White Evangelical Reckoning

Two editorials in Christianity Today, one by Mark Galli, editor of the magazine, and the other by Timothy Dalrymple, president and CEO, rocked the evangelical world and sent waves into the secular media.

The off-quoted figure of white evangelicals who supported Donald Trump in 2016 is 81 percent. On December 19, Galli called for the removal of Trump from office following his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives. So many people tried to sign on to the magazine’s website, that it temporarily went down.

On December 22, Dalrymple wrote his own thoughtful opinion piece. He spoke of the reaction by the magazine’s readership to Galli’s editorial. Some readers were moved and said they no longer felt alone. Others were incensed and insulted.

Speaking of Galli, Dalrymple said: “While he does not speak for everyone in the ministry . . . he carries the editorial voice of the magazine. We support CT’s editorial independence and believe it’s vital to our mission for the editor in chief to speak out on the issues of the day.”

He went on to say, “We are happy to celebrate the positive things the administration has accomplished. The problem is that we as evangelicals are also associated with President Trump’s rampant immorality, greed, and corruption; his divisiveness and race-baiting; his cruelty and hostility to immigrants and refugees; and more. The problem is the wholeheartedness of the embrace.”

Long before Trump, some evangelicals shifted toward politics to enforce a religious agenda.

As white American evangelicals began to identify with political parties, their young people drifted away and attendance fell in their churches. Rightly or wrongly, they are associated in many people’s minds with a particular political agenda, not with the good news of Jesus.

A religion seeking to use secular power to enforce its beliefs almost always becomes corrupted by that power. Witness what happened to European Christianity during the Middle Ages. Eventually, religious wars devastated the continent and led to a weakening of the Christian faith.

In a democracy, individuals vote, and Christians certainly have the duty to vote wisely, and to become involved in government. But all human activity is subject to error and should be undertaken in humility and with respect for those who disagree. Holding up any political party as chosen by God is, I believe, a dangerous position.

Jesus knew the dangers of worshiping power. When people wanted to make him a king, he sent them away. When finally the time came for him to present himself publically, he entered Jerusalem, not on a charging white steed, but on a poor person’s donkey.

Christ’s model is not political power. It is healing and kindness and the embrace of outcasts. It remains the model for today.

Why was the Christmas Eve service so meaningful this year?

I have been to many such services in my life in all sorts of different places and times of life. So, as my husband and I walked the short distance to our church this year, perhaps it was more out of habit than hope.

But the familiar message—I’ve heard it enough to have it memorized—helpless babe in a manager, come into a hate-filled world full of hurting people.

But this year, tears glistened in my eyes, evidence this time of the message going deeper.

Why? Perhaps because this year, this end of 2019, the times appear especially hopeless, and we are desperate. We’ve been through a deluge of hate-filled, hurting words. Homeless men, women, and children are everywhere. Some have become so desperate that our birth rate is falling and the death rate of young and middle aged people has been hastened by overdoses and suicides.

And, we are told, 2020 will not be any better, maybe worse: impeachment trial, bitterly fought elections, a world with almost daily evidence of climate change affecting millions with droughts and floods.

Yet, in that way grace has of coming at the oddest moments, the message, the familiar carols, struck deeper, became beacons of hope for this time.

Somebody loved us and came to us, then preached love that has affected people mightily since that time: death didn’t stop him: His weak, sinful people have been transformed time and time again, overcoming even their own misreading of his message.

Slavery was abolished and racism, though still strong, is challenged. Women have entered public life. Young people are concerned about climate change.

When the times are right, those touched by this season’s message have always found pathways to counter the worship of wealth, power, and greed.

Waiting in a Troubled Time

“The furred magnolia buds we bring to warmth
here in the heated room soon bloom and sicken;
the tree without keeps its own secret time.”
         (Jane Tyson Clement; “Out of a Difficult and Troubled Season”)

Sometimes patient waiting is our best choice. Not idle waiting, but rather a recharging kind of waiting.

