The United States will be celebrating its second biggest holiday - after Christmas - tomorrow: Halloween.
By 'second biggest,' I mean as far as retailers and money spent. There will be parties, costumes, candy, more candy. Some start celebrating well before the actual Oct. 31 date. In my office building, at least one office allowed its employees to dress up last Friday, and I know there were parties all weekend, where people dressed up in costume and celebrated being something other than themselves.
As a kid, I loved Halloween because of the candy, and the chance to go out with friends, door-to-door, up and down streets and into neighborhoods where I rarely normally travelled. We used to map out exactly which neighborhoods and streets we wanted to "hit,'' seeing how we could work our way back-and-forth down one long street, cut through some woods into another neighborhood to hit that those houses, then cut back through a couple of back-yards to get back to the street leading us back to our own houses. We worked out the advance like Eisenhower planning the D-Day invasion of Europe.
We didn't spend a lot of time on costumes, maybe because usually either our parents made our costumes or we put something together ourselves, using stuff we found around the house. It used to be a cliché of putting white sheet over your head and cutting out eye-holes, but that wasn't a cliché in our neighborhood. Once I decided to go as a "thug," (which would be very non-politically correct these days, I guess). To my chagrin none of our neighbors got my costume; they thought I was just dressed normally.
Costumes have gotten more elaborate, both for kids and adults. For kids, you almost have to go buy a pre-packaged costume, and I admit they are cute. The real phenomenon, to me, is the growth in adult costumes. I guess my generation really never did grow up, and we set the tone for the next generations of people who love to dress up in any number of creative, original, outrageous, or sometimes obscene outfits.
As a Christian, I have struggled with Halloween. Is it a pagan holiday, and are we "celebrating" the powers of darkness by dressing up as ghosts, witches, devils, and all sorts of evil beings?
But it occurs to me that the holiday teaches us a few important lessons about the human condition.
One, many of us want to be something other than what we are. Oh, we may not really be unhappy in who we are, but isn't it fun to dress up like a superhero and, at least for one night, go out in disguise to do things that we might never do otherwise? We all have that nature within us, that we keep under control because we know it's not the right way to act; but every now and then its fun to let the "stranger" (to refer to an old Billy Joel song) come out, to give in to our other self, remove - although hopefully not completely - some of the restraints that keep our society safe and secure. It's kind of a reminder that we know we're not who we're meant to be, and we hope for that day when we find our purpose, our meaning, our true happiness. (However, it won't be the personas that too many take on for Halloween!)
Two, we recognize there is evil. Maybe we don't come right out and say it, but in all of our "dress up" as evil creatures, we're acknowledging that there is a dark side to our world, the possibility of a realm that "civilized" people say they don't believe in and certainly don't discuss in regular conversation. As a child, my family often hosted missionaries from around the world. I remember very specifically a missionary from Japan from back in the 1960s who talked about feeling the presence of demons and evil spirits. I have shared my own experience with participating in an exorcism (that wasn't really an exorcism but rather a guy suffering from delirium tremens). What that experience taught me was that somewhere, down deep, I do fear that spirits and demons are real, and I don't think I'm alone. We often hear of people talk about "powers of darkness" or being "consumed by evil." There is an entire industry of movies based on "horror" films about what happens in abandoned houses, empty cemeteries, lonely old hotels, and on dark and stormy nights. We can tell ourselves that we're too smart, too "enlightened" to believe in such stuff, but down deep, I think we all know that evil is real.
Three, evil is real, but Good overcomes Evil; love wins. We see it over and over throughout history. Oct. 30 is the anniversary of the last time the late Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested (it happened to be in Birmingham, Al., where I live), and for all of his flaws Dr. King demonstrated that peacefulness and kindness can indeed overcome hate and violence. You hear people say, "How can there be a God when there is so much evil in the world?" I say that evil merely proves that God exists, because evil is the perversion of good, which means good had to come first. All of our experiences with evil are nothing more than the perversion - the altering or spoiling - of something good. The world, I believe, was created without sin, which means without pain and deceit and betrayal. However, once evil entered the world (through disobedience and deceit and betrayal, leading to pain), rebellion against good came with it. And as much as we try to be "good,'' we have a hard time defining what "good" even means; of determining what "good" means in light of our own wants and desires; of controlling our own impulse for what makes me feel good even if it hurts you. We've lost sight of what "good" really is, which - I believe - is a proper understanding of God and who God is and what God wants for all of mankind.
Four, we don't understand hell. Ask someone "who rules in hell?" Chances are, you'll be told "Satan." I used to ask two questions when I taught kids' Bible classes. The first: Who rules in heaven? And they would kind of say, "God?" with a real questioning tone as if it was a trick question. Then I'd ask, "Who rules in hell?" And it was amazing- they'd almost shout out, "Satan!" or "The Devil!", confident in their answer. But of course, they were wrong. God rules in heaven, but God also rules in Hell. In fact, God created Hell as a place where Satan and his followers will be sent for eternal punishment. It's not some equal but opposite side of Heaven. John Milton, in Paradise Lost, wrote the line, "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven," and I've heard that quoted many times by many different people over the years. The problem is, you won't reign in hell. You can't reign in hell. Hell is a place of isolation and eternal torment, the ultimate punishment for the evil of rejecting God. However, the very fact that so many people believe the cartoons and movies and books that suggest Satan is sitting on a throne in hell, sending out demons and devils to do his bidding, only tell us how completely we've lost the truth of what hell really is. But Paul writes in Colossians that God "has delivered us from the domain of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of His Son." (1:13) 1 John 3:8 says, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."
All of this is why Halloween All Hallows Eve ("Halloween") is followed by All Hallows Day (or "All Saints Day.").
Ironically, Oct 31, 1517, on the day before "All Saints Day,'' the 33-year-old Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. It's the date we credit with the start of the Reformation (although, to be truthful, the reformation of the Church was already going on in many places around Europe; it's just that Luther's resulted in the trial and conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, getting all the headlines).
In fact, the other name for Oct. 31 is "Reformation Day." Unfortunately, it hasn't caught on with retailers and partiers around the world.
Here is why I don't have a problem with Halloween, however. One of the slogans of the Protestant Reformation was Post tenebras lux: "After darkness, light."
Remember that in the morning after Halloween. The Gospel assures us that darkness has been defeated, that the "light of the world" has defeated darkness, and we're just waiting on that day when evil will, once and for all, be defeated.
Happy Halloween?
Not yet.
But soon.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Friday, October 27, 2017
Ode to obscurity
Growing up, I wanted to be somebody.
As the joke goes, maybe I should have been a little more specific.
But you know what I mean; I wanted to do something important, be somebody important, be significant in a way that people would remember me for generations (if not longer).
Part of it was, sure, I wanted to be famous. I wanted people I didn't know to know who I am. I wanted people I didn't know to talk about me the way I talked about people that I knew were famous. I wanted to walk into a place have people whisper to each other, "Do you know who that is?" while I was too cool to notice, trying to act like a "regular guy" even while the maître d fawned over me, the waiters and waitresses made sure I had everything I wanted, the chef came out to offer me his not-listed-on-the-menu-but-he'd-make-if-for-me special.
But I didn't entirely want to be famous just for the sake of being famous (like a teenager I saw on an episode of Dr. Phil who said her goal was to "be famous,'' but when asked how she had no idea - she just wanted to be famous). I actually wanted to do something to deserve being famous. Even when I was going through my dreams of being an NFL quarterback or an NBA power forward or a major league baseball relief pitcher, at the end of that I still wanted to be a writer who would write books that would be in libraries and become required reading for future generations.
I was always enamored with the written word. I remember when my brother, David, taught me how to write my name, I held that piece of paper dearly, believing that - like Steve Martin's character in "The Jerk" when the phone books came out - once your name was in print, who knows who might see it and what opportunities might come your way?
To be honest, I have experienced a rather curious form of underserved fame. I apparently look like some vague actor, and it really gives people fits. Particularly, in seems, black people or college kids who like certain syfy or horror films. I can't tell you how many people who come up to me and say, "I know who you are!" They can't think of who they think I am but are convinced I'm an actor. I had a college student valet at a hotel in Greenville, S.C., who was so excited to park my car because he "loves my movies." (Although, in retrospect, maybe he does that all the time, hoping to get a bigger tip).
We were at a Sheila E concert (which means mostly old people who remember the 1980s-90s) recently in Birmingham and a guy walked by me and said, "I know who you are. I'm a movie buff, I've seen all your films." I tried to tell him he was mistaken, but he refused to believe me. During the intermission, he came over to shake my hand and ask if he could have his picture made with me.
Recently, the Trophy Wife and I were vacationing in Antigua (we splurged to celebrate her five-year survival mark), and this guy comes up to me as we're walking to dinner one night, "I know who you are. I won't say anything, because I know you're trying to not be noticed. But I love your work." And, again, even as I try to tell him he's wrong, he refused to believe it. He kept saying he would respect my privacy but wanted me to know that he knew.
A woman at the drive-thru window at my local McDonalds wouldn't give me my debit card back until I told her who I was. I told her I wasn't who she thought I was, that she could look at the name on my card and see, but she refused to believe me.
