A hundred years of New England freedom

This past week our family took a vacation through the New England states; I especially enjoyed the forests and tranquility of Vermont as well as a boat trip on Portland's harbor.  With vacations it's always nice to get away and see things you don't get to see everyday, but after a week it was also nice to get home and sleep in my own bed last night and poop in my own toilet.  

When we approached Boston, consciously or not a lot of our trip involved looking at stuff related to the Revolutionary War.  We stopped first in Concord and Lexington, just west of Boston, where it could be said that the civil war started in April 1775.  There we saw the places where 'the shot heard round the world' kicked off a series of events by which a bunch of diverse colonies united to claim independence and ultimately win it as well.  We also saw some of the historic sights in Boston, as well as a few touristy ones like the Tea Party museum.  It's a reminder that people suffered and sacrificed for the idea of a new nation, for liberty, for the ability to begin something very new.  No matter how imperfect it was (I was expecting monitors from the Trump administration to be sniffing around to see how America-glorifying it was, which it wasn't always), these are things that should give Americans of all stripes a sense of pride.  

A few days later we left Boston and drove to Newport, Rhode Island.  Rhode Island is where Roger Williams fled in the 1630s when the freedom-seeking pilgrims of Massachusetts denied that freedom to others  Rhode Island was found as a colony seeking a greater sense of religious liberty.  Two and a half centuries later, however, Newport became known as the place where religiosity was easily swept aside in the name of rich people wanting a summer showplace built a series of mansions overlooking the ocean.  It was the time of the 'gilded age' of the 1880s, a time where people (many of whom genuinely had worked hard; some had inherited wealth going back generations) had the wealth to lavishly show off their position in society.  Many of the old mansions still today, though a lot of them are museums; a few now belong to a college I had never heard of before, Salve Regina University.

It struck me as we strolled along the cliff walk that bordered these homes and the ocean how this week had explained a lot of America.  Our country was founded on a sense of freedom, however imperfect (ask the slaves, women, and indentured whites), but a century later was more about wealth and status in a way that might have embarrassed our English forbearers.  It may well be that this is the eternal struggle of the United States, that the energy and passion that inspires true greatness inevitably leads to a form of greatness that is gilded and self-absorbed.  Could it be that our human nature and our tendency to desire a legacy in the form of monuments leads us into a place where importance is only something that is bought?   

The un-American

One of the reason I write this blog is to purge thoughts out of my head so that they don't keep rattling around.  I have other more important things to do, and to be able to express ideas of varying quality in this way helps to put them somewhere else.  It's like my own personal pensive, so that later I can go back and examine my thoughts and determine whether they were good or not. 

So in writing about Mr. Trump's racist thoughts yesterday, I was hoping to clear my head of such thoughts to get on to better Kingdom of God things.  Yet I still continue to think about what he said, and I find that I am not happy with what I wrote.  Because ultimately, what this debate has been about has been all the wrong things: should we slap a label of 'racist' on his thoughts?  That's easy, actually.  When discourse is watered down, the simplest thing to do is create a perjorative label (racist, liberal, retarded, etc.) and then judge everything by what you believe that label to mean. 

But to actually speak in depth about a topic is much more difficult, yet helpful.  Are Trump's words racist?  Sure, and I still struggle how his supporters keep on defending the indefensible.  But there's more than just that.  His tweets, as I see them, were based not so much on blatant racism as they were his thin-skinned insecurity for which he is so famous.  What he's saying is that people are not 'real Americans' if they are criticizing him.  To be patriotic in Trump's America is to line up behind him, accept whatever he says, and continue to call him great (despite all evidence to the contrary). 

While racism may have a part in what he says, this kind of mindset is far more about shutting down freedom of speech and thought.  Trump has always admired dictators and strongmen who are able to suppress dissent; and now he is expressing this openly about how he wishes people (especially women of color) would just stay silent and do whatever he wants. 

Not to create another label, but this is simply 'unAmerican'.  Part of the beauty of this country is being able to express your disagreement with what is being done.  To say that people, any people, don't have the right to speak up is simply wrong.  This is what leads to police states, dictators, and repression.  I may think that the four Democratic congresswomen are wrong about many of their policies or ideas...but in this country they have the right to speak as they choose about Trump, America, or even me. 

