles as notably as any President we have had, including Lincoln and Carter. If you doubt that he acts like a "Christian gentleman," just run a replay of the Presidential debates and watch how he responded when McCain attacked him with untrue charges and personal slurs, and note that Obama, while criticizing McCain's "positions," did not attack him on personal issues, even though McCain had enticing vulnerabilities The election is over now and we no longer have to decide which man is a Christian and which isn't. McCain will finish out his outstanding political career in the Senate, where, if we believe his concession speech, he will support the new President. For now I will pretend that his moral judgment about unjust killings is a case of arrested moral development. Maybe the new administration will mentor him onto higher ground. The electorate (by majority vote) seems to be "hoping" so. Footnote on Just Wars: Principles of the Just War (Note: these principles apply to a decision to go to war as much as to how to prosecute it.) - A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. - A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. - A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see next point). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right’ intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. - A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. - The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. - The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. - The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The Dark Side of Heroism: Is John McCain "the Man"?

In my second to most recent blog I held forth the idea of two parallel but distinct elements to consider in deciding how to vote--"issues" and "impressions about the person." What follows are reasons for why I will not vote for John McCain based on my impressions of him, not on the issues. I have noticed four specific personal traits that trouble me: 1) goose-step patronizing, 2) deficient thinking processes, 3) maverick leadership, and, 4) playing dumb. Trait number one: Goose-step patronizing (emphasis on the goose-stepping) Barack Obama does not fail to make sharp attacks on McCain's positions on issues and his voting record, but he also makes a point of recognizing McCain’s personal integrity and his heroic military service. McCain on the other hand tops off his criticisms of Obama's stands with repeated personal attacks, questioning his integrity and his patriotism, even his intelligence. And he gave Sarah Palin the sic ‘em signal. As we have seen with the Bush/Rumsfeld "torture" issue, the man at the top sets the spawning environment or culture for his followers. Recently the crowds McCain and Palin were drawing turned to ugly taunts. McCain's followers were aping their leader, though in a more uncouth and scary way. McCain quickly tried to tone them down, apparently sensing that a "negative approach" that shows its underwear can backfire. We'll see if he can shut off the tap that he opened. I think what turned the taunters loose was McCain’s patronizing demeanor toward Obama. Recognizing the potential damage of disdain-turned-spiteful, McCain made the remarkable statement that Obama is a decent man, and he would not be scared of him as President. But over the past weeks McCain has orally and visibly cultivated the message that he does not respect the man, his recent corrective notwithstanding. The conventional wisdom of campaigns holds that negative attacks close to election night are a very effective approach for the one trailing. I think the reason the conventional wisdom is not working this time is that McCain’s “attitude” toward Obama has sounded a call to the fringe element in the party to come out of the woodwork and reveal their vengeful spirit. People are recognizing that this is the dark side of the “feistiness” in McCain and Palin, and are uncomfortable with it. I think McCain’s plea to his rowdy followers to cool it will prove abortive, because on Monday he was right back at it. His speech was a fight song. A journalist counted 18 times that McCain used the word “fight,” or “fighter.” Now that Iraq has dropped to second place behind the economy as top concern to the American people, he takes the theme that defines his personhood and transfers it to the new crisis. The way out of the economic crisis, he says, is to "fight"; and, as we are to know from his “record,” he knows how to fight and will lead us in the fight, while Obama is a dangerous neophyte. McCain is a one dimensional man who interprets those who extend outside his dimension (Obama) as "just not getting it." Obama's sunny disposition seems to torment those in the shadows.. (You may see the obvious contrast in Obama's memoirs.) Then take notice of the "McCain approved" robo-phone calls his campaign is sending out that equates Obama with terrorists (the same technique that Bush used to find Saddam Hussein responsible for the 9/11 attack.) Republican party leaders are not very good at connecting dots. McCain