As I said, this goes on all the time. A security guy working a jewelry store in the Grand Caymans was so certain, but just couldn't think of my name, I finally - as we were walking out - leaned close to him and whispered, "Go home and look at the Bruce Willis movie, "The Fifth Element." He got so excited, saying, "I knew it! I knew it!" (There is a character in that movie that I admit I do look like; I've even used a still shot as my picture on my facebook page). I didn't say I was in the movie, I just told him to go watch it. Whatever conclusion he may draw is his own fault.
Now, the funny part is that people can't think of the name of the actor that they think I look like. The nice lady in the deli at the local grocery store went through the whole thing with me, and I said, "I know. I look like Brad Pitt." She, of course, said, "No, not Brad Pitt .." to which I always act hurt and say, "Just once, can't someone say I look like Brad Pitt?" To this day, when I go in, she'll see me and call me "Mr. Pitt." My youngest son went in with me, and she said, "Look - it's Brad Pitt junior!"
Being mistaken for someone famous - while fun - is not the same as actually being somebody famous.
However, the older I get, the more I realize in today's celebrity-driven culture where everyone, as Andy Warhol once said "will be world-famous for 15 minutes", it takes courage to be willing to be obscure and ordinary.
That sounds funny, of course. No one says to their kid, "You can grow up to be ordinary!" And I'm not saying we should strive to be ordinary. But I do think it's too easy to feel I am worthless because I'm not exceptional - and of course, by definition, everyone can't be exceptional. As a friend of mine likes to say, "50 percent of everyone you meet is below average." (I was afraid to ask him if he thought that included me.)
I have come to realize that an awful lot of really important work, work that matters and has a lasting impact, is done in obscurity. Paul said as much in when he told his young protégé, Timothy, "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs...."
I'm sure even as Timothy heard that, he may have thought, "Sure, but you're Paul! I want to be like you!" - not realizing, perhaps, that being "like Paul" might mean suffering ship wrecks, beatings, jailing, and all sorts of assaults that no one in their right mind would ask for.
While even the Bible has these stories of these great men of faith, there are all kinds of people who are just mentioned, briefly, almost in passing. I think of Joshua's partner, Caleb. Or the relatively unknown Barnabas of the New Testament that, while we've created a whole idea of who he was and what we think we did, we don't really know for sure. Remember that (for a time) famous book about the "Prayer of Jabez?" What do we know about Jabez, other than those few words? What is there to know about Jabez other than these 50 or so words that appear in the midst of 1 Chronicles. Timothy, Titus, Luke, Silas, Tychicus, John Mark – they are names in the New Testament that carried a lot of weight with Paul, but to most of us they are just "the other guys," guys not named Paul or John or Peter.
There are people all around us who are "in the trenches,'' so to speak, the ones who follow the well-known, the leaders, and faithfully do the work.
I know it is human nature to rebel against obscurity. We have that innate desire to be known.
In today's world, I think it takes courage to be willing to be over-looked, to work in obscurity, to find satisfaction in knowing you're doing your best (or at least trying to), and knowing that you are performing not for the recognition of those around you but for that audience of One.
"If I could,'' author Emily Bronte once said, "I would always work in silence and obscurity, and let my efforts be known by their results."
The point is that while we may think we toil in obscurity, we don't. God knows us. I know this from the end of Hebrews 11, that famous chapter referred to as the "Hall of Faith." After a list of well-known names and stories, it says, "Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated — of whom the world was not worthy." (Hebrews 11:35–38)
We are all well-known in heaven. Let us live with both the knowledge and responsibility of that fact.
As the joke goes, maybe I should have been a little more specific.
But you know what I mean; I wanted to do something important, be somebody important, be significant in a way that people would remember me for generations (if not longer).
Part of it was, sure, I wanted to be famous. I wanted people I didn't know to know who I am. I wanted people I didn't know to talk about me the way I talked about people that I knew were famous. I wanted to walk into a place have people whisper to each other, "Do you know who that is?" while I was too cool to notice, trying to act like a "regular guy" even while the maître d fawned over me, the waiters and waitresses made sure I had everything I wanted, the chef came out to offer me his not-listed-on-the-menu-but-he'd-make-if-for-me special.
But I didn't entirely want to be famous just for the sake of being famous (like a teenager I saw on an episode of Dr. Phil who said her goal was to "be famous,'' but when asked how she had no idea - she just wanted to be famous). I actually wanted to do something to deserve being famous. Even when I was going through my dreams of being an NFL quarterback or an NBA power forward or a major league baseball relief pitcher, at the end of that I still wanted to be a writer who would write books that would be in libraries and become required reading for future generations.
I was always enamored with the written word. I remember when my brother, David, taught me how to write my name, I held that piece of paper dearly, believing that - like Steve Martin's character in "The Jerk" when the phone books came out - once your name was in print, who knows who might see it and what opportunities might come your way?
To be honest, I have experienced a rather curious form of underserved fame. I apparently look like some vague actor, and it really gives people fits. Particularly, in seems, black people or college kids who like certain syfy or horror films. I can't tell you how many people who come up to me and say, "I know who you are!" They can't think of who they think I am but are convinced I'm an actor. I had a college student valet at a hotel in Greenville, S.C., who was so excited to park my car because he "loves my movies." (Although, in retrospect, maybe he does that all the time, hoping to get a bigger tip).
We were at a Sheila E concert (which means mostly old people who remember the 1980s-90s) recently in Birmingham and a guy walked by me and said, "I know who you are. I'm a movie buff, I've seen all your films." I tried to tell him he was mistaken, but he refused to believe me. During the intermission, he came over to shake my hand and ask if he could have his picture made with me.
Recently, the Trophy Wife and I were vacationing in Antigua (we splurged to celebrate her five-year survival mark), and this guy comes up to me as we're walking to dinner one night, "I know who you are. I won't say anything, because I know you're trying to not be noticed. But I love your work." And, again, even as I try to tell him he's wrong, he refused to believe it. He kept saying he would respect my privacy but wanted me to know that he knew.
A woman at the drive-thru window at my local McDonalds wouldn't give me my debit card back until I told her who I was. I told her I wasn't who she thought I was, that she could look at the name on my card and see, but she refused to believe me.
As I said, this goes on all the time. A security guy working a jewelry store in the Grand Caymans was so certain, but just couldn't think of my name, I finally - as we were walking out - leaned close to him and whispered, "Go home and look at the Bruce Willis movie, "The Fifth Element." He got so excited, saying, "I knew it! I knew it!" (There is a character in that movie that I admit I do look like; I've even used a still shot as my picture on my facebook page). I didn't say I was in the movie, I just told him to go watch it. Whatever conclusion he may draw is his own fault.
Now, the funny part is that people can't think of the name of the actor that they think I look like. The nice lady in the deli at the local grocery store went through the whole thing with me, and I said, "I know. I look like Brad Pitt." She, of course, said, "No, not Brad Pitt .." to which I always act hurt and say, "Just once, can't someone say I look like Brad Pitt?" To this day, when I go in, she'll see me and call me "Mr. Pitt." My youngest son went in with me, and she said, "Look - it's Brad Pitt junior!"
Being mistaken for someone famous - while fun - is not the same as actually being somebody famous.
However, the older I get, the more I realize in today's celebrity-driven culture where everyone, as Andy Warhol once said "will be world-famous for 15 minutes", it takes courage to be willing to be obscure and ordinary.
That sounds funny, of course. No one says to their kid, "You can grow up to be ordinary!" And I'm not saying we should strive to be ordinary. But I do think it's too easy to feel I am worthless because I'm not exceptional - and of course, by definition, everyone can't be exceptional. As a friend of mine likes to say, "50 percent of everyone you meet is below average." (I was afraid to ask him if he thought that included me.)
I have come to realize that an awful lot of really important work, work that matters and has a lasting impact, is done in obscurity. Paul said as much in when he told his young protégé, Timothy, "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs...."
I'm sure even as Timothy heard that, he may have thought, "Sure, but you're Paul! I want to be like you!" - not realizing, perhaps, that being "like Paul" might mean suffering ship wrecks, beatings, jailing, and all sorts of assaults that no one in their right mind would ask for.
While even the Bible has these stories of these great men of faith, there are all kinds of people who are just mentioned, briefly, almost in passing. I think of Joshua's partner, Caleb. Or the relatively unknown Barnabas of the New Testament that, while we've created a whole idea of who he was and what we think we did, we don't really know for sure. Remember that (for a time) famous book about the "Prayer of Jabez?" What do we know about Jabez, other than those few words? What is there to know about Jabez other than these 50 or so words that appear in the midst of 1 Chronicles. Timothy, Titus, Luke, Silas, Tychicus, John Mark – they are names in the New Testament that carried a lot of weight with Paul, but to most of us they are just "the other guys," guys not named Paul or John or Peter.
There are people all around us who are "in the trenches,'' so to speak, the ones who follow the well-known, the leaders, and faithfully do the work.
I know it is human nature to rebel against obscurity. We have that innate desire to be known.
In today's world, I think it takes courage to be willing to be over-looked, to work in obscurity, to find satisfaction in knowing you're doing your best (or at least trying to), and knowing that you are performing not for the recognition of those around you but for that audience of One.
"If I could,'' author Emily Bronte once said, "I would always work in silence and obscurity, and let my efforts be known by their results."