This is America, Mr. Trump.  Don't like freedom of speech?  Then go back to Russia where your true home (or luxury hotel) really is. 

Freedom, accountability, responsibility

"Without accountability and responsibility, freedom will quickly become a curse."  -Me. 

I believe that freedom is the great moral challenge of our day.  Why?  Because freedom is one of the rare things that gets 99.9% approval rating.  People on the left love it:  "Yea!  Free love and drugs!"  People on the right love it too.  "Yea!  Gun rights and property!"  Everybody loves freedom, at least freedom as they see it; I have yet to meet somebody in my years that would speak of freedom as a bad thing, even if they think that others go overboard on their own interpretations of it. 

But the older I get I'm starting to think that I'm in that 0.1%.  I look around me and see that freedom must have some sense of control, which means that it automatically no longer is an absolute.  One needs the accountability that comes with living in community, because individual freedom without concern for how it interacts with others will quickly lead to conflict.  My pursuit of freedom might well mean that I care nothing for the rights and freedoms of others, and thus I need to be accountable to those who live around me. 

Of course, this sense of communal responsibility has given way to the rights of the absolute individual.  When you read the second amendment about gun rights, few see that the idea of forming a militia (something that involves people) comes up...it's simply that I want a bigger and meaner gun because that's what I want!  When you hear talk about the 'right to privacy' which has become embedded in the national consciousness, be it internet security or abortion, it's about freedom from others telling me what to do or even being able to watch what I do. 

So what's left when communal accountability is gone?  Only the individual.  And what happens when the individual has no sense of responsibility not only to his community but even himself?  This is why so many people live such poor excuses for lives today.  It's why people are so sloppy, because they don't demand more from themselves.  It's why they there's so much finger pointing, because we see the specks in the eyes of others without seeing the planks in our own.  People are no longer taught to take care of themselves; the left wants government to step in, while the right no longer has any sense of moral foundation; its sense of what is right for the individual (usually the white, rich, male individual) overwhelms everything else. 

I believe that this is the reason that our western culture is on the brink of moral and spiritual collapse.  Having forgotten about the sovereign God, having forgotten about our accountability towards others, and having forgotten even the sense of responsibility towards ourselves to be moral creatures, we have almost nothing on which to stand.  I fear greatly for us. 

The American President

Yesterday we arrived home after a much-needed week-long vacation out into the mountains.  It was nice to get away, and nice to be 'off the grid' for a few days as I could not get cell phone service many places we went.  Not being able to Twitter or Facebook was healthy for me.

Of course, coming back in yesterday there was once again an instance where my first reaction was "Trump said WHAT?"  Once again, our adolescent president took to his Twitter handle to say something stupid and vulgar about people whom he feels hurt him.  Regardless of when you are reading this, you don't have to check the date, as likely he will say something just as offensive a month or a year from now, just as he said something stupid a month or a year ago.  It never ends with this man. Even his supporters may shake their heads and say that he shouldn't say that, but they continue to support this man and so enable his idiocy.

However, after a week of seeing America, even as I enjoyed our trip and am blessed to live in a country with beauty everywhere, I am more and more convinced that he is truly an American President.  That is, he actually represents a good percentage of my fellow citizens.  A few hours west of here driving through a small town I saw a huge sign that had in crude printing, "Hillary Urine A**hole".  I have no idea what that means, exactly, but I am sure that it is not word of praise.

A few days later, I was driving a state highway doing 75 in a 65.  A huge pickup was behind me and obviously wanted me to drive faster.  When he finally got past me, he gave me the middle finger...not just for a moment, but for a good 15-20 seconds...he wanted me to know for certain how much he hated that I was only going 10 miles above the speed limit.

And then the other day we were visiting an amusement and water park in a large American city.  Such places, as I get older, are more and more uncomfortable for me because of the teeming masses of people (I'm a bit of a claustrophobic), but it's not just that there are people there, but that these people who represent so much of America are really quite disgusting.  Young couples who have no shame of PDA while waiting in lines, guys who have T-shirts with middle fingers on them to show how rebellious they are, and all kinds of people with terrible tattoos that they have to expose.  Near the end of the day I was waiting in the overcrowded waterpark for my kids and a youngish woman with blue hair was screaming on her cell phone, "Mom, it's all just f***ing s**t!"  I started to listen in as she screamed for a good ten minutes about how this had been a terrible day because all her friends started going their own directions.  No great tragedy, I think, but for her it led to a profanity-laced tirade towards her mother.

