Tag: politics

To Canonize or Demonize

To Canonize or Demonize

About nine or ten years ago, I remember slowly making my way through the second season of the F/X series Fargo, when I was shocked by something one of the characters was looking at in Episode 8.

There is much to be shocked by in this series, but it wasn’t the spontaneous murdering, unexpected twists, or random alien spacecraft that caused me to rewind and hit pause. It was a sign hanging on the brick wall outside of a bar – a plaque that said, “HERE WERE HANGED 22 SIOUX INDIANS MAY 25th 1882.” The character looking at the plaque is Native American, so it’s a subtle tie-in to his story arc.

Fargo is a very well written series, for the most part, in terms of anthological crime dramas. But one of the things about it that has always bugged me a little, is the opening claim that “THIS IS A TRUE STORY.”

As it turns out, none of the stories are true – at least, not in any way that can be corroborated. They’re not even “based on” true stories. They are entirely fictitious. And more than that, even actual historical references are often made up. I don’t know why the show writers and runners make this claim, but I think it has something to do with the idea that it adds dramatic weight to the stories – for people who don’t care to check. And for people who do care, the show gives them something interesting to research. I don’t know though. Either way, the “true story” claim always bothered me a little. But being aware of the gimmick, I was able to look past it. After all, there’s been plenty of other shows and movies during the last decade that have made use of the whole “alternate history,” “multiple universes,” trope.

In any case, being the student of history that I am, I couldn’t let the zoom-in on this plaque about Native Americans being hung in 1882 pass by without some research. So I was immediately on a mission to find out if this was true, as I had never heard about it.

And the truth that I ran into, as I did my Google searches and subsequent article reading, was actually more shocking than the fictionalized plaque in the television show.

As far as I was able to discover, the closest, real historical event, to the one referenced in the show, was the hanging of 38 Sioux men in southern Minnesota, in 1862, on the orders of Abraham Lincoln. The executions took place at the end of the Dakota War, also known as the Sioux Uprising – which was a rebellion that occurred after decades of unjust treatment, false treaties, and systematic starvation at the hands of the United States military.

I don’t know if this is what the writers of Fargo wanted me to discover while researching their bogus history, but that’s what I found. 

Unfortunately, none of the Native American persecution I read about was surprising.

The surprising part was seeing Abraham Lincoln’s name attached to the story as the overseer of the executions. 

It was an unexpected blow to my image of a man whose reputation for truth, justice, honor, dignity, and sacrifice, had been carefully crafted by an unknown number of lessons, by many trusted teachers, scattered throughout my childhood, and into early adulthood. 

I was every bit as shocked and upset as Luke Skywalker, when he found out that his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi had withheld the truth from him – the full, gut-wrenching truth, that Darth Vader was his father. “Ben, why didn’t you tell me!?” – Insert the names of my elementary teachers in place of Ben, and that’s what I was whispering in my mind for days. “Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Sowers, Mr. Clunie, Dr. Damron… why didn’t you tell me?”

Every time I see an opportunity to interject a Star Wars metaphor, I can’t resist.

Well, anyway, that’s the way reality is – much more complicated than we realize most of the time, and even more so with historical events. Even this situation with Lincoln and the hangings is much more complicated than what I’ve just now said about it. So I’ll come back to that in a moment. 

But for now, I want to talk about Donald Trump.

Those who know me well, have heard me say, on more than one occasion, that I’m not really into politics.

I never really have been.

My parents weren’t into politics, and neither were my grandparents – at least not in any way that was noticeable.

So, maybe that’s why I grew up, not really caring about it all that much. I was usually aware of what was going on, and I know my family members, parents and grandparents included, had their opinions. But it was never something that dominated our interactions, or influenced our conversations in any way. It was just something going on in the background, behind other things that were more important – like Church, and family, and school. That’s just the way it was in our family.

So, back in 2015, when I first heard that Donald Trump was running for President of the United States, I remember having two thoughts, one right after the other…

First thought: It’s some kind of joke. 

Second thought: It makes sense. 

I was pretty convinced, by 2015, that our political system is basically an elaborate game that rich people get to play, and since Donald Trump’s name had been (in my mind) associated with money and the Monopoly Man, since I was a kid – it made sense that he would try getting into the politics game.

I honestly didn’t see him as being fundamentally different than anyone else running for President on either side.

Sure, he was different in terms of his loud, obnoxious tone, his rude rhetoric, juvenile name calling, and reputation for licentious language and behavior.

That makes his outward persona a lot different.

But I didn’t think he was really going to be any different indoors, in terms of how presidents act and operate the Executive Branch. I thought he was just putting on a show to get attention, because getting attention is how people win elections. 

A lot of people probably think I’m an idiot for thinking that, but I’m just being honest.

I confess…. sincerely…

…that in 2015…

I was truly more concerned, with whether or not the old Muppet Babies cartoons were going to be released on DVD or Blu-ray, than about what Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were saying in the news.