The point is that while we may think we toil in obscurity, we don't. God knows us. I know this from the end of Hebrews 11, that famous chapter referred to as the "Hall of Faith." After a list of well-known names and stories, it says, "Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated — of whom the world was not worthy." (Hebrews 11:35–38)
We are all well-known in heaven. Let us live with both the knowledge and responsibility of that fact.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Lamentations and Irritations
Maybe this happens to you.
I'm driving. I do a lot of driving. The car in front of me is slow, as if unsure of where it is going, but the road is such that I can't get around it. I get irritated.
I'm reading. I do a lot of reading. My phone rings and it breaks my concentration. I get irritated.
I'm trying to get somewhere. I do that a lot, too. But the person or people I'm going with are not ready to go because they are talking or checking something or just being slow. I get irritated.
I don't feel well. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often. But when it does, and I can't find any relief ... I get irritated.
Now, I don't think I get irritated a lot. But I do get irritated.
The comedian Whoopi Goldberg once said, "I don't have pet peeves. I have whole kennels of irritation."
I can blame a lot of things for my irritation: that goofball driver who doesn't know where they are going; that person who calls me for some inane reason when I'm enjoying a good book; those people who are lollygagging when they should be ready to go; getting sick through no fault of my own.
But at the end of the day, being irritated is my problem.
Or maybe, it's my sin.
It comes out of my own selfishness. I'm not irritated for any noble reason, for lack of justice or righteousness or mercy being displayed to someone who needs it; I'm irritated because I'm not getting what I want, when my desires are being denied, delayed, or disrupted.
What I want to do may not be a bad thing. Certainly there is nothing wrong with travel, or reading, or being on time for an appointment, or being sick.
But, like most sin, it's not the thing that is bad, but my action (or reaction) to get what that thing is.
It's putting my own wants, desires, self - first.
Hebrews 12:1 says, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us ..." We're being watched by those witnesses who exists across that great gulf between this world and the spiritual world, those folks who now have a true understanding of time and what matters. Since we're living our lives before those witnesses, we should not get hindered and entangled in things that don't really matter, and run the race that is before us not with great speed but with patience and endurance, since we don't know where the finish line is anyway or how soon we may reach it.
Proverbs 15:1 says "A gentle word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." I wonder how many people I provoke in a given day by my irritability. I'm very aware that how I act affects other people. If I'm harsh with people in my office, they can become harsh in how they deal with the people we're here to help. If I'm rude to the person in the drive-thru window, they may take it out on the next person in line. If, while driving, I get right up on the bumper of the person who doesn't seem to know where they are going or just isn't comfortable driving fast, I may cause them anxiety then fear then anger over feeling pushed or intimidated. I know if I come home in the evening and yell my family, they learn to mimic my behavior - maybe not right then, but they will at some point down the road because I am their example.
"Love," writes the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 13, is not "rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful." In other words, we're not to live with a short fuse, demanding to be treated "fairly" (by my standards of "fair," of course). I heard someone once say, "Don't live by the Golden Rule - 'Treat others as you want to be treated.' No, live by the Platinum Rule - 'Treat others the way they deserve and want to be treated.'
I don't know about the 'Platinum Rule,' but I think there is something to what he was saying.
God gets angry. But I don't think He gets irritated.
Why do I think that? Because it seems that when God gets angry, He takes a long time to get there (Exodus 34:6 says God is slow to anger). Throughout the Old Testament, the children of Israel seem to be crying out for God to act on their behalf, but God seems to be taking his own sweet time. See, God only gets angry when it's time to get angry, when it is the last resort and his Righteousness and Justice have been ignored and even despised.
And then, when God does get angry, it's always with just the right measure. Oh, it may be devastating, but it makes His point and is rarely forgotten.
I need to be more like that. I need to summon my anger judiciously, and only when absolutely necessary and only for the absolutely right reasons. James 1:19 says we are to be "slow to anger." Ephesians 4:26 says there are times when we should be angry, but not to let that anger cause us to sin.
I read an article from a pastor named Jon Bloom who wrote, "Jesus didn’t die for our punctuality, earthly reputation, convenience, or our leisure. But he did die for souls. It is likely that the worth of the soul(s) we’re irritable with is infinitely more precious to God than the thing we desire. We must not dishonor God, whose image that person bears, by being irritable with them. There are necessary times for considered, thoughtful, measured, righteous, loving anger at priceless but sinful souls. But there is never a right time for irritability."
"Never a right time for irritability."
Clearly, this guy has never driven in my lane, or read the book I'm reading, or tried to go someplace with the people I am supposed to go places with, or ...
No. He probably has. My guess is, we all have.
I don't like to think of my irritability as sin. I like to think of it as more of an inconvenience, something that can be justified and excused because of the actions of things beyond my control.
My control.
But guess what? Most of life is beyond my control. And until I recognize whose control my life is under, I'm going to be irritated.
I'm driving. I do a lot of driving. The car in front of me is slow, as if unsure of where it is going, but the road is such that I can't get around it. I get irritated.
I'm reading. I do a lot of reading. My phone rings and it breaks my concentration. I get irritated.
I'm trying to get somewhere. I do that a lot, too. But the person or people I'm going with are not ready to go because they are talking or checking something or just being slow. I get irritated.
I don't feel well. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often. But when it does, and I can't find any relief ... I get irritated.
Now, I don't think I get irritated a lot. But I do get irritated.
The comedian Whoopi Goldberg once said, "I don't have pet peeves. I have whole kennels of irritation."
I can blame a lot of things for my irritation: that goofball driver who doesn't know where they are going; that person who calls me for some inane reason when I'm enjoying a good book; those people who are lollygagging when they should be ready to go; getting sick through no fault of my own.
But at the end of the day, being irritated is my problem.
Or maybe, it's my sin.
It comes out of my own selfishness. I'm not irritated for any noble reason, for lack of justice or righteousness or mercy being displayed to someone who needs it; I'm irritated because I'm not getting what I want, when my desires are being denied, delayed, or disrupted.
What I want to do may not be a bad thing. Certainly there is nothing wrong with travel, or reading, or being on time for an appointment, or being sick.
But, like most sin, it's not the thing that is bad, but my action (or reaction) to get what that thing is.
It's putting my own wants, desires, self - first.
Hebrews 12:1 says, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us ..." We're being watched by those witnesses who exists across that great gulf between this world and the spiritual world, those folks who now have a true understanding of time and what matters. Since we're living our lives before those witnesses, we should not get hindered and entangled in things that don't really matter, and run the race that is before us not with great speed but with patience and endurance, since we don't know where the finish line is anyway or how soon we may reach it.
Proverbs 15:1 says "A gentle word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." I wonder how many people I provoke in a given day by my irritability. I'm very aware that how I act affects other people. If I'm harsh with people in my office, they can become harsh in how they deal with the people we're here to help. If I'm rude to the person in the drive-thru window, they may take it out on the next person in line. If, while driving, I get right up on the bumper of the person who doesn't seem to know where they are going or just isn't comfortable driving fast, I may cause them anxiety then fear then anger over feeling pushed or intimidated. I know if I come home in the evening and yell my family, they learn to mimic my behavior - maybe not right then, but they will at some point down the road because I am their example.
"Love," writes the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 13, is not "rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful." In other words, we're not to live with a short fuse, demanding to be treated "fairly" (by my standards of "fair," of course). I heard someone once say, "Don't live by the Golden Rule - 'Treat others as you want to be treated.' No, live by the Platinum Rule - 'Treat others the way they deserve and want to be treated.'
I don't know about the 'Platinum Rule,' but I think there is something to what he was saying.
God gets angry. But I don't think He gets irritated.
Why do I think that? Because it seems that when God gets angry, He takes a long time to get there (Exodus 34:6 says God is slow to anger). Throughout the Old Testament, the children of Israel seem to be crying out for God to act on their behalf, but God seems to be taking his own sweet time. See, God only gets angry when it's time to get angry, when it is the last resort and his Righteousness and Justice have been ignored and even despised.
And then, when God does get angry, it's always with just the right measure. Oh, it may be devastating, but it makes His point and is rarely forgotten.
I need to be more like that. I need to summon my anger judiciously, and only when absolutely necessary and only for the absolutely right reasons. James 1:19 says we are to be "slow to anger." Ephesians 4:26 says there are times when we should be angry, but not to let that anger cause us to sin.
I read an article from a pastor named Jon Bloom who wrote, "Jesus didn’t die for our punctuality, earthly reputation, convenience, or our leisure. But he did die for souls. It is likely that the worth of the soul(s) we’re irritable with is infinitely more precious to God than the thing we desire. We must not dishonor God, whose image that person bears, by being irritable with them. There are necessary times for considered, thoughtful, measured, righteous, loving anger at priceless but sinful souls. But there is never a right time for irritability."
"Never a right time for irritability."
Clearly, this guy has never driven in my lane, or read the book I'm reading, or tried to go someplace with the people I am supposed to go places with, or ...
No. He probably has. My guess is, we all have.
I don't like to think of my irritability as sin. I like to think of it as more of an inconvenience, something that can be justified and excused because of the actions of things beyond my control.
My control.
But guess what? Most of life is beyond my control. And until I recognize whose control my life is under, I'm going to be irritated.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Clothes and the origin of sin
I have alluded several times to what I think is one of the most interesting and important stories in the Bible. I'm big on stories that explain a truth that carries over to today. It's one of the reasons I love the book of Job so much - Job suffers these assaults that he doesn't deserve, and that there is no earthly explanation for (despite his friends' best attempts to tell him otherwise). I draw great comfort, for some reason, in that there is an unseen "world" where our lives and the actions of those in that spiritual realm intersect.