Maybe we touch base again with family and friends. Maybe we read poetry. Maybe we use a winter’s day to ponder while watching flames of a small fire in our fireplace or the rain spattering on our windows.

We do the necessary tasks, but we admit our limitations. We look for ways to appreciate those with whom we disagree.

We turn off the shouting and the tweeting. We go slowly, thoughtfully for a while. We wait patiently for the turning.

Survival Migration

“What Europe saw in 2015 and what the Americas are witnessing today are not simply refugee flows or market-driven population movements but rather ‘survival migration’ . . .” writes Alexander Betts (“Nowhere to Go,” Foreign Affairs, November-December 2019).

According to Betts, many refugees today aren’t traditional refugees fleeing persecution nor are they economic migrants seeking jobs. They are fleeing “failed or fragile states, violence, and economic insecurity.” They are seeking to stay alive.

The governments of the countries from which they flee, whether to the United States or to Europe, are often incapable of governing. Corruption and crime are high and dominate politics and business. In addition, drought and crop failures increase food insecurity.

Betts suggests international cooperation to fight crime and develop stronger local governments, including economic development in home countries.

Some have suggested a “Marshall Plan” to overcome radical need as for Europe after the devastation of World War II.

Whether such strategies succeed over the long term probably depends on whether large numbers of citizens in developed nations realize the need for global answers. Perhaps enough citizens may finally understand how survival migration affects the world as a whole.

Citizens of more prosperous nations might also be moved by simple human kindness.

The quaint art of conversation and reading with your children

We often discussed ideas at the dinner table when I was growing up. My parents read a lot.

It had nothing to do with the level of their education. My mother had no schooling beyond high school. My father didn’t even finish high school because of the need to support his parents and younger siblings when he was a teenager.

My lower middle class parents were readers who loved to learn for its own sake, then discuss their ideas with each other and their children. Reading became as natural to my brother and me as walking.

According to several reports, including one in The New York Times, an inexpensive child rearing technique to help you raise responsible children is to read to them. (“Reading aloud to young children has benefits for behavior and attention,” 16 April 2018)

Parent to child reading not only encourages intellectual growth, studies show, but also tends to curb aggressive behavior and other troublesome activities.

The first years of a child’s life are the most important for a child’s development. Spending time with them, including talking with them and reading to them, costs little in the way of money.

Not the Differences, but the Tone of the Differences

“What is dangerous is not that people have serious differences. It is the tone—the snarl, the scorn, the lacerating despair.”
–James Mattis, “The Enemy Within,” The Atlantic, December 2019

Suppose we stop treating supporters of Donald Trump like ignorant fools? Suppose we stop calling the impeachment inquires a witch hunt?

Suppose we listen with sympathy for those touched by the need for women to control their own lives? Suppose we listen with equal sympathy for those touched by vulnerable life in the womb?

Why do some call those who testified in the impeachment hearings unpatriotic? They were serving their country. Honest disagreement with conclusions is acceptable. Insulting the integrity of the witnesses is not.

Concern with the source of news is valid. Calling respectable newspapers “fake news” is not.

Yes, of course extremists exist, but the opinions of the vast majority of citizens spring from reasonable assumptions, results of needs as they see them. The differences are honest, not perfect, always in need of constant revision, but worthy of honest consideration, not condemnation.

As Mattis goes on to say: “Virulent, take-no-prisoners attacks on the media, the judiciary, labor unions, universities, teachers, scientists, civil servants—pick your target—don’t help anyone.”

From Fall of the Wall to Quid Pro Quo

Thirty years ago, in November 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. Country after country of the former Soviet Union took fledgling steps toward democracy.

Writes Louis D. Sell, a U.S. Foreign Service officer in Yugoslavia at the time: “No one who has ever had the opportunity to witness people standing with patient enthusiasm in long lines to vote for the first time in their lives . . . could ever doubt the power of democracy as an ideal.” (“1989: Seen From Yugoslavia,” The Foreign Service Journal, November 2019)

But we in Western democracies couldn’t comprehend the difficulty of people who had no tradition of democracy attempting to make it work.