And then he won the election. 

And then….

I had to… 

::::with a heavy, decade long sigh::::

…begin forming an actual opinion about what I thought.

Part of being a minister, in my opinion, is noticing how people react to things.

Another part of being a minister, is watching other people react to things, without reacting to things yourself. Or at least taking some time, and thinking and praying through what your reaction is going to be.

The fact that I had never really felt personally invested in politics helped me a great deal in this regard, when it came to formulating an opinion and reaction to Trump – both 1.0 and 2.0.

I’m not saying that I’ve never been aware, or that I didn’t care at all, or that I was uninformed, or even that my life wasn’t affected by political decisions.

I was aware, I was informed, I did care (a little bit), and I know that my life has been affected.

If Obama hadn’t done what he did for health care in our country I would have died without insurance and proper medical care when I was in my mid-30s.

That’s a fact.

That Obama was also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women, and children, in covert drone strikes is also a fact. The only dispute is how many hundreds. 

The point is, these conversations are complicated, multi-faceted, and can be very emotionally triggering for a lot of people.

I’m not above being emotionally triggered. But I have had a lot of practice in being disciplined about my reactions.

The Trump-Biden Era (if we can call it that) has caused a level of division across our society that is reality bending.

I mean that quite literally.

There are people in our country, in our workplaces, in our schools, in our churches, and in our families, who are all seeing the same things, and perceiving two (or sometimes more than two) very different realities. 

These two realities seem to hinge on a single conclusion-making rubric for a lot of people.

Whether we’re talking about Trump, Biden, Harris, Obama, Musk, or really anyone else, at any level, including the neighbor with a sign on their lawn – the process of coming to a conclusion about any given issue or set of circumstances, seems to begin and end, with the labeling of everything someone says and does – and everyone who supports anything they say or do – as being worthy of DEMONIZATION or CANONIZATION. 

What I mean is… for too many people, it often sounds like the last ten years, our country has either been run by Satan, or it’s been run by Jesus, depending on who was President, and how someone defines Jesus and Satan in their personal, culturally defined, theology.

I say “culturally defined,” because that’s what most of it is – as opposed to biblically defined theology. This manifests in a tendency, by both sides, to attach definitive labels of either glorification or damnation (to use biblical language) to the people they support or condemn. 

I’m not judging anyone for this. I’ve found myself being tempted to do the same at times. But I think we can do better. It’s lazy to just slap a Jesus or Satan sticker on everything and call it a term. It’s harder to actually dig deeper into issues, with an open mind. 

And look, here’s the deal – after looking at, thinking about, scrutinizing, and researching, it may be possible to come to the conclusion, in good faith, that everything a political figure has said and done is either all evil, or all good. That may be possible. I think that’s rarely the case, but it is a possibility. 

Regardless, what I’m asking here, and what I’m hoping for – is that, even if you come to one of those two conclusions – that Trump is either Satan or Jesus – everyone will stop short of applying the same judgment to the people who voted for and/or support him (or any other candidate/official that you think is Satan – or Jesus).

Nothing good, wholesome, constructive, or redemptive, is going to come from aiming rhetoric and vitriol at those who voted for a particular person. Say what you want to about the official in office, or running for office, and whatever they are doing – that’s fine, that’s what they signed up for – judgment by the electorate.

But your neighbor across the street, your cousin at Easter dinner, your barber, your doctor, your granny, the person sitting on the other end of your pew, the person praying with you at church on Wednesday night, the clerk at Dollar General who helped you carry the enormous sack of dogfood to the car, and the nurse who will wipe your butt without complaining when you’re in the hospital, are all just people with different opinions. And their opinions might be different than yours, but they are still worthy of respect – as human beings created in God’s image. 

But opinions are being bought and sold for pennies on the dollar these days. 

There are numerous combinations of sources that contribute, individually, to how every person consumes information and form their opinions. 

There’s legacy media, independent journalists, cable news, network news, Instagram and Facebook reels, podcast interviews, newspapers and magazines (mostly online now), links that people you know send to you, and probably a few dozen YouTube channels (and growing) that are at the professional level with millions of regular viewers. -And thousands of smaller channels as well that people watch.

And there is also “THE ALGORITHM.”

“THE ALGORITHM,” which is more and more being run entirely by artificial intelligence programs, (i.e. not actual human beings) is what DECIDES which stories, videos, posts, links, and opinions appear in every individual’s “FEED.”

For example, if (for some hypothetical reason) you one day find yourself watching episodes of Mork and Mindy on YouTube – your viewing of said late 70s early 80s sitcom will be duly noted, and the next time you open your YouTube feed, you will have more episodes of Mork and Mindy waiting for you. And if you watch a few more of those, then that will be duly noted as well, and the next time you open YouTube, you will be presented with similar shows like Happy Days or Laverne and Shirley.