The Genesis story of Adam and Eve presents an interesting set of parameters. In Genesis 2:25, the last verse of chapter 2, it says of Adam and Eve, "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." By verse 7 of Chapter 3 we read, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked ..."
Something happens in eight verses that transform Adam and Eve from "naked and were not ashamed" to "they knew they were naked" and they went and made coverings for themselves and actually tried to hide from God.
What happens, of course, is the infamous "fruit" incident. The Serpent comes and tells Eve that if she eats of the one tree (and the command was not to eat of that one tree; there is no command prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating of the "tree of life") she will not die, despite what God has told her.
As a side note, it's interesting that apparently Adam was there while Eve was having this conversation with the snake. He didn't say anything, I guess, but just listened. And I wonder how many of us hear things being proposed that we know are wrong, but we don't say anything because we are curious how this will play out; that maybe it will play out to our advantage. At least in my marriage, I know I have been guilty of not stopping my wife from doing something that, deep down, I didn't think was the best of ideas. I didn't say anything (I would never say "I allowed her to do something;" she has free will in our relationship!), and I wonder if because down deep I probably wanted the same thing, but by letting her make the decision it became a win-win for me: if what she chooses works, I enjoy it too; if it fails, I can blame her. That's not how a healthy relationship is supposed to work.
So anyway, the Serpent says, "You won't die, but you'll gain the knowledge of good and evil and be like gods."
Did Adam and Eve not have knowledge of good and evil prior to that moment? I don't believe so. They had only been told one thing in the entire world that they were not to do (not that they "couldn't" do, because obviously they could do it; they were just not supposed to do it). Even though there was a 'tree of life,' God never told them not to eat of it. And up until that moment in time, eating from that one tree had probably not even really been a temptation because there was so much other stuff to occupy their time, and besides - being with God was so much better than fruit!
As a child, my parents told me to play in our yard but don't leave the yard. It never occurred to me to leave our yard, because I had everything I wanted right there ... until one day the toy I was playing with crossed the fence. Then I was faced with a dilemma: disobey my mother and go get the toy, or wait for my mother to come home and ask her to get the toy (which she would have). You don't even have to ask what I did. I climbed the fence, got the toy, and suddenly realized I could leave the yard with no apparent repercussions. (There eventually would be, but that's another story).
Back to Adam and Eve. They had access to the entire world, animals, whatever landscape and water there was, plenty of fruit to eat, and they got to walk and talk with God their Father every day! I think their entire identity was tied up in that relationship with God the Father; their entire sense of worth and value came from that relationship as children of God who had been given everything they could possibly want; they were completely unaware that there was anything else ... I started to say unaware that there was anything else they could want or hope for, but I doubt they even understood the concept of "want" or "hope for." Their entire sense of awareness was built on that relationship with God, like a baby in its mothers' arms. A baby is part of the entire world, but you know it lives for the time when Mommy holds it, nurses it, talks to it, plays with it. So I can see Adam and Eve running and laughing and playing, and then hearing God coming and dropping whatever they were doing to run find God, like children hearing Daddy's car pull in the driveway, running to welcome him home (I had to get a Daddy reference in there, since I did the baby-Mommy thing).
Then, with one bite of the one fruit they had been told not to partake of, their perspective changed.
Suddenly, Adam and Eve became aware of each other. No, they became aware of themselves - they became self-aware. They had just taken their first action of free will that was outside the boundary God had given them, their first action independent from God. They'd crossed that fence into the neighbor's yard (so to speak).
It had to be something of a shock. Disobedience does that. You suddenly find you have the ability to do something you'd never done, that previous to that moment had never even considered doing.
And as a result, Adam and Eve did indeed become aware of "good and evil."
And instead of living entirely for those moments when they could look into God's face, to hear Him laughing and cooing and playing with them; now they - for the first time in their lives - become "self-aware." The phrase "Hey, look at me!" entered the world. They found they could make decisions independent of God.
And as a result, we have clothes.
Not that I'm against clothes. I'm self-aware enough to know no one wants to see me without clothes, and chances are I don't really want to see you without clothes, either.
But the point - and I do have one, I think - is that Genesis 3 is where we became "self aware."
And we've been struggling with it ever since.
When we no longer get our sense of value and worth based on "walking and talking with God every day;'' when we fail to see our value for the way God sees us, then we start to look at our selves - our own 'nakedness,' so to speak - and, by extension, then we start comparing ourselves to the folks around us, either to build our sense of self-worth or recognize the areas where we lack - that's sin.
And that becomes the crux of so many problems. We look at other people and we judge. We look at ourselves and become so self-absorbed that we give ourselves emotional problems. We have self-doubt or become over-confident; we justify ourselves or get hung up on guilt; we feel cheated or disrespected and start to focus on ways to get revenge. We have sleepless nights thinking about something that either happened to us or that we did to someone else long ago that we just can't get over.
I'm convinced so many of our problems come from being focused on "self."
We generally think of being "self-aware" as a good thing, at least for the most part. But the Bible tells us that we're not supposed to be 'self-aware' - at least from an introspective definition - but to be 'Christ-aware.' The whole, "less of me, more of Him" thing that Paul talks about; Galations 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
A dead person can't be self-aware. And while I try to be "dead to self" as Paul would say ("Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." Romans 6), I struggle with being very much alive to my own conscious, my own desires, my own emotional "nakedness" if you will.
Which means my sense of self-worth still comes from how I view me, and how I think others view me, without a clear sense of how God views me. I don't allow myself to do things because I'm afraid of what people might think, or what happens if I do it wrong, or what if I make a mistake. Then I beat myself up over decisions I have made that may have turned out poorly, or hurt someone.
In other words, I spend a lot of time thinking about myself.
Unfortunately, I too often see myself as Adam and Eve must have seen each other, hiding in the bushes, trying to string branches and leaves together because they were, for the first time, noticing each other's body parts - the differences, perhaps the flaws (although what could they have compared each other too?), the scratches and bruises (if there were any), maybe even saying, "Ooooh, is God going to be made at you!" Adam blaming Eve, and Eve saying, "Why didn't you stop me!" And both of them trying to keep from being found out.
There are many ways to define "sin." Generally, its an act considered to be against divine law. But I also think it's anything that we allow to get between us and God.
And the first thing to get between me and God? It always seems to be my awareness of myself, my sense of self-worth, my sense of entitlement, my my my and me me me.
No wonder clothes can be so expensive.
The Genesis story of Adam and Eve presents an interesting set of parameters. In Genesis 2:25, the last verse of chapter 2, it says of Adam and Eve, "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." By verse 7 of Chapter 3 we read, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked ..."
Something happens in eight verses that transform Adam and Eve from "naked and were not ashamed" to "they knew they were naked" and they went and made coverings for themselves and actually tried to hide from God.
What happens, of course, is the infamous "fruit" incident. The Serpent comes and tells Eve that if she eats of the one tree (and the command was not to eat of that one tree; there is no command prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating of the "tree of life") she will not die, despite what God has told her.
As a side note, it's interesting that apparently Adam was there while Eve was having this conversation with the snake. He didn't say anything, I guess, but just listened. And I wonder how many of us hear things being proposed that we know are wrong, but we don't say anything because we are curious how this will play out; that maybe it will play out to our advantage. At least in my marriage, I know I have been guilty of not stopping my wife from doing something that, deep down, I didn't think was the best of ideas. I didn't say anything (I would never say "I allowed her to do something;" she has free will in our relationship!), and I wonder if because down deep I probably wanted the same thing, but by letting her make the decision it became a win-win for me: if what she chooses works, I enjoy it too; if it fails, I can blame her. That's not how a healthy relationship is supposed to work.
So anyway, the Serpent says, "You won't die, but you'll gain the knowledge of good and evil and be like gods."
Did Adam and Eve not have knowledge of good and evil prior to that moment? I don't believe so. They had only been told one thing in the entire world that they were not to do (not that they "couldn't" do, because obviously they could do it; they were just not supposed to do it). Even though there was a 'tree of life,' God never told them not to eat of it. And up until that moment in time, eating from that one tree had probably not even really been a temptation because there was so much other stuff to occupy their time, and besides - being with God was so much better than fruit!
As a child, my parents told me to play in our yard but don't leave the yard. It never occurred to me to leave our yard, because I had everything I wanted right there ... until one day the toy I was playing with crossed the fence. Then I was faced with a dilemma: disobey my mother and go get the toy, or wait for my mother to come home and ask her to get the toy (which she would have). You don't even have to ask what I did. I climbed the fence, got the toy, and suddenly realized I could leave the yard with no apparent repercussions. (There eventually would be, but that's another story).