Yes, this is the America that voted for Donald Trump.  Vulgar, rude, and often disgusting.  If we get the president that truly represents America, I don't think we could have made a better choice.

The Anthem

I will always stand for the national anthem.  It's one way I feel I can honor my nation and be thankful for where I live.  For me, it's just something that I do.

Yet others may feel differently.  Currently we are in a season in which certain athletes are sitting, kneeling, or raising a fist during the playing of the national anthem before their game.  Some do it for reasons we may not know about, while others may be explicit in their reasoning. Most who have spoken up have mentioned the 'there is a lot of injustice in America' argument.  In doing so they have been applauded by some, but simply been told to shut up and stand by most.

While some of the backing seems trite and simply designed to placate liberal feelings, it's this second attitude that bothers me the most.  In telling Colin Kaepernick or Megan Rapinoe that they should not speak, they are committing one of the most unAmerican of sins...telling somebody that they should have no voice.  While I and others might wonder whether their action really would make a difference, those who have acted believe that this is the right place to do it, and to simply shout them down or ignore their complaints only adds fuel to their complaints.  What are we as a people if we assume that the status quo is the only thing worth standing for?

America is built upon the freedom to protest, even protest against the flag or the national anthem.  We are a nation built upon change, upon looking at ourselves honestly and recognizing where we have failed and working towards making it better.  In protesting some feel that America is not living up to what it ought to be.  And in shouting them down, protesters are being proven correct in their frustrations.

It is ironic that a nation that seems to going down the road towards voting for a presidential candidate that 'says what needs to be said' (gag) at the same time won't allow other forms of uncomfortable truths to be spoken.  You can say that they may not be saying it at the right time or in the right way, but we have no right to say that such things cannot or should not be said.

Manufactured Outrage

Working alone in a one-man office, I sometimes whether or not the world is imploding outside, and I'm just watching it through my pane-glad windows.  Yes, usually I meet and visit with people several times a day, but there are whole blocks of two or three hours in which I am alone with my thoughts, with prayer, with Scripture.  I surf around the internet when I take breaks or listen to some music, but I will go hours at a time having no contact with any other humans.

Recently Colin Kapernick, a not-very-good quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, decided to stage a protest, refusing to stand during the national anthem.  Why he did so may or may not be irrelevant...something about the injustice of our world, which seems ironic in that his protest comes from a man in the top .00001% of wage earners in our country for playing a game.

Naturally, of course, the internet has blown up.  Most of the people I have seen commenting on this are outraged...how can you not stand?  How unpatriotic!  How unAmerican!  Of course, I have wondered why we are so intent on playing this song before sporting events even as we do not do so before movies or other forms of live entertainment.  In truth I feel that playing it as often as we do cheapens its meaning...indeed, I often have been at games in which people stand up reluctantly, hardly paying attention to it, wondering how to hold their drink in one hand and put their hand over their heart with their other for a minute and fifteen seconds even as they keep an eye on four restless kids.  We do our patriotic salute and we move on.  We hear it so often that it loses its meaning.

Yet I never cease to be amazed at how easy it is to manufacture outrage over something like this.  The same people who get so worked up over how this world is becoming so politically correct ("Why are people so mad that I said ______?  They [usually a minority or liberal group] need to get over it!") are now acting as if Kapernick has spit on the flag and set it ablaze as he screams Muslim praises.

I could spout the usual liberal response, that freedom means that we listen to what somebody is saying even as we don't like it...but in the end I'm just so tired of it all.  Maybe I need to close my blinds a little bit more, stop surfing the internet on my breaks, and just shut out the world.  I can't handle any more outrage today, thank you.

Free As Credit Cards

The big news story in this week's news cycle is that NBA franchise owner Donald Sterling said some really stupid, racist things.  Once again, in this world of no privacy, people in position get caught out saying stupid things, and now likely he will have to sell his franchise to somebody more 'enlightened'.  I suppose that this is a modern form of social darwinism at work...keep doing something stupid and eventually you will get caught, shamed, shunned, and vilified.  A bit of me smiles that it's another rich and clueless guy who is getting brought down in the court of public opinion.  Some people don't need their own Jerry Springer to have their stupidity exposed.