In other words, “THE ALGORITHM” will attempt to fill your “FEED” with things that it thinks you want to see, while gradually filtering out, things which it thinks you don’t want to see. 

Facebook works the same way. Whatever you watch, click, or comment on, will dictate more of what you are presented with.

“THE ALGORITHM” keeps track of everything – what you’re clicking on, what you’re buying from Amazon, whose profile you looked at, what post you gave a 👍 to, what post you gave a ❤️ to, what you got at Walmart yesterday (or a year ago), what music you downloaded, what you’re watching on Netflix, and which podcast you listened to while you were in the shower. It knows when you are sleeping. It knows when you’re awake. It knows if you’ve been bad or good, so… you know.

If you click on a story by Rachel Maddow, or a clip of the Tucker Carlson Show somehow, either intentionally, or by accident, “THE ALGORITHM” will also take THAT click into consideration.

The point is, every person’s individual clicks – whether intentional, or on a whim, in between cracking a few eggs into a skillet one morning, or when you’re waiting for a train to pass at your local railroad stop, or on a break at work, or even if it’s accidental while you’re sitting on the pot one afternoon – “THE ALGORITHM” will take note of it, and attempt to adjust and generate your “FEED,” accordingly.

And again, it will show you more and more of what it thinks you want to see. Over the past several years, this has created individualized, on demand news, for a lot of people. And it has all but destroyed objectivity in reporting.

What I’m saying is, the sources of information that everyone sees and hears – is – and will be, increasingly individual – because what every person clicks on is individual. No human being is standing over you, to see what you click on when you’re taking a dump on Monday morning. It’s just you… and God… and “THE ALGORITHM.”

There are computers watching you, ALL THE TIME.

Allow me to repeat and emphasize – They see EVERYTHING YOU ARE CLICKING ON.

And the people next door, or down the street, or in the pew next to you, may not be clicking on the same things, or seeing the same news sources that you are.

What I’m saying is, our passive exposure to information is chaotic, varied, and intentionally subjective.

Now this has obviously created, and will continue to create a lot of problems in our society. Think of the whole George Floyd issue… Everyone saw the same thing, but depending on what mixture of news sources you consumed afterwards – you interpreted what you saw one of two completely different ways. The same thing happens with EVERY OTHER STORY in the news now.

This is a big challenge for those of us in the Church. The Church is supposed to be a place of unity. Well, I know that went out the window centuries ago, but the plague of disunity is still very much virulent, and we don’t have to keep feeding it. We have to counteract it. And we can do so with humility, love, and grace. And by focusing our minds on the truth of Scripture.

So, please, have some grace for the people who don’t think the way you do, or agree with your opinions.

Try to see them as human beings, instead of pawns in the political machinery that you’re demonizing, and that you’re so angry about.

They are probably getting different information than you are.

And besides that, it’s all going to change one day.

Donald Trump I’m 100% sure, is not Jesus, (about 95% sure he isn’t Satan) and that means his administration will eventually end, and another one will take its place, and then another, and another, until the real Jesus comes back.

Those of us who claim to be followers of Christ should know all this, and we should have a perspective that is aligned with God’s eternal Kingdom. We have to rise above the politics of this world. We’re citizens of another Kingdom (Philippians 3:20); a Kingdom that is not of this world (John 18:36). We’re citizens of an eternal Kingdom that will still be standing, eons after all the kingdoms of this world have crumbled into dust.

It could all change tomorrow, or next week, or in four years.

But, eventually, it will all change. And the real Kingdom will come.

We should be acting like citizens of that Kingdom now. Our perspective should be eternal, rather than just temporal. And Scripture teaches us about what that kind of perspective looks like…

When the Apostle Paul was in a Roman prison, awaiting his imminent execution, he wrote a letter to his faithful protégé Timothy, urging him “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1st Timothy 2:1-4, NIV).

Paul, who was about to have his head removed by Roman authorities, asked Timothy to pray for them, rather than curse them. And Paul wasn’t the only Christian being persecuted by the authorities – the whole Church was being run to ground at the time.

That should tell us something about what our own attitudes should be toward those who are committing atrocities, and acting in ways that we think are unjust and destructive. Cursing them and theirs is not the attitude of Christ, and it doesn’t actually accomplish anything. The only people seeing your angry Facebook post (for the most part) are people that already agree with you. The people you’re trying to convince aren’t going to respond to your condescending condemnation of them, and most of them probably aren’t even seeing or hearing what you say and post. So try something else.

Try praying.

Praying is the most powerful thing we can do.

And finally, back now to Abraham Lincoln and the hanging of 38 Sioux men in 1862.

As I said earlier, the situation was more complicated than what a single pass over the surface of it can reveal, or what a single episode of a fictional television show could allude to.

