Experiencing God (Pt. II)

(Part I is here.)

This is an early Sunday post because Sunday we’ll be on vacation and not posting. Lord willing we’ll be at church with my uncle in Santa Barbara for, as he says, “another day in paradise.” Then we’ll be heading to the Reagan library.

(Hmmm, that quotation at the head of the Reagan library page might fit in here…. And now, back to early Sunday, i.e. a sermon reflection.)

Last Sunday was a continuation in Habakkuk. The message, When God is Silent, was about waiting. The pastor introduced his topic by relating a recent waiting experience he had. He had waited at the airport. And waited. And waited. And waited. Twelve, yes 12, hours later he left on his flight…. (Lord, please, not our flight tomorrow.)

Habakkuk had questions about injustice, and he waited to hear, to understand. He saw the law paralyzed and justice perverted (1:4).

God’s answer for the wickedness of one nation (Judah) was for another wicked nation (Chaldeans) to destroy it. But doesn’t that leave Habakkuk’s question?

I mean, having the wicked destroyed by the wicked is fine, but what about the righteous? Don’t they suffer regardless? How can this be for a Holy God?

Well, the answer seems to be: wait. Hmmm. Habakkuk was determined to wait and hear (2:1), and waiting seems to be God’s answer…. The just live by faith–you know, that stuff of things hoped for. (2:4) Apparently the faithful don’t live by the righteousness of nations, of law fulfilled.

But I’m struck by a couple of things. First, the prophecy of destruction by the Chaldeans was written so “he may run who reads it.” (ESV) (Now it appears that this may be read a couple of ways, a messenger running, or, as I’m running with it, one who hears the message and runs.) It seems the righteous live by running as well as by faith, or at least they stay alive by running in faith from the coming judgment on Judah. Nothing seems wrong there. I don’t see that running and living by faith are exclusive. I don’t see anything wicked in running for the hills…. but running seems to be more than waiting.

Second, the bottom line is the life by faith. Running and avoiding injustice and suffering is practical, but running doesn’t restore anything, and living in the hills doesn’t seem like a good way to live. And it seems that no matter how much running we do, we can’t avoid all suffering.

So while the wicked get fat living on unjust gain (1:16, 2:9) and trust in idols (2:18-19), the righteous wait to hear, are silent before the Lord. Vengeance is the Lord’s.

Of course, as the pastor noted, through our suffering and waiting, God works. In suffering we do run for the hills, for there is our strength, He is our Rock, and in Him we are lifted up and restored. And in suffering we are taught not to trust in idols but to “rejoice in the Lord.” (3:18 )

There is violence in the world, within nations by perverted laws, and by wicked nations against each other, but the problem of violence is not solved without a reverence for God. (2:20) The unjust are filled with shame and crooked souls, but the just live by faith. (2:4, 16)

Carter Wore a Sweater (Pt. II)

Ronald Reagan always wore a suit.

Reagan was different. Carter described the difference. Carter said, “I believe in peace, I believe in arms control, I believe in controlling nuclear weapons. . . . In all these Governor Reagan is different from me.”

Reagan thought an arms race was the one card missing from the negotiations with the Soviet Union. He was said to be a warmonger. Reagan was different. He was change.

Reagan had a vision, too; he was anticommunist and bullish on America. Reagan asked, what’s wrong with a strong America? He called the Soviet Union an evil empire. In Berlin, Reagan said, “Bring down this wall!” He got the job done.

Reagan wore a suit, if not a tuxedo.

But Carter didn’t think patriotism would help in negotiating with the Soviet Union. He worried how the world would see the U.S. We’d be seen as warmongers if the Senate rejected the treaty he’d negotiated with the Brezhnev.

Yet Carter could be patriotic. He called for patriotism as he addressed the energy crisis. This was the “moral equivalent of war.”

Carter wore a sweater.

Jimmy Carter Wore a Sweater (Pt. I)

Jimmy Carter wore a sweater. He asked Americans to turn down the thermostat in winter and up in summer. Jimmy Carter made us drive 55.

Jimmy Carter not only had a vision for addressing the energy crisis, he also had a vision for peace. Jimmy Carter was willing to talk to Sadat and Begin. He’s a diplomat. He talks to anyone. And he was for change, for restoring trust in government.

Some of this sounds familiar. You know, energy crisis and 55mph sound familiar. Diplomacy and talking to anyone sounds familiar. Even Anwar sounds familiar.

On the other hand, some things don’t sound the same today as they did then. When Jimmy Carter ran for office, his Christianity wasn’t questioned. His middle name wasn’t used for political purposes. And I don’t remember flip flopping in the campaign. He had something to do with peanuts too, but that business stuff is probably not relevant.

But I do remember, Jimmy Carter wore a sweater.

Challenge to the Seven

The poll says seven–yes seven–people think patriotism is not a substantive issue.

Well, I suppose that says it all and I shouldn’t look for comments. I, however, am curious. Any comments from the seven?

Hey, even if you only say that there’s nothing to say about an unsubstantial subject, say it….

On the Gun Front

1. Heller Rally in Chicago. Nice pics here

2. Oh, and Illinois generally likes bureaucracy and licenses rather than free people. When stationed there, I was told I needed to have a license for a muzzleloading blackpowder rifle…. oh good grief. Today, the bureaucratic solution is call boxes, like ones frequently seen on gun-free college campuses. Oh, but see the bureaucracy at work in Illinois rest stop here.