When things like this happen (and, I suppose, they happen to the point now of something we might expect on a regular basis, and how can you really be outraged when you know it is coming from somewhere, somehow, even if you don't know from, um, somewho), inevitably the lament of 'free speech is dead' comes from at least some corner, though I haven't really seen it yet in this case since what he said is morally indefensible.  But what do they think 'free speech' is.  To quote the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for aredress of grievances. In fact, there really is no free speech...it's just that the congress can't outlaw unpopular speech.

But the rest of us?  Yeah, we get to slam on people who say terrible things.  Here's the analogy I thought of today.  Speech is like using a credit card: you can buy what you want now and it doesn't cost you a thing today, but tomorrow, if you aren't careful in how you can use it, you'll really end up in the hole.

Freedom in speech does not mean that there are no consequences, especially when it comes in a society in which we are increasingly interconnected.  Somebody can say what they want when nobody is around, and rarely will it ever catch up with them.  But in a civil society of 300 million people, in which you never really have it where nobody is around, that no longer happens.  Too many phones and recorders are out there, taping everything that we do.  Even a blog like this, something mostly anonymous (by design) where I get to ramble on about what interests me (and likely nobody else) at the moment, could eventually be traced back to me.  I've said too many stupid things in my own life to ever be considered for public office, not to mention the stupid things I would say on a campaign trail (I have to think that I'd regularly be lampooned on the Daily Show).  That's life, though.  I'm willing to live with consequences for what I do and say...but I'd be better off just staying as anonymous as I can if I can't stay silent.

Persecution, freedom, and the dangerous loss of communication skills

The first non-self-referential definition of persecution on dictionary.com is this:  "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs"

So...is Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty's supposed homophobic gay-basher) being persecuted?  Earlier this morning I wrote a quick post about whether or not he is persecuted, and I waffled. "On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail.  He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse.  But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement.  To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution."

Whether or not we can say he is persecuted depends on how you define the term.  Some think persecution has to be this big, systematic death-machine in which people are killed or tortured or wiped out. The other extreme is that it is a lot milder, in that you might suffer even the slightest of consequences for an opinion or an action.  In reality, there's a lot of both these definitions that apply here.  Phil Robertson is dealing with consequences for his words, but is it more than that?  It's not just that A&E network is suspending him; there really does seem to be almost a systematic witch hunt going on to root out anybody who thinks homosexuality is a sin and then chastise (bully?) them until they skulk away.  The vitriol by some on this issue is so uniform so as to seem to be part of a plan.

The reality is that everybody suffers consequences for what they do and think.  Just the other day a Methodist minister was defrocked for performing the wedding of his gay son.  Was that fair?  Many of the same people who are outraged might well be Christians who think it right that a pastor be fired for his beliefs and his actions.  By this definition that some have set for what is happening to Phil Robertson, is this pastor being persecuted for his belief by Christians?

Or think about what would happen if some Fox Advocacy Channel talking head suddenly changed his or her views.  Imagine if Megyn Kelly suddenly changed her worldview and started espousing the same worldviews as Rachel Maddow, or Bill O'Reilly started sounding a lot more like Chris Matthews?  How much longer would they be employed by FAC?  Could we call this persecution, if somebody loses their job for a accepting and espousing a political ideology different from the tribe?

Again, the reality is this:  we only want to hear what we want to hear, and increasingly we find many in this country on both the left and the right who refuse to listen to anything different than what their worldview tells them must be true.  We have become so isolated in our thinking that anything else we might hear seems to us to be so scary as to be intolerable and worthy not just of mocking but legal action, deprivation of livelihood, state sanction, or even violence.  Isolated and narrow thinking means that when the Phil Robertsons or the Michael Moores of the world pop up and say something we don't like our only reaction cannot be reason or spirited debate but the demonization of such a person by any means possible.