Back to Adam and Eve. They had access to the entire world, animals, whatever landscape and water there was, plenty of fruit to eat, and they got to walk and talk with God their Father every day! I think their entire identity was tied up in that relationship with God the Father; their entire sense of worth and value came from that relationship as children of God who had been given everything they could possibly want; they were completely unaware that there was anything else ... I started to say unaware that there was anything else they could want or hope for, but I doubt they even understood the concept of "want" or "hope for." Their entire sense of awareness was built on that relationship with God, like a baby in its mothers' arms. A baby is part of the entire world, but you know it lives for the time when Mommy holds it, nurses it, talks to it, plays with it. So I can see Adam and Eve running and laughing and playing, and then hearing God coming and dropping whatever they were doing to run find God, like children hearing Daddy's car pull in the driveway, running to welcome him home (I had to get a Daddy reference in there, since I did the baby-Mommy thing).
Then, with one bite of the one fruit they had been told not to partake of, their perspective changed.
Suddenly, Adam and Eve became aware of each other. No, they became aware of themselves - they became self-aware. They had just taken their first action of free will that was outside the boundary God had given them, their first action independent from God. They'd crossed that fence into the neighbor's yard (so to speak).
It had to be something of a shock. Disobedience does that. You suddenly find you have the ability to do something you'd never done, that previous to that moment had never even considered doing.
And as a result, Adam and Eve did indeed become aware of "good and evil."
And instead of living entirely for those moments when they could look into God's face, to hear Him laughing and cooing and playing with them; now they - for the first time in their lives - become "self-aware." The phrase "Hey, look at me!" entered the world. They found they could make decisions independent of God.
And as a result, we have clothes.
Not that I'm against clothes. I'm self-aware enough to know no one wants to see me without clothes, and chances are I don't really want to see you without clothes, either.
But the point - and I do have one, I think - is that Genesis 3 is where we became "self aware."
And we've been struggling with it ever since.
When we no longer get our sense of value and worth based on "walking and talking with God every day;'' when we fail to see our value for the way God sees us, then we start to look at our selves - our own 'nakedness,' so to speak - and, by extension, then we start comparing ourselves to the folks around us, either to build our sense of self-worth or recognize the areas where we lack - that's sin.
And that becomes the crux of so many problems. We look at other people and we judge. We look at ourselves and become so self-absorbed that we give ourselves emotional problems. We have self-doubt or become over-confident; we justify ourselves or get hung up on guilt; we feel cheated or disrespected and start to focus on ways to get revenge. We have sleepless nights thinking about something that either happened to us or that we did to someone else long ago that we just can't get over.
I'm convinced so many of our problems come from being focused on "self."
We generally think of being "self-aware" as a good thing, at least for the most part. But the Bible tells us that we're not supposed to be 'self-aware' - at least from an introspective definition - but to be 'Christ-aware.' The whole, "less of me, more of Him" thing that Paul talks about; Galations 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
A dead person can't be self-aware. And while I try to be "dead to self" as Paul would say ("Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." Romans 6), I struggle with being very much alive to my own conscious, my own desires, my own emotional "nakedness" if you will.
Which means my sense of self-worth still comes from how I view me, and how I think others view me, without a clear sense of how God views me. I don't allow myself to do things because I'm afraid of what people might think, or what happens if I do it wrong, or what if I make a mistake. Then I beat myself up over decisions I have made that may have turned out poorly, or hurt someone.
In other words, I spend a lot of time thinking about myself.
Unfortunately, I too often see myself as Adam and Eve must have seen each other, hiding in the bushes, trying to string branches and leaves together because they were, for the first time, noticing each other's body parts - the differences, perhaps the flaws (although what could they have compared each other too?), the scratches and bruises (if there were any), maybe even saying, "Ooooh, is God going to be made at you!" Adam blaming Eve, and Eve saying, "Why didn't you stop me!" And both of them trying to keep from being found out.
There are many ways to define "sin." Generally, its an act considered to be against divine law. But I also think it's anything that we allow to get between us and God.
And the first thing to get between me and God? It always seems to be my awareness of myself, my sense of self-worth, my sense of entitlement, my my my and me me me.
No wonder clothes can be so expensive.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
I have the answers, so please don't vote
We had an election yesterday in my home state of Alabama, a run-off for Senate between two candidates that were largely unpopular, but for (I believe) different reasons.
One candidate was a good person who a lot of people know and like, but he had a lot of support from "the Swamp" (as Washington DC insiders are known), and how he got into his position in the first place bothered a lot of people (he was appointed by a governor that, as attorney general, he was supposed to be investigating; a governor that, after the appointment, was forced to resign by the next AG). He also ran a very negative campaign, and believe it or not that doesn't go over well here in Alabama. We're still people who prefer you tell us what you have done and believe you can do rather than how bad the other guy is.
The other candidate was a man who had been elected to the state Supreme Court twice and been forced to step aside twice for, basically, not carrying out the rulings of the highest court in the land. This made him a hero to a lot of people, who saw a guy who was willing to 'stand up' against creeping (or galloping) liberalism. But to many others, he was seen as a guy who put himself above the law, in addition to being inarticulate when he wasn't giving a prepared speech.
In some ways, it was a lot like the last Presidential election, which for many of us came down to two unlikeable candidates with serious flaws.
So some of my friends decided their only choice was to not vote.
I appreciate their stand. They felt they couldn't, in good conscious, vote for either candidate, and I can understand that sentiment. Many of these people, in the last presidential election, took a similar approach by either not voting or writing in the name of somebody who had no chance of winning but allowed them to be at peace with their conscious.
I get that.
A lot of people in my home state apparently felt that way in this Senate run-off. Participation was low, where I heard numbers as low as 12 to 15 percent of the potential voters actually turned out to vote.
So between all the people who just didn't get motivated to get out and vote, and those who felt they couldn't vote in good conscious, that means my single vote carried the value of about 10 people (roughly 300,000 people voted out of over 3 million eligible voters). My vote had the strength of 10!
That's not exactly right, of course. Some of those 3 million voters are Democrats in this heavily Republican state, so the actual number of eligible Republican voters would be less than 3 million, but not by much (by the way, the total turnout of Democratic voters in the Democratic primary equaled less than the total number received by the leading Republican in the primary, which doesn't bode well for the Democrat in the December election).
But you can see how I, flush with power, am excited to say that at least nine of my fellow citizens have given me their ballot; maybe not actually given it to me, but abdicated their power by not showing up.
I appreciate that.
Bad candidates or not, we still are involved in a process whereby "We the People" elect our leaders. If we get bad candidates, maybe that's because so few of us actually get involved in the process, or care enough to vote. Something like fewer than 5 percent of the eligible voters in the United States have ever given to a political candidate - not that giving money is the only way to be involved, but it certainly is a pretty good sign of a person's commitment.
So by choosing to not participate, those people have given those of us who do vote power over their very lives, their laws, their rights, their citizenship.
To which I say, thank you.
I take that power willingly. If I can only get more of you to not vote, my individual power will grow to - who knows? - maybe one day I'll be the king-maker (or Governor-maker, Senator-maker, President-maker)! Maybe even one day I'll write myself in and hold all those offices together!
See, I keep participating in the system, no matter how bad it is, because it's the system we have and if I don't vote, then I'm leaving my future in the hands of people who may not have my best interest at heart. And while one simple abstention may not seem to affect much in the big picture, some day it will.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the choices that my fellow citizens seem to be giving me either. The candidate I support seems to rarely get out of the primary; and the one I vote for in the final election, even if I simply dislike that person less than I dislike the other, very often loses.
But you can't win if you don't play the game; you can't have a say in self-governing if you're not willing to suck it up sometimes and make a tough choice.
As I told a good friend, who decided to write in a candidate for President because he couldn't in good conscious vote for either of the two major party candidates, by not voting or by voting for someone you know can't win, you are essentially allowing someone else to make the most important decision of your civic life for you.
And for that, once again I have to say, "Thank you."
Unfortunately, the person I voted for doesn't always win. But if enough of you stop voting, maybe one day soon my vote will be the only one that counts!
One candidate was a good person who a lot of people know and like, but he had a lot of support from "the Swamp" (as Washington DC insiders are known), and how he got into his position in the first place bothered a lot of people (he was appointed by a governor that, as attorney general, he was supposed to be investigating; a governor that, after the appointment, was forced to resign by the next AG). He also ran a very negative campaign, and believe it or not that doesn't go over well here in Alabama. We're still people who prefer you tell us what you have done and believe you can do rather than how bad the other guy is.
The other candidate was a man who had been elected to the state Supreme Court twice and been forced to step aside twice for, basically, not carrying out the rulings of the highest court in the land. This made him a hero to a lot of people, who saw a guy who was willing to 'stand up' against creeping (or galloping) liberalism. But to many others, he was seen as a guy who put himself above the law, in addition to being inarticulate when he wasn't giving a prepared speech.
In some ways, it was a lot like the last Presidential election, which for many of us came down to two unlikeable candidates with serious flaws.
So some of my friends decided their only choice was to not vote.
I appreciate their stand. They felt they couldn't, in good conscious, vote for either candidate, and I can understand that sentiment. Many of these people, in the last presidential election, took a similar approach by either not voting or writing in the name of somebody who had no chance of winning but allowed them to be at peace with their conscious.
I get that.
A lot of people in my home state apparently felt that way in this Senate run-off. Participation was low, where I heard numbers as low as 12 to 15 percent of the potential voters actually turned out to vote.
So between all the people who just didn't get motivated to get out and vote, and those who felt they couldn't vote in good conscious, that means my single vote carried the value of about 10 people (roughly 300,000 people voted out of over 3 million eligible voters). My vote had the strength of 10!