Abraham Lincoln did sign off on the execution of those 38 Native Americans. But he only did so, after commuting the sentences of 265 other men who were condemned to die as well. The man was a lawyer at heart. He examined every case, looked into all the details, pardoned all those who were innocent of charges worthy of death, and affirmed the sentences of those who had committed the worst offenses – rape and murder of innocent people. Moreover, Lincoln did so against the advice of his fellow Republicans in Minnesota, who wanted all of them to hang to set an example.

Even so, there were still two innocent men that were executed by accident, due to language barriers, miscommunication, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Politics are messy.

Politics are complicated.

Politics are fickle.

And our perceptions are also messy, complicated, and fickle.

That’s why we need to have grace. 

That’s why we need to ask the Lord for grace and mercy, and justice, rather than condemnation, and damnation.

No government on Earth is perfectly righteous, because there are no human beings that are perfectly righteous. Only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous. His coming Kingdom is the only one that will be righteous. 

Right now, those of us who believe in him and his Kingdom, have to live like it’s real.

If we really believe his kingdom is real, we will follow his teachings, and his commands – like the command to, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?” (Matthew 5:44-46, NIV).

Love those who wouldn’t love you.

Love those who don’t think like you.

Love those who didn’t vote like you.

Love those who watch different news than you. 

And…

Not actually Abraham Lincoln ☝️

Love Your Enemies

FeaturedLove Your Enemies

Last week, we looked at a passage from Luke Chapter 14, where Jesus talked about the ‘Cost of Discipleship,’ – the willingness to let go of everything we have, everyone we know, and everything we care about – even our own lives – if our King should ever call upon us to do so.

This week, we’re going to focus on Luke 6:27-36.

These words of Jesus touch on one of the great pillars of God’s Kingdom – a cornerstone of the entire message of the whole Bible. It’s no exaggeration to say, that if we miss the message that Jesus gives us here in Luke 6:27-36, then we are missing the whole point of the Gospel itself.

Now, before we look at this passage in Luke, I want to go back to the Old Testament for a few moments, and talk a little about one of the more interesting characters we find there – a man, by the name of Jonah.

Now, many of us, when we think of Jonah, automatically associate him with the giant fish!

We think of Jonah and the fish, or Jonah and the whale, because we heard this story when we were still children, and to the mind of a child, that is the most memorable thing that happens in this story.

When I was a kid, it made me think of the story of Pinocchio.

And, actually, there are some overlapping themes between the story of Jonah and the fairytale of Pinocchio – both are about redemption and transformation for instance.

Pinocchio learns how to become a “real boy,” and Jonah learns how to become a “real man.”

And they both go through their transformation from one to the other while being swallowed by huge sea creatures.

So, I think – to any of us who heard both of those stories as children – it’s somewhat easy to blend them together in our memories, and maybe think of Jonah as being one of the stories in the Bible that is more for kids.

But the truth is, that Jonah’s story is really not a children’s story.

Not at all.

And the part where he gets swallowed by the fish is an important part of the book, but it’s not the most important thing that happens. The most important part of Jonah’s story, is not his encounter with the fish, but rather, his encounter with God.

And Jonah’s encounter with God was not a pleasant one.

Jonah’s relationship with God was not amicable or friendly – to say the least. In fact, the main emotion that Jonah expresses to God is ANGER.

He’s very angry at God.

Jonah had a very big problem with God, because God asked him to do something that was, in Jonah’s mind, completely unacceptable.

The story of Jonah happened at a complicated time in the history of Israel.

The Northern Kingdom of Israel had been dealing with foreign invasions for almost a century by then. And these invaders were from the Assyrian Empire, which today would be primarily in the countries of Iraq, Iran, and Syria. But the Assyrians were an exceedingly brutal people; their culture was built on two main principles: warfare, and building projects.

The Assyrians were constantly going to war in order to expand their empire, and plunder the people they defeated. And those they didn’t kill, they would turn into slaves, and take them back to Assyria so they could have slaves build their buildings and serve their people.

Whenever the Assyrians captured a city, they would mutilate anyone who resisted them. They would skin people alive, they would impale them on stakes and line the roads with them, they would pull their intestines out to use as burnt offerings, they would create huge piles in front of the city gates – one pile of enemy corpses, and another pile of all the heads they had decapitated from those corpses. And they didn’t just do this for the sake of being brutal – they considered it part of their religious duties – the mass murder and executions were how they made sacrifices to the demons they worshipped as gods. They were very meticulous and artistic about how they dismembered the bodies of their enemies, and who they chose to take as slaves.

That’s who the Assyrians were.

And they had been slowly making these kinds of invasions into the north of Israel for about a hundred years by the time Jonah came along, and by the time God asked Jonah to go to their capitol city, which was called Nineveh, and preach against all of their wickedness.

But Jonah had a very big problem with God asking him to go on this journey and do this.