claims Obama has not "come clean" on his relationship to Bill Ayers. Obama has come clean, more than once. There is nothing there. If there were more to it, McCain would come up with it, for sure. That he hasn't is the clue. He ignores Obama's response and repeats the charge as if Obama's explanation automatically is of no consequence. John McCain is known for his distemper, and we saw in the first debate that he is not good at disguising his feelings when upset. I was jarred by the effrontery McCain showed toward Obama in the first presidential debate. His demeanor and his words combined for particular ill effect when he, as son and grandson of two Admirals, himself an Annapolis graduate and prisoner-of-war in Hanoi, with lifted chin, lectured Obama about military terminology. Obama, the naive young man, he said, does not understand the difference between strategy and tactics--which leads to my second point. Trait number two : Deficient thinking processes. When McCain jumps on a bull that begins to buck, he refuses to let go. Is this that “fighting spirit” that separates heroes from quitters, or is it the "state of denial" mechanism that clicks in when thinking processes are weak? The first answer is attractive because McCain's combativeness can be admirable in a way; but I am settling into the second version. Either way--impulse or mental dyslexia--affects the quality of ones judgments. Both stubbornness and/or confusion lead to bad decisions. I’m not being flippant; I’m serious. I’ll give two prominent examples. McCain said the surge strategy is winning the war in Iraq (the bucking bull), and in his own administration he will continue this Bush strategy to win in Afghanistan and beat terrorism. He said Obama’s opposition to the surge indicates that Obama considers the surge to have been only an incident, a tactic in the bigger war. Actually, McCain is the one who has it backward. Tactics are adjustments in the field as the battles progress. Strategy, on the other hand, oversees the complexity of factors and sets out the principles guiding toward victory in the long run. McCain thinks Bush‘s war plan only needed adjusting in the field. He seems determined to carry this error in thinking into his own administration, as the basis of his war policy as President. General George Washington, in another war, knew better. A number of times Washington implemented the tactic of retreat in order to succeed at the greater strategy of keeping his undermanned army from being captured. Running does not mean the end of fighting, nor does standing ground at the end of the day mean the war is won. McCain will gain no succor for his Iraq position from Washington’s wisdom and “experience.” And I tremble at the thought of our next commander-in-chief not knowing the difference between strategy and tactics. One may not expect G.W. Bush to have learned this lesson in the national guard, but McCain should not be given a pass on it. I find it hard to believe that a graduate of Annapolis and a student of war operations after returning from Vietnam would want to “muddle on” (a phrase McCain used earlier to characterize Bush) in Iraq in confusion about so critical a military principle. Even our generals, at least those who kept quiet about their misgivings until they retired or were relieved of command, don’t gloss over the problems with the Bush strategy. I’ve noticed that both General Petreus and Secretary Gates are careful to stay out of politics and steer clear of Bushspeak. Fight is McCain‘s game, geopolitics is not. I would want McCain beside me in battle and I would want him as my cell mate in a war prison, but he is like a fighter who has been too long in the ring . I admire a fighter, but there is more at stake than heroic determination can handle. That is why boxers need handlers. McCain is a boxer. Trait number three: Maverick leadership Another example of his quality of thinking is his fixation about being a “maverick.” This is a major tactical mistake if you think about it. Do we really want a maverick as President? By definition a maverick is “an unbranded calf . . . separated from its mother.”-- “a lone dissenter. . . who stands apart from his or her associates.” A maverick does not turn to the other cows to bring them along. A maverick doesn’t attend to the common needs; that is what makes him stand out. A maverick has all the appearances of liking it that way. And in the true spirit of a maverick, McCain revels in this. Now I think mavericks serve a good purpose, as a check on the herd mentality. A maverick may prove to be an important, beneficial pivot point. But when the maverick adopts this quality as a hallmark of leadership he becomes a sticking point. I admire McCain’s stands against some of his fellow politicians’ follies, but in the bigger game of team leadership, he needs to drop the term, with its clearly negative connotations. But again his muddleheadedness about ideas leads him into not only confused articulation but also bad judgment. Namely, I can’t believe the disjunction he