That's not exactly right, of course. Some of those 3 million voters are Democrats in this heavily Republican state, so the actual number of eligible Republican voters would be less than 3 million, but not by much (by the way, the total turnout of Democratic voters in the Democratic primary equaled less than the total number received by the leading Republican in the primary, which doesn't bode well for the Democrat in the December election).
But you can see how I, flush with power, am excited to say that at least nine of my fellow citizens have given me their ballot; maybe not actually given it to me, but abdicated their power by not showing up.
I appreciate that.
Bad candidates or not, we still are involved in a process whereby "We the People" elect our leaders. If we get bad candidates, maybe that's because so few of us actually get involved in the process, or care enough to vote. Something like fewer than 5 percent of the eligible voters in the United States have ever given to a political candidate - not that giving money is the only way to be involved, but it certainly is a pretty good sign of a person's commitment.
So by choosing to not participate, those people have given those of us who do vote power over their very lives, their laws, their rights, their citizenship.
To which I say, thank you.
I take that power willingly. If I can only get more of you to not vote, my individual power will grow to - who knows? - maybe one day I'll be the king-maker (or Governor-maker, Senator-maker, President-maker)! Maybe even one day I'll write myself in and hold all those offices together!
See, I keep participating in the system, no matter how bad it is, because it's the system we have and if I don't vote, then I'm leaving my future in the hands of people who may not have my best interest at heart. And while one simple abstention may not seem to affect much in the big picture, some day it will.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the choices that my fellow citizens seem to be giving me either. The candidate I support seems to rarely get out of the primary; and the one I vote for in the final election, even if I simply dislike that person less than I dislike the other, very often loses.
But you can't win if you don't play the game; you can't have a say in self-governing if you're not willing to suck it up sometimes and make a tough choice.
As I told a good friend, who decided to write in a candidate for President because he couldn't in good conscious vote for either of the two major party candidates, by not voting or by voting for someone you know can't win, you are essentially allowing someone else to make the most important decision of your civic life for you.
And for that, once again I have to say, "Thank you."
Unfortunately, the person I voted for doesn't always win. But if enough of you stop voting, maybe one day soon my vote will be the only one that counts!
Monday, September 25, 2017
The NFL, protests, and getting what we tolerate
"We the People."
That is one of the most sacred lines in our country's history; the famous three words that begin the preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union ..."
The hope was that the government of the United States would always be subject to the "will" of the people, who ultimately would decide who their leaders would be (as opposed to those leaders coming to power by right of birth, wealth, or military might, the three means which had historically been the basis for leadership throughout much of the world's history).
We were never meant to be a true democracy, for that would be unwieldy. Can you imagine having national referendums on every law suggested, on every bill that was introduced? Plus, a pure democracy opens up the tyranny of the majority; a mere 50 percent plus one could decide to implement a host of laws and rulings that are abusive to the minority of people. Therefore we have representative government, whereby we elect people to represent us in government. However, in theory at least, we still have the ability to recall the people who we feel no longer represent us the way we want to be represented, who enough of us feel may be taking us in a direction we don't like.
But "we the people" is not only an idea in government.
"We the people" also describes the free market, capitalism. While the United States is no longer the shining example of free market economy it once was (the USA ranks 12th in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), we're still to a large extent a market driven economy.
If people don't like where they live, they move.
If people don't like a product, they don't buy it.
If people don't like what they see, they don't watch.
(Let's be clear - you can't always move from an area you don't like; sometimes you're forced to buy a product you don't like because it's the only one offered or best available; sometimes you watch things you'd rather not watch because the choices are so limited. I get all that, but generally speaking ...)
This weekend, in response to statements made by the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, a majority of NFL players across the league joined what had been a relatively few of their peers and decided to not stand for the National Anthem. One team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, under the direction of their head coach Mike Tomlin, did not go out on the field for the national anthem in direct violation of league rules - although one player, West Point grad and decorated Army veteran Alejandro Villanueva, went out on his own to stand at attention just outside the tunnel leading to and from the field.
I may not like when players, or anyone else, doesn't stand for the National Anthem, but it's their right to do so. Years ago, in a series of rulings in the 1940s-1950s, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in class rooms, since the church felt pledging allegiance to a flag violated Biblical teaching. Since the Supreme Court said one group can't be compelled to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then why shouldn't another group not be compelled to stand for the national anthem? We say we believe in freedom of expression, the right to protest, and all that. Not standing is a pretty peaceful protest, very much in line with the peaceful approach of a Dr. Martin Luther King as opposed to what we've seen happen in St. Louis recently, for one example.
However, at the same time, if you don't like paying out big bucks to watch a sporting event only to see the people you have paid to watch and cheer for conduct themselves in ways you find offensive, then you - the people - have the right to stop buying tickets, stop watching the games on TV, stop participating in promoting the game - in this case, the NFL.
You've heard the expression, "We get what we deserve?" Maybe it's better to say "We get what we are willing to tolerate."
In this case, the NFL is a business. If the stadiums are empty and no one is watching, the NFL will take notice (just as any business would). Forbes Magazine reported that:
"During the past month the overall stock market is up more than 2% but shares of companies that broadcast NFL games–Comcast,
Walt Disney, Fox, CBS–are all down between 1% to 8%.
The NFL is now a hotbed of protests–a carry over from last year that began when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick
began protesting during the National Anthem, to protests this year by those who feel Kaepernick, who is without a team, is being
unfairly treated by the league, to a stronger push by some players for an increase in NFL social activism.
Towards the end of last season some felt the NFL’s ratings dip would be temporary and therefore would not ultimately hurt the
networks by forcing them to reimburse advertisers. Instead, the opposite has happened.
Ratings for the NFL have been worse this season and attendance for some games has also been disappointing. The networks will
pay over $5 billion this season to televise the NFL and were already facing unflattering margins on advertising profits. An article
in Variety reckons the drop in NFL ratings could trim the broadcaster’s earnings by $200 million. Disney’s ESPN, meanwhile, also
continues to get hammered ..."
A lot of people booed at stadiums Sunday during the protest. I have read where some people are suggesting the "booing'' was really just fans booing the other team, but I don't think so. I think a lot - if not a majority - of NFL fans did not come to see a political statement, but to see the team they follow and have financially invested in (through buying tickets, programs, merchandise, etc) compete and, hopefully, win.
I'm a fan of the Atlanta Falcons. I plan my Sunday's around watching the Falcons, if at all possible. And like many fans of any sports team, I can be a little hypocritical. I can turn off the Washington Redskins-Oakland Raiders game because I'm bothered by the protest, but I didn't turn off the Falcons' game. I'm a fan. I weigh what bothers me by what entertains me, and only when what bothers me outweighs what entertains me will I be inclined to really follow through.
When that happens - and, as the above article from Forbes points out, it is happening - the NFL will get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I support every person's right to protest. I also believe, however, that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of your protest. I referenced Dr. King above; he and his movement was a perfect example of people willing to suffer the consequences of their protest and ultimately the public became so horrified at those consequences that the protesters won. That's in direct consequence to today's protestors, who seem to want to be able to protest but be protected from the consequences. Maybe that's why so many people are not moved by those protests. But that's another topic for another blog.
But it goes beyond just the NFL. The same is true of cars, of concerts, of clothes, of anything I spend my money on. I don't buy gas from Citgo because I know Citgo is owned by the government of Venezuela, and I can't support the dictatorship in place in that country. I have a few other companies I have, so far, refused to support - although so many companies are so diverse that I have no way of knowing what all the parent company owns.
The principle also goes into politics. "We the People" determine our leadership. We have the opportunity to get involved in elections and vote. Oh, I hear how "big money" and Russia and fake news and the Koch Brothers or Unions are the real power behind elections, but if you are smart enough to recognize those influences, why do you think other people aren't? (Oh, I know we get fooled, but that, too, is the responsibility of a democracy). One of the ironies of this last presidential election was that we kept hearing Democrats tell us we need to take "big money" out of the process, and yet the Trump campaign won while spending something like a third of what the Clinton campaign spent; we also heard how we wanted an "outsider" in Washington, and we got about as ultimate of an outsider as there could be in a man who had never run for any political office in his life or held any position in government.
So it's pretty simple. If enough of "we the people" get tired of what is going on, "we the people" can still force change. "We" decide what we'll watch, what we'll pay for, who will represent us in government.
Unfortunately, too many of us now feel as though we're powerless.
I think the Founders would be appalled.
That is one of the most sacred lines in our country's history; the famous three words that begin the preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union ..."
The hope was that the government of the United States would always be subject to the "will" of the people, who ultimately would decide who their leaders would be (as opposed to those leaders coming to power by right of birth, wealth, or military might, the three means which had historically been the basis for leadership throughout much of the world's history).
We were never meant to be a true democracy, for that would be unwieldy. Can you imagine having national referendums on every law suggested, on every bill that was introduced? Plus, a pure democracy opens up the tyranny of the majority; a mere 50 percent plus one could decide to implement a host of laws and rulings that are abusive to the minority of people. Therefore we have representative government, whereby we elect people to represent us in government. However, in theory at least, we still have the ability to recall the people who we feel no longer represent us the way we want to be represented, who enough of us feel may be taking us in a direction we don't like.
But "we the people" is not only an idea in government.