And we might think it was because of fear; we might think Jonah was just afraid to go to Nineveh and preach against them because they would probably just kill him. But there’s really no indication in the story that Jonah was in the least bit afraid. He was not a fearful man.

He was an angry man. And the reason he had a problem with God telling him to go preach to the Assyrians of Nineveh was because HE HATED THEM.

They were the arch enemies of Jonah’s people. They had invaded his country, they had killed and enslaved his countrymen, and they were looming over Israel’s borders, so that they could continue doing these things, with no end in sight.

So, Jonah hated them.

And more than that, he believed his hatred of the Assyrians was absolutely justified.

And if we were in his shoes today, we would very likely feel the same way.

In fact, if you were to look on a map, and find where Nineveh is located – you would see the present-day city of Mosul in Iraq.

The ruins of Nineveh are right next to Mosul, and up until about a few years ago, Mosul was in ISIS occupied territory.

Of course, we’ve all heard about the atrocities of ISIS over the past decade. They’ve attempted to build their own country by conquest and bloodshed; they’ve killed and enslaved tens of thousands, they’ve carried out terrorist attacks across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, and have publically executed almost anyone who has opposed them – including many Christians – which are, of course, in the minority in that part of the world.

If God spoke to any of us, and told us to go preach the Gospel to ISIS – how would we feel about it?

It’s probably an understatement to say that we wouldn’t want to go – and if we decided to go anyway – the people who love us would do their best to convince us that we were making a big mistake.

Well Jonah, back in his day – was told, by God, to go preach to people that were not very much different from ISIS. And he said (basically), ‘No, God,’ I’m not going to do that.’

And then, he went down to the nearest port, and hopped on the first ship available, so that he could sail as far away as possible in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION of where God told him to go.

And like I said, he didn’t refuse to go because he was afraid of the Ninevites… he refused to go because HE HATED THEM.

You may remember what happens next.

God decides not to let him off the hook so easily, and sends a storm to keep him from sailing away – and so, Jonah, partly because he doesn’t want the other people on the boat to die because of his disobedience, and partly because he thinks he can escape God by different means – has himself thrown into the sea. But even that attempt to get out of the work God was asking him to do fails – as God sends the infamous giant fish to swallow him – and actually rescue him.

And it’s there, in the belly of the fish – in that terrible, unimaginable darkness – where he’s an inch away from death – that Jonah FINALLY has a heart to heart with God about his life, and about his responsibility as one of God’s chosen people – to take the light of God into a dark place.

God uses that place of suffering and darkness to get Jonah’s attention – and when Jonah is spewed back onto dry land again – he’s ready to head to Nineveh, and preach to the Assyrians like God told him to.

He’s changed his actions from disobedience to obedience,

But, as the story continues, we discover that his heart has not changed at all – he still harbors the same hatred in his heart.

His actions have changed because of God’s discipline, but his heart stays the same.

And when he preaches to the city of Nineveh, the people do repent of their sin and their evil, and they turn to God.

And Jonah responds to their repentance like this:

This is what is says in Jonah 4:1-3 –

“But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

This is the most successful revival on record in history – 120,000 people in Nineveh – repenting of their sin en masse – and turning to God. Jonah’s one of the most successful preachers in history. And he’s so mad at this, and so filled with hatred towards the people he’s preaching to, that he just wants God to kill him. He just wants God to end his life.

He’s had enough of God showing MERCY to his enemies.

So, as the story ends, Jonah and God have another little chat about Jonah’s attitude, and the condition of his heart, and then the story sort of abruptly ends.

And it ends with God asking a question.

And the question is directed towards Jonah – but the writer of the book, by ending it with a question – is saying that it’s really directed towards the reader.

This question is directed toward us.

And the question that God asks, is why shouldn’t I care about saving these people? These are people. They’re human beings. Why shouldn’t I care about them?

That’s what God asks.

And we might think of that question of God’s, as sort of hanging in the air like a dense fog for the next 700 years, until Jesus comes along, and clears all the fog away and says this – in Luke 6:27-36…

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

Powerful words, yes?

Difficult to read.

And even more difficult to actually follow.

Jesus was the revolutionary of all revolutionaries.

No one, as far as I know, had ever said something like this before him, and if there were those who said something like this, they didn’t believe it so thoroughly and completely as he did – and follow it all the way through to the point of being executed. This kind of idea is not popular – it’s never been popular.

It’s not popular today.

We live in a world that runs completely counter to this idea.

What do we hear?

We hear people telling us who to be angry with, who to accuse, who to argue with, who to blame – who to hate.

We turn on the news, and what do we see?

Our society does not know the concept of loving one’s enemies.

The world tells us to shout them down, give ‘em what for, take ‘em to the cleaners… and then it gives us a list to choose from – pick your group… pick the group of people you want to be angry with this week.