3. Via VCDL, No. 1 registrant in D.C.: Amy says, “I went downtown yesterday with my revolver in a blue grocery bag and managed to walk right past the press…I didn’t fit the profile!”

4. From Glock bro’ Steve via email: FRONTLINE MISSIONARIES ATTACKED and shoot back!

Patriotic Expression and Visionary Cheerleading

Oh, we’re not all agreed? Some don’t see any substance to patriotism, or at least not as an election issue. And others see substance, but they may be like Tim who questions how patriotism should be expressed.

Okay, let’s say the President should be patriotic. It seems many people, even on the left, don’t want to deny the President should be patriotic, or don’t want the President to deny that he’s a patriot. But then what?

Following Tim’s lead (who commented on the previous post), we can ask, how should he express it? What is satisfactory expression of one’s patriotism? And what’s the standard for judging this? Does wearing a little flag pin count? Does a Glenn-Beck-show-size flag prove it? How many “patriotism points” is enough? Does questioning the patriotism of one’s opponent prove it? Oh, wait … have I blundered?

Everybody knows that questioning another’s patriotism, asking for proof, is poor form. Lurking in the background is that saying. You know, it is said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” as though discussion of patriotism is for muckraking scoundrels. As Obama said, talk of someone’s patriotism “poisons” debate.

Why not talk substance? Isn’t that what started the questions about Obama? You know, he said he chose to show his “true patriotism” by speaking out about national security rather than with “that pin.” (And then Time reported he decided it wasn’t an either-or question and began wearing that pin. )

Obviously wearing pins doesn’t solve anything. It certainly wouldn’t lower gas prices. And what kind of person would prefer to have everyone wearing “that pin” than have lower gas prices?

And, yes, were I in some kind of place in which everyone wore the uniform of the pin, I might have reason to be concerned. After all, totalitarians enforce uniformity. Hitler enforced patriotism. He was a great cheerleader with a 1,000 year vision for Germany….

Is patriotism akin to national socialism? is it something to be avoided?

An American might wonder if liberals or “progressives” don’t see patriotism as something to be avoided because of an association of patriotism with nationalism. Over at the WP, E. J. Dionne Jr. felt a need to issue the warning that “progressives should not assume that patriotism is somehow a bad thing, akin to jingoism or nationalism.” He continued, “The reaction of too many progressives to patriotism is ‘automatic, allergic recoil,’ say two young ["progressive"] Seattle writers, Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, in their important book The True Patriot.”

A less friendly observation about progressives and patriotism came from Jonah Goldberg. He referred to The Nation’s characterization of Americans as less than flattering. (You can find a response here with a third party rejoinder here and a dialog here.) And that reference to The Nation reminds me….

After the first Gulf War, The Nation had a symposium on patriotism. They recognized the left had a problem with patriotism–not that the left isn’t patriotic. And the numerous authors wrote short pieces on what patriotism meant to them. They tended, like the editor, to cite Nietzsche, and Marx, while sounding like Obama … but I suppose that’s another post.

So who is caricaturing whom? Are the liberals, progressives, leftists, etc. unpatriotic and allergic to the flag? Are conservatives somehow like national socialists? Is there a “real patriotism”? Does the left really have trouble defining patriotism? Is there something wrong with Webster’s definition?

Patriotism

As you’ve probably read here, Sweetie and I enjoyed Glenn Beck’s show this past week. Part of it included Glenn mocking the politicians who dress like hunters and try to sound like they’re not inside the beltway.

Glenn dressed the part. He wore cargo pants, twill shirt, a shooting vest, and orange hat. And he had 5″ by 7″ or so flag on his vest. As he ended his mocking shtick, he said that were he running he would not wear a silly little flag—but have a much bigger one. And with that a giant flag descended. We all loved it.

So what’s the flag problem? Is there a substantive problem? Or is this merely the fluff of ruffled partisan feathers? Well, I’m as easily ruffled as the next person, but I think there is some substance. So I said yes in poll below. What do you think? Is the patriotism of a candidate a substantive issue this election? in any election?

Experiencing God

Hey all, have a blessed Lord’s day. And here’s a little reflection from one who’s been, well, wondering and waiting.

The last two sermons at church have been from Habakkuk. Last week’s was from chapter 1.

2O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not hear?
Or cry to you “Violence!”
and you will not save?
3Why do you make me see iniquity,
and why do you idly look at wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.
4 So the law is paralyzed,
and justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
so justice goes forth perverted.

Part of the sermon addressed an argument about the presence of evil. It went something like this: If God is omnipotent then He can destroy evil, but there is evil. So, God must not be good. And if God is good then He would destroy evil, but there is evil. So He must not be omnipotent.

It seems to me that the concern about evil and perverted justice, and the argument itself even, reflects common experience–of believers and unbelievers. And while the faithful can say that God is good and that evil will be destroyed, are unbelievers justly dubious of God’s goodness and omnipotence? is that rational? Shouldn’t common experience with our own evil and weakness leave us all with the fear of judgment by a holy God? Doesn’t anyone making an argument about the existence of evil concede a knowledge of it?

Thank God we experience his grace rather than his immediate judgment.

Greetings

… thank you to all my well-wishers….