"We the people" also describes the free market, capitalism. While the United States is no longer the shining example of free market economy it once was (the USA ranks 12th in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), we're still to a large extent a market driven economy.
If people don't like where they live, they move.
If people don't like a product, they don't buy it.
If people don't like what they see, they don't watch.
(Let's be clear - you can't always move from an area you don't like; sometimes you're forced to buy a product you don't like because it's the only one offered or best available; sometimes you watch things you'd rather not watch because the choices are so limited. I get all that, but generally speaking ...)
This weekend, in response to statements made by the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, a majority of NFL players across the league joined what had been a relatively few of their peers and decided to not stand for the National Anthem. One team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, under the direction of their head coach Mike Tomlin, did not go out on the field for the national anthem in direct violation of league rules - although one player, West Point grad and decorated Army veteran Alejandro Villanueva, went out on his own to stand at attention just outside the tunnel leading to and from the field.
I may not like when players, or anyone else, doesn't stand for the National Anthem, but it's their right to do so. Years ago, in a series of rulings in the 1940s-1950s, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in class rooms, since the church felt pledging allegiance to a flag violated Biblical teaching. Since the Supreme Court said one group can't be compelled to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then why shouldn't another group not be compelled to stand for the national anthem? We say we believe in freedom of expression, the right to protest, and all that. Not standing is a pretty peaceful protest, very much in line with the peaceful approach of a Dr. Martin Luther King as opposed to what we've seen happen in St. Louis recently, for one example.
However, at the same time, if you don't like paying out big bucks to watch a sporting event only to see the people you have paid to watch and cheer for conduct themselves in ways you find offensive, then you - the people - have the right to stop buying tickets, stop watching the games on TV, stop participating in promoting the game - in this case, the NFL.
You've heard the expression, "We get what we deserve?" Maybe it's better to say "We get what we are willing to tolerate."
In this case, the NFL is a business. If the stadiums are empty and no one is watching, the NFL will take notice (just as any business would). Forbes Magazine reported that:
"During the past month the overall stock market is up more than 2% but shares of companies that broadcast NFL games–Comcast,
Walt Disney, Fox, CBS–are all down between 1% to 8%.
The NFL is now a hotbed of protests–a carry over from last year that began when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick
began protesting during the National Anthem, to protests this year by those who feel Kaepernick, who is without a team, is being
unfairly treated by the league, to a stronger push by some players for an increase in NFL social activism.
Towards the end of last season some felt the NFL’s ratings dip would be temporary and therefore would not ultimately hurt the
networks by forcing them to reimburse advertisers. Instead, the opposite has happened.
Ratings for the NFL have been worse this season and attendance for some games has also been disappointing. The networks will
pay over $5 billion this season to televise the NFL and were already facing unflattering margins on advertising profits. An article
in Variety reckons the drop in NFL ratings could trim the broadcaster’s earnings by $200 million. Disney’s ESPN, meanwhile, also
continues to get hammered ..."
A lot of people booed at stadiums Sunday during the protest. I have read where some people are suggesting the "booing'' was really just fans booing the other team, but I don't think so. I think a lot - if not a majority - of NFL fans did not come to see a political statement, but to see the team they follow and have financially invested in (through buying tickets, programs, merchandise, etc) compete and, hopefully, win.
I'm a fan of the Atlanta Falcons. I plan my Sunday's around watching the Falcons, if at all possible. And like many fans of any sports team, I can be a little hypocritical. I can turn off the Washington Redskins-Oakland Raiders game because I'm bothered by the protest, but I didn't turn off the Falcons' game. I'm a fan. I weigh what bothers me by what entertains me, and only when what bothers me outweighs what entertains me will I be inclined to really follow through.
When that happens - and, as the above article from Forbes points out, it is happening - the NFL will get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I support every person's right to protest. I also believe, however, that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of your protest. I referenced Dr. King above; he and his movement was a perfect example of people willing to suffer the consequences of their protest and ultimately the public became so horrified at those consequences that the protesters won. That's in direct consequence to today's protestors, who seem to want to be able to protest but be protected from the consequences. Maybe that's why so many people are not moved by those protests. But that's another topic for another blog.
But it goes beyond just the NFL. The same is true of cars, of concerts, of clothes, of anything I spend my money on. I don't buy gas from Citgo because I know Citgo is owned by the government of Venezuela, and I can't support the dictatorship in place in that country. I have a few other companies I have, so far, refused to support - although so many companies are so diverse that I have no way of knowing what all the parent company owns.
The principle also goes into politics. "We the People" determine our leadership. We have the opportunity to get involved in elections and vote. Oh, I hear how "big money" and Russia and fake news and the Koch Brothers or Unions are the real power behind elections, but if you are smart enough to recognize those influences, why do you think other people aren't? (Oh, I know we get fooled, but that, too, is the responsibility of a democracy). One of the ironies of this last presidential election was that we kept hearing Democrats tell us we need to take "big money" out of the process, and yet the Trump campaign won while spending something like a third of what the Clinton campaign spent; we also heard how we wanted an "outsider" in Washington, and we got about as ultimate of an outsider as there could be in a man who had never run for any political office in his life or held any position in government.
So it's pretty simple. If enough of "we the people" get tired of what is going on, "we the people" can still force change. "We" decide what we'll watch, what we'll pay for, who will represent us in government.
Unfortunately, too many of us now feel as though we're powerless.
I think the Founders would be appalled.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
A little less talk and a lot more action
As a kid, I got in a few fights. Not many, and the ones I did get in were more wrestling matches (“wrasslin’’’) than punches thrown.
In high school, I had a brief three-bout run in the Boys’ Club Golden Gloves Program. After college, I stumbled into the early world of PKA Karate and for a couple of years competed routinely in tournaments around the Southeast.
Playing sports, I understood what it meant to get physically whipped. I can remember playing against guys that I knew were just better than I was; guys who I knew could hurt me – and probably wanted to.
There were fights in my high school. We called them “gang fights,’’ but we were pretty much suburban white kids, and the conflict was usually between the groups we referred to as the “socialites” and the “hoods.” Back in the day, we had shop classes in our high school, and I remember one episode where a fight was supposed to be staged in a lower parking lot, behind the building where the shop classes were held. That’s only important because in drafting class, we had something called “T-squares,’’ which came in handy in a fight involving multiple people because you could sometimes come up behind some unsuspecting combatant and hook them in various places, causing a lot of pain.
I’ve been hit with bare fists, padded fists, kicked, and even had a guy take a swing at me with a 2x4 one time (he missed, fortunately). I’ve swung from iron monkey bars and busted the back of my head; tried to climb a tree only to lose my grip and slide down, the bark pulling up my shirt and turning my stomach and chest into bloody rivulets; gone head-over-the handle bars of my bike when I was not wearing a helmet (I didn't own one or know anyone who did); ridden a skateboard downhill on asphalt with no knee pads or helmet (again, because we didn't have any) and, unable to stop, turned into the curb, throwing me head-first into prickly bushes; once went diving into a pile of leaves, unaware that the leaves were piled around a fire plug … in other words, done a lot of stupid stuff that kids of my generation did. We played “Army,’’ and one day decided since we couldn’t figure out how to determine who had actually been shot used B-B guns, because that would leave a mark (boy, did it; fortunately, that was a one-time thing and no one lost an eye).
All of that is not to suggest that I’m a fighter (I’m definitely not), or I’m tough (again, I’m not), and surely it won’t be read as if I’m bragging (there was nothing worth bragging about).
The point is that, like a lot of people of my generation and certainly those generations older than me, we grew up understanding the threat of physical violence, of getting hurt. Not to the level of some places and some people. The point is, I knew I could get hit, it would hurt, but I’d be OK; I learned it was better to not get hit if possible; I figured out that verbal insults were much preferred over having a guy swing a 2x4 at your head with the intent to do bodily harm; and whenever a buddy had what seemed like a ‘great idea,’ let him try it first (Famous last words: “Hey ya’ll, watch this!”).
Apparently, understanding both the threat of physical violence, and the knowledge of how to engage in physical confrontation, is being lost.
This is what social scientists are calling the “iGen,’’ meaning this generation that has grown up in an era of small families, protective parents, padded playgrounds, knee pads and helmets, “nerf” balls and bats, and, of course, computer simulated games rather than getting out and actually driving a go-kart over a homemade course laid out through streets and woods, complete with ramps and jumps and hair-pin turns and wipe-outs.
According to an article I was reading, these kids grew up being told safety was a priority. A study done by Dr. Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, reports fewer kids today (as compared to those from the early 2000s) liked to take risks or got a thrill out of doing something dangerous. The number was something close to double that of the previous survey/study that say they don't get a thrill out of taking a chance.
The good news, according to Dr. Twenge, is that fewer kids today get into automobile accidents, fistfights, engage in binge-drinking, or “sneak out” to do things they know their parents (or authority figure) would not approve.
So with physical safety apparently taken care of, what’s left?
Emotional safety. Words that hurt. Verbal altercations that cause one to become anxious or feeling unsettled.
As a 19-year-old told Dr. Twenge (who wrote a book called “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood”), “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety. You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.”
When I was in college, we loved hearing “radical” speakers, who we disagreed with, that we could argue with and test our fledgling ability to make an argument and prove a point.