And, unfortunately, for many of us, it’s often easy to pick a whole group of people to look down on, and be angry with, because the horrible truth about all this – the reason that these words of Jesus can sometimes sting us so much – is that we have the hardest part, not with loving the enemies that are on the TV or far away somewhere else, but with loving the enemies that are right in front of us.

Yeah, it’s hard to love people that we blame for causing the big problems in our society – but, if we’re honest, it’s even harder to love the people THAT WE KNOW – who have hurt us in some way… or spoken bad about us… or ignored us. That’s the really hard part about what Jesus says.

It’s hard for me.

Believe me, I have plenty of people that I can’t stand to be around. None of you guys here… ok… but it’s all I can do – to ask God for enough grace to not be bitter and angry at some of the people that have hurt me in the past.

There are people who have lied to me, lied about me, told me that I had no business being a minister, told me I was a loser who wasn’t worth anything – people who turned their backs on me when I needed them the most; leaders in churches who ostracized me, and kicked me out of their “church” group, because I asked them questions they didn’t know how to answer – so they just got offended and told me I was a bastard.

It’s hard to forgive that. It’s much easier to feel the emotions of anger, than to feel the emotions of pain or heartache.

It’s difficult work to let Jesus take a knife, and carve out the places of our heart that have become calloused and overgrown with bitterness.

It hurts.

But he died so that he could do that work for us.

Paul says, it like this in Romans 5:6 and Romans 5:8

“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly….  

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

He’s saying, quite simply, that we were all, at one time, ENEMIES of God. And he still showed compassion on us anyway, by dying the way he did.

I’ll close this morning, with a brief historical anecdote.

This one happened in Northern Ireland, in November of 1987, when the Irish Republican Army bombed a small town called Enniskillen. If you’re not very familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland at that time, they were about 20 years into a 30-year conflict that was very messy, very violent, and, at the risk of oversimplifying things, was mainly caused by a mixture of disagreements surrounding politics and religion.

This was a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, Irish nationalists and British loyalists; the British Army against armed civilian terrorists.

And on November 8, 1987 the people of the town of Enniskillen were celebrating Remembrance Day – which is the British version of our Veteran’s Day.

It was a cold and dreary November day in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland. The town was quiet, with the sound of rain tapping against the windows of the local shops and houses. The streets were lined with colorful autumn leaves, creating a vibrant contrast against the gray skies above.

Despite the weather, the people of Enniskillen went about their daily routines. Some were out shopping for groceries, while others hurried to catch the bus to work. The town had a sense of resilience about it, a reminder of the turbulent history that had shaped this community.

As the day turned to evening, the lights of the town began to flicker on, casting a warm glow against the darkness outside. The smell of turf fires filled the air, adding a sense of coziness to the town’s atmosphere.

In a local pub, a group of friends gathered around a table, sharing stories and laughter over pints of Guinness. The sound of traditional Irish music filled the room, creating a lively and welcoming ambiance.

Despite the troubles that had plagued Northern Ireland for so long, the people of Enniskillen remained united in their resilience and sense of community. As the night went on, it was clear that this small town had a spirit that could not be dampened by any storm.

That’s when the IRA detonated a large bomb in the town square.

12 people died from that bomb, and many more were injured.

Among those caught in the blast was a man named Gordon Wilson, and his daughter Marie.

The blast did not kill them, but a building collapsed on them, and they were trapped in the rumble for several minutes waiting to be rescued.

Those minutes when they were waiting to be rescued, were the last minutes that Gordon would spend with his daughter.

He held her hand while she told him that she loved him, and then she lost consciousness and never woke up.

Within hours – hours after losing his daughter – Gordon was on BBC Television, lamenting the loss of his daughter, assuring those watching that she was a child of Christ, and he would see her again – AND – to the HORROR of many people listening to him, and discussing the tragedy on the News that day – he told those who had killed her, that he held no ill will against them, that he forgave them, and then he urged there to be no retaliation for the attack.

His words of forgiveness and grace were an earthquake that caused that entire conflict to begin crumbling.

He eventually met with the IRA leaders, publicly, and forgave them in person, and he later became a senator in Ireland, and helped to bring a final end to the 30 years of violence that had claimed his daughter.

Before all that happened, Gordon Wilson was a window treatment specialist – he made drapes for a living.

__________________________

Matthew 5:3-10:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Loving our enemies – forgiving those who have hurt us – does not mean that we excuse their bad behavior.

It does not mean that we have to entertain their foolishness, or their wickedness. It doesn’t mean we have to give them our trust.

IT DOES MEAN, that we have to see them as our fellow human beings who are just as much in need of God’s love and grace as we are.

And that love and grace MIGHT cause those people to change.

We hope that it does.

But that’s not our responsibility.

It’s not our job to change people.

It’s not our duty to turn people into better human beings – we can’t make other people forgive.

But we can choose to forgive them.