adopts by pointing to how his maverick reputation is evidence of how he will “reach across the aisle” as President and bring the country together. This is an oxymoron. Secondly, he is so proud of the idea of maverick that he chose a poster child maverick for his running mate, not realizing the danger to both his party and his campaign. As Palin has shown, a maverick untethered becomes a loose cannon. For one example, did you hear her answer when asked about what she planned to do in the Vice Presidency? Someone needs to loan her a copy of the Constitution. She is scarier than Cheney. As we have seen, other mavericks are coming out of the woodwork at McCain and Palin appearances, and as I mentioned, McCain yesterday had to backflip to reject their stylistic suggestions. So much for that “strategy.” Trait number four: Playing dumb My fourth sample of muddled thinking goes more directly to the question of intention. This gets dicey, because I hesitate to call anyone a liar. Language is slippery, and it is easy to judge without considering circumstantial pressures. I have thought Bush walks blithely in the arena of dishonesty simply because he convinces himself that his untruths actually are true. I think McCain speaks dishonestly at times for a different reason. I avoid calling him a liar by assuming he just doesn’t understand what he has said and thinks he has a point when it just doesn’t add up. (At times I have a lot of trouble holding onto my generous concession.) To be specific, McCain repeatedly says Obama will raise taxes. Boom. This is a half-truth. But half-truths, when wrapped in whole-truth packaging, are whole-truth claims--half-truths rounded up to untruths when trotted out. That is like saying Doug drives an old 1986 pickup truck, so watch out for him--as if that is all I drive. Wham. And, as Palin would say, he pals around with that redneck pickup driver that lives near him. Double whammy. To wit, Obama has said his tax plan will raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. So we all had better watch out because “Obama will raise taxes.” Parading as 100% true this statement is a ¼ truth, or less. What portion of the population make that much or more? I'm told it is 5%. Is McCain confused or is he deceptive? My theory that he is confused requires a constantly running sump pump because this is not an isolated sample of McCainspeak. One litmus test for determining where McCain is prone to deception is to look directly at what he chooses to repeat as mantra in his campaign speeches. Where he is most assertive seems to be where he is most incorrect and muddled. The newest melody is "Joe the Plumber." It turns out that Joe is not a "licensed" plumber and has not personally filed for work permits in the county where he works; and if he intends to make $250,000 a year as a business owner now, he will be able to afford a tax increase. I'd welcome the chance to be able to afford a tax increase along with Joe, but this comports with Obama's plan. If McCain thought he was showing how concerned he is about the common, blue collar American by championing Joe who will make that kind of money, he needs to take off his dark glasses. Even if Joe were licensed, it is Obama's plan, not McCain's that would have helped him back when he was a lowly working stiff like you and I. McCain needs to fire his staff members who (don't) vet his choices for poster children. But apparently it would not matter, because McCain seems to gravitate toward things that make little sense because they "don't make sense"--that is what maverick, muddled thinking does to a person who looks down his nose at the 95% who have not "made it" following the rules. McCain shows the same kind of odd glee in playing up Joe the Plumber that he oozed in elevating Sarah the Governor. It is as if he thought he had come up with the ultimate irrefutable answer for all the unpatriotic nuancers who don't put "country first," those who pal around with socialists. Sarah is not ready, and Joe is not "just" a plumber (as McCain classifies Joe’s salary). If they were, McCain, the maverick, would not have chosen to highlight them. When he thinks he makes the most sense, his mental dyslexia shines brightest. He has to play dumb when he should know better, in order to convince those who don't know better to think he is clever. I don’t think he is sinister (a tag he tries to pin on Obama), I just think he has "personal" processing weaknesses. Colin Powell struck the right tone last weekend in his endorsement of Obama. McCain's campaign, he said, has been all about personal attack when we should be focusing on the critical issues we face as a nation. This military man well above McCain in rank, and statesman with more significant executive experience, judges that as for leadership, Obama has displayed more steadiness and sound judgment. With my above catalog of McCain's defective thought processes, I’m not saying he is unintelligent. I just think the way he puts things together leads him into statements and decisions that are unsound.