Today, if you read the headlines, you see where college kids want nothing to do with hearing from people who might upset them. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, campus “disinvites” have risen steadily, “reaching an all-time high of 42 in 2016, up from just six in 2000.” In a survey of freshmen college students in 2015, 43 percent agreed that campuses should be able to ban speakers who might have “extreme or unsettling ideas."
And when controversy does come up, students want a ‘safe space’ where they can go if they feel upset, to calm down with coloring books or some similar "comfort" activity from their childhood. This is a generation that grew up with the "reset" button - that button on the side of the game console where, if you found yourself behind by too much, you could hit 'reset' and the game started over. You didn't lose. You just got to start again.
While older generations of college students thought college administrators were out of touch and clueless, and the less we had to do with them the better, today’s students want – no, expect – the college administration to settle disputes, create a “safe” environment because, as one student said, “It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students … It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! It is about creating a home here!”
Get that? They expect adults to take care of them.
They are in college to be prepared to make money (and avoid being on the wrong-end of that dreaded “income inequality”), and don’t want to be disturbed with challenging thoughts and new ideas.
And so we find this generation heading straight into George Orwell’s “1984,” where they actually want “Big Brother” watching over them, monitoring their words (social media?), conforming everyone to the same “group-think,” not trusting their peers to govern them and certainly not believing that the great masses are capable of appropriate government.
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness,’’ Orwell wrote. “And for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
Is “1984” even required reading anymore? Or “Animal Farm?”
When I first read those books, I understood Animal Farm to be an indictment of Communism, or the Soviet Union’s version of Communism, anyway. But as for 1984 – I couldn’t imagine a time like that described by Orwell (writing back in the late 1940s).
Who would want to be watched that closely? Well, that was before YouTube and twitter.
Who would want to have their words not only parsed but then broadcast world wide for everyone - including strangers - to read? That was before facebook.
So now I fear I'm seeing 1984 come true, not by force of some totalitarian government but by the willingness of the people (the 'proles'?), from kids who want protection over taking risks, emotional security over maturity, and who are more comfortable dealing with the programmed artificial intelligence on a hand-held device than the unpredictable, often irrational, frequently upsetting views of their fellow human beings.
Maybe what they all need is just an old-fashioned fist-fight, to understand you can hurt people physically and be hurt, and survive. And learn that hearing unpleasant words hurts a lot less than getting whacked in the gut with a stick.
Heck, they might even get up from the grappling with a new appreciation for the other person; maybe even become "friends." (Even, as I heard one young athlete once say about another athlete from a different team, "We're friends that don't like each other very much.")
I'm not advocating that we all go start a brawl, like a bunch of Irishmen in a pub (think the ending of "The Quiet Man'). But I am saying maybe we need to put the coloring books aside and have a little old fashioned, unpredictable, unsafe, even dangerous human interaction.
Heck, some of us think that's kind of what makes life fun.
In high school, I had a brief three-bout run in the Boys’ Club Golden Gloves Program. After college, I stumbled into the early world of PKA Karate and for a couple of years competed routinely in tournaments around the Southeast.
Playing sports, I understood what it meant to get physically whipped. I can remember playing against guys that I knew were just better than I was; guys who I knew could hurt me – and probably wanted to.
There were fights in my high school. We called them “gang fights,’’ but we were pretty much suburban white kids, and the conflict was usually between the groups we referred to as the “socialites” and the “hoods.” Back in the day, we had shop classes in our high school, and I remember one episode where a fight was supposed to be staged in a lower parking lot, behind the building where the shop classes were held. That’s only important because in drafting class, we had something called “T-squares,’’ which came in handy in a fight involving multiple people because you could sometimes come up behind some unsuspecting combatant and hook them in various places, causing a lot of pain.
I’ve been hit with bare fists, padded fists, kicked, and even had a guy take a swing at me with a 2x4 one time (he missed, fortunately). I’ve swung from iron monkey bars and busted the back of my head; tried to climb a tree only to lose my grip and slide down, the bark pulling up my shirt and turning my stomach and chest into bloody rivulets; gone head-over-the handle bars of my bike when I was not wearing a helmet (I didn't own one or know anyone who did); ridden a skateboard downhill on asphalt with no knee pads or helmet (again, because we didn't have any) and, unable to stop, turned into the curb, throwing me head-first into prickly bushes; once went diving into a pile of leaves, unaware that the leaves were piled around a fire plug … in other words, done a lot of stupid stuff that kids of my generation did. We played “Army,’’ and one day decided since we couldn’t figure out how to determine who had actually been shot used B-B guns, because that would leave a mark (boy, did it; fortunately, that was a one-time thing and no one lost an eye).
All of that is not to suggest that I’m a fighter (I’m definitely not), or I’m tough (again, I’m not), and surely it won’t be read as if I’m bragging (there was nothing worth bragging about).
The point is that, like a lot of people of my generation and certainly those generations older than me, we grew up understanding the threat of physical violence, of getting hurt. Not to the level of some places and some people. The point is, I knew I could get hit, it would hurt, but I’d be OK; I learned it was better to not get hit if possible; I figured out that verbal insults were much preferred over having a guy swing a 2x4 at your head with the intent to do bodily harm; and whenever a buddy had what seemed like a ‘great idea,’ let him try it first (Famous last words: “Hey ya’ll, watch this!”).
Apparently, understanding both the threat of physical violence, and the knowledge of how to engage in physical confrontation, is being lost.
This is what social scientists are calling the “iGen,’’ meaning this generation that has grown up in an era of small families, protective parents, padded playgrounds, knee pads and helmets, “nerf” balls and bats, and, of course, computer simulated games rather than getting out and actually driving a go-kart over a homemade course laid out through streets and woods, complete with ramps and jumps and hair-pin turns and wipe-outs.
According to an article I was reading, these kids grew up being told safety was a priority. A study done by Dr. Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, reports fewer kids today (as compared to those from the early 2000s) liked to take risks or got a thrill out of doing something dangerous. The number was something close to double that of the previous survey/study that say they don't get a thrill out of taking a chance.
The good news, according to Dr. Twenge, is that fewer kids today get into automobile accidents, fistfights, engage in binge-drinking, or “sneak out” to do things they know their parents (or authority figure) would not approve.
So with physical safety apparently taken care of, what’s left?
Emotional safety. Words that hurt. Verbal altercations that cause one to become anxious or feeling unsettled.
As a 19-year-old told Dr. Twenge (who wrote a book called “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood”), “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety. You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.”
When I was in college, we loved hearing “radical” speakers, who we disagreed with, that we could argue with and test our fledgling ability to make an argument and prove a point.
Today, if you read the headlines, you see where college kids want nothing to do with hearing from people who might upset them. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, campus “disinvites” have risen steadily, “reaching an all-time high of 42 in 2016, up from just six in 2000.” In a survey of freshmen college students in 2015, 43 percent agreed that campuses should be able to ban speakers who might have “extreme or unsettling ideas."
And when controversy does come up, students want a ‘safe space’ where they can go if they feel upset, to calm down with coloring books or some similar "comfort" activity from their childhood. This is a generation that grew up with the "reset" button - that button on the side of the game console where, if you found yourself behind by too much, you could hit 'reset' and the game started over. You didn't lose. You just got to start again.
While older generations of college students thought college administrators were out of touch and clueless, and the less we had to do with them the better, today’s students want – no, expect – the college administration to settle disputes, create a “safe” environment because, as one student said, “It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students … It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! It is about creating a home here!”
Get that? They expect adults to take care of them.
They are in college to be prepared to make money (and avoid being on the wrong-end of that dreaded “income inequality”), and don’t want to be disturbed with challenging thoughts and new ideas.
And so we find this generation heading straight into George Orwell’s “1984,” where they actually want “Big Brother” watching over them, monitoring their words (social media?), conforming everyone to the same “group-think,” not trusting their peers to govern them and certainly not believing that the great masses are capable of appropriate government.
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness,’’ Orwell wrote. “And for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
Is “1984” even required reading anymore? Or “Animal Farm?”
When I first read those books, I understood Animal Farm to be an indictment of Communism, or the Soviet Union’s version of Communism, anyway. But as for 1984 – I couldn’t imagine a time like that described by Orwell (writing back in the late 1940s).
Who would want to be watched that closely? Well, that was before YouTube and twitter.
Who would want to have their words not only parsed but then broadcast world wide for everyone - including strangers - to read? That was before facebook.
So now I fear I'm seeing 1984 come true, not by force of some totalitarian government but by the willingness of the people (the 'proles'?), from kids who want protection over taking risks, emotional security over maturity, and who are more comfortable dealing with the programmed artificial intelligence on a hand-held device than the unpredictable, often irrational, frequently upsetting views of their fellow human beings.
Maybe what they all need is just an old-fashioned fist-fight, to understand you can hurt people physically and be hurt, and survive. And learn that hearing unpleasant words hurts a lot less than getting whacked in the gut with a stick.
Heck, they might even get up from the grappling with a new appreciation for the other person; maybe even become "friends." (Even, as I heard one young athlete once say about another athlete from a different team, "We're friends that don't like each other very much.")
I'm not advocating that we all go start a brawl, like a bunch of Irishmen in a pub (think the ending of "The Quiet Man'). But I am saying maybe we need to put the coloring books aside and have a little old fashioned, unpredictable, unsafe, even dangerous human interaction.
Heck, some of us think that's kind of what makes life fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)