We can choose to ask God to change what’s in our hearts. And then, when our hearts have been changed by Him – then He can use us for something that will (as Maximus Decimus Meridius once put it) “echo into eternity.”

Enniskillen Memorial

Clear and Present Danger

Clear and Present Danger

I’ve been getting a little backed up on my movie watching lately. I know that doesn’t sound like much of a problem, and it’s really not—I’m just making a general observation, not a complaint. There are, of course, more serious things to be all backed up about; like actual work, or a busy schedule, or like that time in college when a guy in our dorm was dared to eat an entire block of Velveeta in one sitting—he was so backed up he had to go to the emergency room. I’m very fortunate to only be backed up on my movie watching time.

I only bring this up to explain why I’m now reviewing a movie that I didn’t even intend to watch this week. I actually intended to write something about a movie I watched last week, called Double Indemnity—and I’ll get back to it eventually, but a couple of nights ago I found myself randomly selecting a film that I haven’t seen since I was in high school: Clear and Present Danger. I’m still not sure what drew me into watching it again after so many years. As previously alluded to, I literally have a stack of movies and shows sitting on my desk that I’m intending to watch and eventually write about; Clear and Present Danger was not in this stack. Maybe I just needed a night of random spontaneity and this is what passes for living on the edge at age 39… or maybe it’s because I’ve been missing my mom recently, and this was one of her favorite movies—that probably has something to do with it.

Actually, this film was a favorite for both of my parents. They took my sister Emilie and I to see it in the theater when it came out, and it’s one of the movies that occupied a place of importance in their VHS collection. I never asked them why, but I was thinking about that when I watched it this time. I know they were both interested in the Jack Ryan films, and Harrison Ford was one of their favorite actors… but I couldn’t help thinking that there must be something more to why they loved this movie so much.

There are, as far as I know, five movies that center around the character of Jack Ryan, all of which are based on the books by Tom Clancy. In these five movies, the role of Jack Ryan has been played by four different actors: Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, and Captain James T. Kirk… I mean, Chris Pine. In the first movie with Alec Baldwin, The Hunt for Red October (1990), Ryan is more of a side character, but in the other four movies he’s the main dude. These movies are, in order of release: Patriot Games (1992), Clear and Present Danger (1994), The Sum of All Fears (2002), and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014). It can all be a little confusing due to the fact that in each movie Ryan gets younger and younger, while the technology and political arenas get more up to date. There’s a sort of adaptable mythology surrounding this character, which means he’s the kind of hero that can be updated and modified to fit with current events. He’s kind of like a Batman or Superman in the sense that different filmmakers can choose to emphasize different aspects of his story based on their own perspective, while keeping the general guidelines of the character intact from one iteration to the next. In all of these films, Ryan is basically, as best I can sum him up, an honest ‘boy scout’ working in the CIA. That pretty much makes him completely fictional as far as I can tell.

In the two Harrison Ford films Jack Ryan is older, in his early 50s, and well established in his career with the CIA. In Clear and Present Danger he’s the Deputy Director of Intelligence, reporting directly to the President. The plot of the movie is very well constructed. It’s essentially a spy movie, a political drama, a murder mystery, and an action flick, all well balanced and baked together just right to form the perfect casserole of 90s flavor. I think when I first saw it as a teenager I was disappointed that there wasn’t as much action, but when I watched it now, I had a much deeper appreciation for the various elements being woven together.

Just to give you the highlights— The President, the National Security Advisor, and the CIA Director of Operations—or as I like to think of them, George W., Don Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney—all decide to conduct a secret, covert war against the Columbian drug cartels. When things start to get out of hand, they decide to cut communications and support to their troops on the ground and give away their positions to the enemy — all to cover up what they’ve been doing. Jack Ryan is inadvertently thrown into the middle of this mess when his boss is overcome by cancer. The process of him picking up the pieces, gathering evidence, figuring out what’s been going on behind his back, and taking action is a slow build up to him eventually finding Willem Defoe (reprising his Oscar nominated role as Elias from Platoon) and flying into the Columbian jungle to rescue the abandoned troops. But the real icing on the cake, and the thing that gave me the chills this time around, is when Harrison Ford marches into the oval office at the very end, looks the President directly in the face and tells him he’s a bastard. This all may seem a bit overdramatic and passé to younger audiences today, but in the 1990s covert wars were still illegal… nowadays they’re a dime a dozen, and the President doesn’t have to cover them up—he can brag about them on Twitter—and a hundred thousand people cuss him out before he eats breakfast. But back in good ‘ol 1994, this was really something special that didn’t happen in real life.

Anyway, this all brings me back to surmising on what my parents found so interesting about this film. I guess I’ll have to ask my dad the next time I talk to him to get some more insight. Whatever the case may be, one thing’s for sure—It’s a great movie, there’s no doubt about that, and it has some important points to make about government, politics, and power. The overall impression that this story leaves me with—whether it was designed to do so or not—is the idea that the truth is a higher authority than the highest office in our land. And for the record, I don’t think this has changed. The truth is still the higher authority—and everyone still appeals to the truth, and people still demand honesty—the problem, however, is that no one really knows what the truth is anymore. And Jack Ryan doesn’t exist.