The Anatomy of Un-Charisma

The following highlights weaknesses in John McCain's personality: 1) his habit of insinuation, 2) his incivility, 3) his fighting instinct. Closing with an overall assessment of the man. Issue Number One: The habit of insinuation Insinuations are like dandelion seeds launched into the wind. McCain’s campaign train is freighted with implications that Barack Obama is an unpatriotic black man who, if not out to destroy us, is at least over his head. And should you run out of insinuations, you can elevate to innuendo. Recently McCain launched into a litany of questions about "what we don't know" about the inexperienced upstart. But if the potent combination of insinuation and patronizing don't carry the day, there are always half-truths in reserve. Half-truths rounded up to the nearest truth become lies when asserted firmly. At this level Cindy McCain stepped forth to turn up the heat. Last week she accused Obama of opposing the funding of the troops. And, with a catch in her voice, she referred to her son who, with Obama's vote, would be abandoned under fire to die a fiery death in Iraq. Actually Obama did vote for the funding. Then Bush vetoed the bill. Who is abandoning whom? (Bush has been widely castigated for trying to fight the war "on the cheap," and if McCain wants an example of someone who doesn't "put his country first," many would say Bush is a case in point.) Key to understanding this funding drama is distinguishing strategy from tactics. Funding is tactical support; withdrawal is a strategic decision. Bush demanded that Congress yield strategy to him. On the funding, Congress (and Obama) said fine, but proclaimed its superior authority on strategy formulation. Bush’s veto, based on holding onto strategy determination, was an attempt at blackmail. This was not just a “political” fight; it was high drama over fundamental constitutional matters. The facts tell the story. The bill would have funded the troops along with a stipulation for a withdrawal schedule. By vetoing the bill, Bush (and McCain Republicans) struck a blow at the Constitution which puts ultimate strategy in the hands of Congress. The President's constitutionally assigned duty is to "administer" policy, and in military matters he is given "chief" command in order to carry out the administering. His role in wartime strategy rests on the strength of his persuasion--he has to “ask“ Congress for a declaration of war or support for emergency measures. Congress, as the people's voice (most recently measured by the vote in 2006), holds the trump card. In vetoing the funding bill, Bush played his ace. Congress then softened its wording (caved in) about withdrawal and kept its trump card in pocket. The issues of constitutional authority and strategy versus tactics take a little sophisticated awareness, but do not tax ones brain. The events were played out before us in plain sight, and the Constitution is an easy read. Echoing John, Cindy’s remark that Obama does not support the troops is not even a half-truth. I can’t expect an heiress to understand the Constitution or military terminology (strategy/tactics), but she should pay more attention to the sequence of events played out before us in the news every night. (But she sleeps with the man who is confused and probably listens in on the 3:00.am. phone conversations.) In both the first and second funding bill, Obama's position supported the troops because both bills provided the necessary funding. To continue to say Obama does not support the troops is to throw two birds at one stone (I intentionally inverted the metaphor)--thwarting the Commander-in-Chief, and lacking patriotism--both of them missing the mark. I won’t judge whether Cindy intentionally muddied the water, but she knows how to insinuate masterfully too, echoing John's assertion that Obama wants to "wave the flag of surrender" to those who want to kill us. She employed the ultimate put-down (accusing Obama of wanting to betray his country) by emotionally politicizing her son’s Iraq assignment. She certainly did her son no favor by putting him in this position (a soldier who is the son of a prominent leader). John should know something about this from his experience in Hanoi. Not to be outdone by Cindy's imputational skills, John insists that Obama has not "come clean" on the Bill Ayers relationship, even though Obama has laid out the thin particulars openly. Here is another sample of the malice of insinuation. Suggesting there is life in a dead story amounts to obfuscation; and obfuscation works well as the shabby coat for slander. Insinuation is the tailor for a handsome cloak of deception. Issue Number Two: Incivility If Cindy McCain is a good mirror reflecting her husband's message and persona, Michelle Obama is equally representative of her spouse. On “Larry King Live” last week, Larry asked Michelle about Hillary Clinton (the Democrat's version of the "witch from the North"). Michelle was nothing but a model of regard and respect for her husband's former insulting nemesis. And when Larry asked her about John's alleged "put down" in last week's debate where he attacked Obama on an issue. Without looking at his opponent McCain pointed and