Jimmy Carter Wore a Sweater (Pt. III)

Jimmy Carter wore are sweater; but Ronald Reagan wore a suit.

Jimmy Carter wanted to say “wicked” and “sin” to the American People but had doubts and thought he might be misunderstood; Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire and didn’t blink at Reykjavik.

Jimmy Carter believed in the strength of noble ideas and had a “preference for … societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights” but didn’t want to intimidate anyone. He wanted to wage an “honorable” war “against poverty, ignorance, and injustice.”

Ronald Reagan thought a fragile democracy should be well-defended and fought the injustice of the Communists and those who “regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives … would trade our freedom for security.”

It seems that the pilgrim Jimmy Carter focused on man the sinner, but the pilgrim Reagan, as Margaret Thatcher said, addressed “the better angels of our nature.”

It seems they had different answers to the question, “what is man”?

Man is insignificant to God, and lower than angels but more than the sparrows…. According to Psalm 82 “I have said, ye are gods.” We are judges; we make choices. We are to judge justly. Are not the “better angels of our nature” those who “do justice to the afflicted and needy” and deliver them “out of the hand of the wicked”? (And see John 10:34) This suggests not only a “war” on poverty, but on the wicked that oppress….

I wonder. Did Carter’s idea of humility make him doubt strength? I doubt that Carter was right in merely preferring freedom and doubting the goodness of a free America. Certainly strength shouldn’t be limited just to limit strength. Must the defense of human rights be done only by the example of the weak? Is it wrong for the righteous to intimidate the wicked and prevent oppression? Is it wrong to judge people as righteous or wicked? And if righteousness exalteth a nation, does it also keep it from being strong? Is it not rather that the righteous are “strengthened” by “righteousness”? Should not the righteous count the cost and prepare to defend the oppressed? to face the wicked? Are not the prepared stronger than the unprepared?

I think Carter was a sincere humanitarian with a preference for freedom but doubted the goodness of righteous strength, or at least the goodness of using American strength. Reagan had the faith not to trade freedom for security.

I don’t think Carter was comfortable as Commander in Chief. Carter was comfortable in his sweater.

Reagan and Carter as Pilgrims

Ronald Reagan called for an “informed patriotism” and called for a reinstitutionalized spirit in his Farewell address (bottom of page). He said the “new patriotism” and spirit needs to be grounded in “thoughtfulness and knowledge.” Informed patriots would remember and teach American democratic values about freedom. They would teach about why the pilgrims came here and about John Winthrop. They would know how special America is, and that freedom needs protection. Reagan said that we need to teach “very directly,” as he had been taught, “what it means to be an American.”

But this produces questions. If, for example, those over 35 like him had been taught “what it means to be an American,” why wasn’t Jimmy Carter like him? Did Jimmy Carter and others over 35 have a common understanding of “what it means to be an American”? Or did Carter and Reagan have competing visions of “what it means to be American”?

Why not call Jimmy Carter a “freedom man” or a “pilgrim”? He made human rights the center piece of his administration and consider his social justice work with Habitat for Humanity after he left office. And on the other hand, consider Ronald Reagan’s epitaph, “I know in my heart that man is good. . . .” That statement doesn’t sound like a pilgrim who would have known Psalm 14: 2-3:

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

and Matthew 19:16-17:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

and Romans 3:11-12:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

So what do you think? Who do you think was more informed about pilgrims? About freedom and justice in the world? About the problem of injustice and the innocent suffering at the hands of the wicked men and nations raised in Habakkuk?

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)

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.