I suppose we should be grateful that here in the United States people are usually only fired or suspended for their words.  Some places in this world people still get imprisoned, beaten, and killed for their beliefs.  Now that's persecution, and we might well be heading in that direction unless people are able to state their beliefs openly, no matter how unpopular they may be, and then be peacefully willing to listen to others who disagree.

Working Outline Of The Phil Robertson Rant In My Head That I Don't Care To Finish

1. I care nothing about Duck Dynasty.  I've never watched it.  As always, I'm always very concerned when Christians find other Christians to idolize, and the attention that has been paid to this family in recent months has been insufferable.  We raise them up only to watch them fall.
2. It's A&E's network.  They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby.  They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it.  They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show.  They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family.  But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision.  It doesn't appear that they are going to do so.  I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'?  'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing.  There's none of that in this story.  He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it.  We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'.  On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail.  He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse.  But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement.  To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned?  All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden?  If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing.  Not sure we live in a free country, though.  Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening.  Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country.  Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them.  Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality.  Basically the problem is this:  we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want.  Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article?  There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows.  But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer.  The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it.  We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well.  Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery.  Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass.  The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.

Lord of the Sabbath

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.   (Exodus 20:9-10 ESV)

And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."  (Mark 2:27-28 ESV)

And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.   (Mark 3:4 ESV)

This morning I preached on the passages from Mark 2-3 in which Jesus and his disciples pick and eat grain on the Sabbath, then Jesus heals a man's hand on the Sabbath.  The ultimate point I was wishing to make was not that we are simply free to do what we want on Sunday (which is often today how many Christians view their Sunday afternoons, with eating out, shopping, or watching football), but that we are called to affirm life on this day, recognizing that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.  If he is in charge, we are called to do good not just for ourselves but make it where others can rest, too.  In an era in which so many have to work on Sundays in order to keep the economy going and make it so that we who are privileged are free to relax on this day, I challenged the church to give up activities that make it where others have to work on Sundays. Don't others wish to spend time with their family, rest, or even attend worship on Sunday, but can't because of our activities?  Though I don't believe in passing Sunday laws and know that one can take this practice to Pharisaical levels ("Hey, you're writing this post on a Sunday afternoon...doesn't that mean that the controllers of the internet have to work so you can write?"), I think it's important that we question whether or not is good that we make cooks and servers work so that we can eat, grocery stockers and checkers so that we can shop, and football players and peanut vendors and grounds crew and traffic cops so that we can be entertained.  

The reaction, of course, was rather indifferent.  Hopefully it will change people over time, but likely not.  Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretations on this subject, though I think that our culture (as well as the Christian subculture) has swung from legalism to libertinism.  Yet here's the two general reactions to what was said that bother me.  

-1)"I like what you are saying, but in our capitalistic world, we can't really stop what Sundays have become."  This attitude basically admits that Christians as a whole are impotent to shine a light in our culture.  Sure, we pass laws all the time telling people how to live their lives, but moral influence?  Forget about it.  This says more about the weakness of genuine Christianity today than it does about the world.  Don't we believe in the power of the gospel to change the world?  I guess not.  

-2)"You may be right, but I'm still going to do what I want to do."  Now, nobody will say this directly, but it's what we do.  Maybe I made some people uncomfortable today, but after they've had their dinner at Applebees and then spent the next two hours looking through shops at the mall, they've forgotten about why they weren't very happy with the preacher this morning.  Many Christians today are so comfortable in their own culture that they refuse to be changed.  Yes, the preacher might say things that they know are right, but are they willing to change?  Are we as hard-hearted as Pharaoh?  

Christian Nation: A Novel

Last week my brother told me about a novel he had read recently called Christian Nation.  It's a book that is a 'what-if' account that assumes John McCain won the presidential election in 2008 and dropped dead two months after the inauguration, leaving Sarah Palin to became president.  It's written from a liberal perspective that is terrified of the religious right, and is a word of warning about what would happen if the aims of the extreme religious right (personified by a dominion/reconstructionist ideology) gain credence in this country.  I'm about halfway through the book, and though it's not the best book I've read, it is certainly something to pique one's attention.  As a Christian sometimes I lament the fact that we are increasingly a wicked nation, but yet I also lament where conservatism has gone.  I've drifted from my 1990s Rush Limbaugh conservatism into what I think is the sensible center, but sadly nobody looks to centrists anymore...both parties are too busy running so far to the far left or far right that the silent majority of those of us in the middle have been left without a political home.