said, "that one." Some took this as a racial code word for "slave boy," but Michelle dismissively said she did not take it that way at all. She brushed aside McCain's alleged personal antipathy, and said that kind of thing does not upset her nor her husband. Barack, she said, is not an angry black man. He does not take such slurs as either racial or as personal. Even if Michelle was just trying to come across as congenial, it sends a message of maturity. McCain either isn't able to don a cover of congeniality or intentionally declines to, which also sends a clear message. Issue Number Three: The “Fighter” I think McCain's problem is that he is locked into an outdated Cold War global vision, one where the contest is between "us" and "them"--them being a powerful nation state (Russia) in contest with us on the same international plane. To win, we fight it out on the battlefield where soldiers prove their mettle and become heroes by sacrificing their lives for their country. Times have changed, but one thing is constant. The President needs to be more than a military man. McCain has his feet planted firmly with eyes focused on the enemy before him. Obama has a wider stance and better field intelligence. Obama is a phenomenon and a marking point in American history. To him, a black man, race is no longer an issue. He is an American running for President, as is his opponent. In my judgment he is the more mature personality of the two and as a leader he has a more wiry grip along with his wider stance. I secure my point with an historical parallel—the Cuban Missile Crisis. All "issues" aside, consider the leadership style and effectiveness of John Kennedy during this Crisis. I am glad that John Kennedy, whose leadership brand Obama emulates, was in charge rather than Teddy Roosevelt, McCain's acknowledged hero. Roosevelt (as Bush and McCain interpret him) would have been a disaster in facing down Kruschev. Interestingly, I penned the above paragraph a couple days ago. As I type now I am listening to McCain using the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of his own "tested" leadership. Again, I am staggered at his profound reasoning. Responding to Joe Biden's remark that the new President will likely be "tested" early in the new administration, McCain said he has already been tested. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he was sitting in his fighter jet "ready" to fly. What? Readiness to fly on command is tested leadership? What kind of parallel is this? Overall Assessment of McCain's Persona What I see in watching the debates and reading Obama's book is a man who is well informed even where one might disagree with his conclusions, a man who is congenial and engaging, in contrast to his opponent who displays his personal dislike, and articulates his disrespect on stage and to the cameras. Noteworthy is the testimony of Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell in last week's Newsweek magazine. Caldwell is the pastor of the black megachurch in Houston who was the "introducer" of George W. Bush to the Republican Convention of 2000, and who gave the invocation at both Bush Inaugurations, but who now is an active and energetic promoter of Obama for President. I would not be surprised if Caldwell agrees with me that McCain’s personality is a leadership handicap and a potential problem for the nation. McCain deserves the highest praise for enduring the torture, the accusations and ridicule imposed on him in the Hanoi prison, and he merits great honor for supporting his cellmates and sacrificing 5-1/2 years of his life for his country. But he is still fighting those old demons. He felt the pain from the military's failure to "win" in Vietnam, and he understandably does not want any soldiers in Iraq to be impaled as he was in a losing fight. His perception of today's new kind of war, though, is limited by his personal, searing experiences and colored by the military traditionalism of his father and grandfather, whose careers worked out better for them than for him. McCain's "experience" is hemmed in by psychological and personal issues. He wins my empathy but not my confidence’ Obama is not without experience. What he is without is McCain's military orientation. In his memoirs Obama, displays a balanced wisdom and a geopolitical grasp of international affairs, including the threat of terrorism in broader terms, and, yes, a winning strategy, recognizing that "armies" are necessary, but serve specialized purposes. No one who is naive could have written these pages. I have not heard McCain describe foreign policy with anything near Obama's impressive grasp of history, his cutting-edge sense of direction of the future, and an optimism about what is realistically possible to accomplish. One last comment. On watching the three debates, I have no doubt that McCain has an IQ fully sufficient for the job of President. But Obama, I suggest, has a much higher EQ. If you are familiar with Daniel Goleman's books on emotional intelligence, you know what I am saying. I know of another study that looked at CEO'S of big companies. It concluded that most successful CEO's are high in EQ rather than IQ. People with a high IQ tend to be misfits.