And the clearest and most present danger is not a Columbian drug cartel.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

A long time ago, in an America far far away…

A gifted director made a film about a greedy, imperial machine that was threatening freedom, and wielding its power over the innocent, the helpless, and the downtrodden. In the way of this immoral juggernaut stood the courage and the tenacity of one man—a man who grew up as a simple farm boy from the outskirts, suddenly finding himself thrust unwittingly into a struggle for truth, justice, and hope.

The director was Frank Capra, the year was 1939, and the film was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

1939 was a great year for movies, giving us The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind among others, but it was a tumultuous year for planet Earth in general. The world was shuddering as millions of white men began slaughtering each other in Europe, and eventually roping the rest of the world into the carnage with them. The United States had not yet entered the conflict, but tensions were high as the doom of its European allies looked certain. Only a month and a half after Germany invaded Poland, Capra’s film blitzkrieged its way into American theaters with a Washington D.C. premiere. It was not well received by the local establishment. Though it was eventually banned in German occupied territory, the powers that be—in our nation’s capitol—were afraid that the movie was too un-American, at a crucial time, when anything but unquestionable patriotism was unacceptable. Thankfully, none of the unwarranted denunciations produced any real fruit as more serious and credible movie critics defended the film’s integrity. Through the lens of time, it has become clear that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is not a film that criticizes Washington, democracy, or the political process—on the contrary, it’s a film that seeks to provide education on how Washington functions, defend pure democracy, and shine a light on elements that would seek to destroy the political process from the inside. And it’s meant to inspire hope. As Capra himself stated: “The more uncertain are the people of the world, the more their hard-won freedoms are scattered and lost in the winds of chance, the more they need a ringing statement of America’s democratic ideals.” History agreed with him, and 50 years after its release, having come full circle, the Library of Congress deemed it worthy of a place in the preservation vaults of the United States National Film Registry.

As for the plot… I’ll give you the overview. The ultimate villain of the story is a corrupt business mogul who has bought influence in the Senate by extracting the loyalty of those who are only concerned with maintaining their seats in Congress. The hero is Jefferson Smith, played by a young Jimmy Stewart; he’s the down to earth country boy that is appointed to the Senate by the Governor of his home state when the previous senator dies unexpectedly. The central conflict of the film revolves around a land appropriation bill that Smith introduces without knowing that the other senator of his state (an old family friend who he looks up to as a mentor) has already introduced legislation dealing with the same parcel of land—land which will profit his corrupt business mogul partner. As Smith is slowly drawn into a position where he is at odds with those he admires, and eventually threatened by them, we see him age from a wide-eyed, innocently naive, good guy, into a distraught, desperate, pariah who has had the wool pulled from his eyes. Jean Arthur plays the role of Clarissa Saunders, Smith’s secretary and aide who has spent enough years in Washington to know how things actually work. The relationship dynamic between her and Smith is on point, as she helps him to see the reality of his situation and understand the struggle in which he’s embroiled, while he, in turn, helps her to shed her cynicism and recapture some of the hopeful idealism that she has lost along the way. The two of them genuinely need each other as the main battle ensues on the floor of the Senate, before eventually spilling out into the realm of public opinion—public opinion that is bought and paid for by big business and the press outlets it owns.

As I watched this movie, I found myself becoming more and more sad as I realized the terrible truth embedded in its plot—Capra’s film is highly satirical of course, but it contains a warning that our government and political process might be in jeopardy by immoral forces seeking to buy it, own it, and sell it at their leisure. The story that Capra told was ultimately a hopeful one. As Stewart collapses like a sacrificial lamb on the floor of the Senate after a marathon filibuster, the corrupt senator who has been accusing him becomes overwhelmed with guilt and confesses that he has been compromised and is morally unfit to maintain his seat in the government. This brings the story to a satisfying ending… that would never actually happen in real life. While Capra’s film has a positive, redemptive conclusion that should leave one feeling hopeful, it did not leave me with this feeling. Because it was made in 1939—at a time when there was still a chance to prevent what was happening, and to salvage American democracy from the hands of greed, corruption, and indifference.

Maybe I’ve become too pessimistic about this subject… Maybe I’m just tired of hearing everyone talk about it, when most people have no clue what they’re saying… those are two very good reasons for me to end this review right here, lest I begin spilling my thoughts out into the open as well. I don’t want to be that guy. So I’ll just end with this final thought:

We are now living in a time when even the echo of Capra’s warning has long since faded away, and in the wake of its passing, we have exactly what he imagined could happen if corruption was allowed to mature and thrive.

Or maybe it’s just a really good movie.