I think there are two major problems with the premise laid out by Frederic Rich, the author.  First, the novel paints a tea party movement that is swallowed up by the Christian right, when in fact I think that the Christian right has been swallowed up by the tea party movement.  When the Christian right really started getting involved in politics several decades ago they found it necessary to align themselves with others who might be sympathetic to their POVs and would give them a foothold into the corridors of power.  Their aims might have been good as they sought to promote morality and defend life, but in fact they have been co-opted to the point that their message could hardly be considered Christian at all anymore.  When Christians of a particular bent are demanding unlimited gun rights, intervention into foreign conflicts, abolishing education programs, and incarcerating people at alarming rates, it's hard to think of them as truly being guided by Biblical Christianity.  Maybe they think they are promoting the Kingdom of God, but rather they are more hell-bent on promoting worldly values than they would ever care to admit.  Biblical illiteracy may well be part of the problem...they've gotten so far away from what the Bible actually says that they can be deluded into thinking that second amendment rights are found in the gospel.  (This is an argument I actually heard a Christian make recently; it centered on Jesus telling his disciples on the night he was betrayed to take two swords with them.  No, really.)

The truth is that the right wing of American politics is far more concerned with a pseudo-libertarian agenda than they are with Christianity.  Sure, they may throw Christians a bone once in awhile on abortion or gay marriage, but modern conservatism is concerned with two things: 1)LOWER (or better yet eliminate) MY TAXES and 2)CURB (or better yet neuter) GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS.  Everything else bows at the altar of these two points.  The pursuit of money and what it can do for those in power, even the promotion of America First and our military might, guides the agenda of these right wingers.  Whether it's right-to-work legislation, NAFTA, or overturning environmental regulations, what really matters is the bottom line...will it make the rich even more money?  The Christian right, having forgotten about the prophets of the Scripture and their warnings about those who would build paneled houses while others starve, have bought into this agenda and made it their own.  Christ may be spoken about sometimes, but in truth this is only a minor portion of the far right agenda.

A second problem with the novel, and perhaps more fundamental to why 'it can't happen here' (or at least not in the way it thinks) is that all evangelical Christians are portrayed with a broad brush.  In the novel all evangelicals are reconstructionists, demanding a right-wing Christian America in which gays and Muslims and abortionists are all shown the door or shot, their choice.  Truth is, this is a caricature that simply does not hold water.  While there are fringes of Christianity that have bought into this agenda, it has become interesting that evangelicalism is becoming a much more broad place.  Writers like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis and countless others have been having a big impact on the conversation, taking Christians back to issues like social justice and love for one's neighbors.  While some Christians make it hard for the rest of us to tell of the grace of Jesus Christ (and indeed, introlerant bigotism has become the common public perception many people have of Christianity as shown by books like UnChristian, which surveys those who believe that Christianity is a homophobic and intolerant and angry group of whiteys), there are many others looking to dispel that perception.

Most of my friends come from what could broadly be called 'evangelical' in their worldview, but with a few exceptions most have little or nothing to do with the reality of demanding forcibly a 'Christian' nation.  Yes, they are bugged by gay marriage and abortion and similar issues, but most of them simply want to serve God the best way they can.  Most of them can see through the false veneer of the lunatics, and like me are appalled at the extremes in both directions.  This is why McCain ultimately lost the election.  While many were nervous about electing a black man with a Muslim name, most of us were far more terrified at the prospect of a President Palin, she being recognized for the nincompoop she was by even sensible conservative voters.  Yes, maybe we wanted a president that was a bit more white a bit more conservative, but we at minimum we wanted somebody who could string two sentences together.  Obama may not have been perfect (and ultimately he has been mediocre), but we dodged a bullet by not having Sarah Palin be a heartbeat away from the presidency, a bullet that was far wider than the author of this book would have us believe.

In the end, it's an interesting book, and one I've enjoyed reading.  But it's just fiction, and Lord willing will remain that way.

Enterprise Square, U.S.A.

When I was in my early teenage years one of my favorite activities was going to Enterprise Square, U.S.A.  It was located on the campus of Oklahoma Christian University and was a monument to anti-government extreme capitalism.  It was kind of a museum, kind of video games place.  For $3 it wasn't at all a bad day for a 13-year old to spend a fall afternoon.  Mom would drop me off, I'd quickly make my way through the museum portions to play the video games, and several hours later I'd finally get sick of going bust on the Oklahoma oil fields and have my mom come and get me.  I'm guessing the combination of growing up in Oklahoma to conservative parents and visiting ESUSA probably 20 times in two years (remember, this is the time of my life of video game obsession before girls were on the radar) made me the supply-side Republican that I became throughout my early 20s.

Enterprise Square opened in 1982, and even then I thought the museum portion a bit cheesy.  Singing presidents made to be Reagan-era capitalists, Bob Hope reading off of cue cards, aliens crash-landing on earth to examine our way of life...yeah.  That's why I would usually go straight to the video games.  There was always something wonderful about mowing yards and fighting off government regulations and being a truck driver that was something appealing.  It was, after all, the very, very best way to live. the American way.  Even now I still have within me the suspicions of government...though I'm probably more suspicious of large multi-national corporations whose only interest is profit and owe no allegiance to anybody but their biggest shareholders.

Sadly, the thousand visitors a day never really materialized.  Even in the mid-1980s the place already had a kind of run-down feel to it.  Nothing was ever updated, and the building has set mostly empty since it closed down over a decade ago.  Mocked and now mostly unloved, it's a living reminder that capitalism is a dangerous proposition.  When it fails, it fails miserably.

One final side note...only in recent years have I found great irony in the fact that a Christian institution, which Biblically speaks to the nature of fellowship and helping out the poor, allowed such a monument to be built on its campus.  As I remember it now, Enterprise Square loved the individual and spoke to the glories of unfettered capitalism...but where was God in all this?  What about the poor?  Do we just let them get crushed by the overwhelming world economy?  What about those who have been in jail and have no real future?  Do we say sorry, you don't fit into the model of supply and demand?  Nowhere in my memory do I remember anything about God at Enterprise Square.  Reading the prophets of the Old Testament as much as I have for the last few years I have been struck by its call for economic justice and its warnings about the rich growing richer while the poor get left behind.  This, more than anything, has pushed me away from the extreme conservatism of my youth.

Freedom to annoy

One of the more memorable scenes from Team America: World Police was a montage of 'Merica...F___ Yeah! in which the song goes with stuff (in other countries) getting blown up.  Sure, it's a movie filled with a lot of terrible language but one of the messages of the movie, a mockery of thinking that we can blow up whatever it is we want to blow up whenever we want to, speaks to the feeling we have as America.  Our freedom means that others just need to shut up when they don't like what we do.  

I got to thinking about that tonight because we are in that time of the year when inevitably my daughter will come running into our room at night a few hours after we put her to bed.  Why?  Because some fool is out in the street shooting off fireworks, and it's all about FREEDOM (I can hear Mel Gibson screaming out as his nuts are chopped off as I write that).  We celebrate our freedom from the tea-tax bullies from Britain by blowing stuff up, sometimes our own hands.  

I used to be one of those people who had the 'Merica, F___ Yeah!' attitude about life.  We're free, we're Americans, and nobody is gonna tell us what we can and can't do, whether within our own borders or outside as well.  I used to be all about freedom: free markets, freedom for guns, freedom to live however we want to.  

But as I've gotten a bit older, and hopefully more mature, I've realized that in a country of 300 million people that my freedom has limitations.  I don't have the right to always do what I want to do.  The 299,999,999 other people who call this place home have an interest in my life, and I have an interest in theirs.  Thus maybe it's not such a great idea that we blow up fireworks outside of houses when people in those houses have to get up at 4:15am to go to work.  Sure, YOU may get your jollies by doing that, but it's not so pleasant being woken up by either the fireworks or by an already sleep-deprived daughter.  

So we recognize this.  The fireworks only last for a week.  We limit smoking inside buildings.  We stop selling high-capacity gun clips to people who are likely to go onto murderous rampages.  We don't allow people to scream 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater.  Somewhere along the way, we have a bit of common sense, limiting some of our freedom for the common good.  

Freedom ain't free, but it ain't unlimited, either.