Western democracies have centuries old traditions of struggle for people power, from at least 1215, when the Magna Carta limited the power of English king. A free press was a unique Western invention.

Many of the former Soviet nations lacked these traditional defenses against tyranny and against powerful oligarchies seizing wealth and power from collapsing regimes. Democratic practices in some of the countries began to reverse, governments coming under the sway of corrupted newly rich.

The United States and its allies began diplomatic policies to support the fight against corruption in these countries.

Imagine what the secret efforts of a U.S. president to bribe officials in one of those countries, Ukraine, for political gain have done to compromise these policies.

Buying an Ambassadorship

All U.S. politically appointed ambassadors were ordered to quit their posts by the Trump administration when Donald Trump took office. Career ambassadors stayed. This is the usual practice when a new president takes over.

I spent most of my career in the State Department under career ambassadors, for which I was grateful. Of the two politically appointed ambassadors I served under, one did a credible job. The other appeared to be there mostly for the political trappings. Many such appointments are awarded for significant campaign contributions.

One politically appointed ambassador to a small European nation was known mostly for refurbishing the ambassador’s residence.

Politically appointed ambassadors rarely serve in impoverished developing nations or in those on the front lines of war. After all, more ambassadors have been killed than generals. You certainly don’t want that to happen to a party faithful.

Some political appointments do work out well, such as that of Pamela Harriman to the U.S. embassy in Paris. A wealthy socialite once married to the son of Winston Churchill, Harriman was noted for her keen political instincts. She no doubt spoke French very well.

The typical political appointee, however, doesn’t speak the country’s language, unless it’s English, and often knows more about NFL scores than about the foreign country’s history and politics.

Other democracies appoint their most seasoned foreign service officers as ambassadors to the United States. Dictatorships are prone to send cronies to their diplomatic posts.

Time-Starved

Who’s minding the kids?

Who has time to mind the kids?

Who has time to read newspapers?

Who has time to work with the homeless? Or in youth shelters? Or with the handicapped?

Who has time to read or think or write or paint?

As we seek to balance our work lives with other roles, we find ourselves time-starved for anything outside of work.

With the industrial revolution, paid work became limited mainly to men. They went out—to the city, to the office—and women stayed home to raise the children. Only jobs with children and the sick remained open to them, usually with much less pay than the men earned.

Western culture cleaved: men worked at paying jobs; women worked at home. Home became increasingly separate from vocation.

Then women began to notice the cleavage. Having worked for the entire history of the world until that time–on farms and in small family operations—they began to question why they now were kept from the economic work force. They began joining this work force.

However, since most economic activity now takes place away from home, it means no one is around to do home things—taking care of children, the elderly, the sick and the needy.

Our vocations are in need of newer forms: parental leave, fewer penalties for dropping out of the work force for a while to follow other pursuits: family/people/spiritual activities. Replacement of the standard 40-hour work week.

The patterns for work and home need restructuring.

Why I Rarely Give to Political Parties

I vote in every election open to me, but I rarely contribute to political campaigns.

Americans now give massive amounts of money to political causes. According to opensecrets.org, almost 1.5 billion in political spending was raised in 2016.

Until campaign finance laws are passed, I will probably continue my small rebellion against the outsize influence of money on our political process.

I will instead contribute to those worthy causes now struggling as they are bypassed for political giving.

Some are charitable—the local food bank or medical assistance program. Others are religious groups ministering to the grieving and confused. Some help young people find purpose to overcome the destruction caused by drugs.

Political parties feud over the number of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States. I recently gave to a non-profit group teaching Central Americans better agricultural practices, providing doctors to encourage a healthier population, and lending help for economic activities so the people can support themselves—and not feel compelled to migrate.

Politics has raked in an incredible amount of money, while many other worthy groups suffer from neglect. I can vote for them with my small contributions.

Downton Abbey as Fairy Tale

So here I am enjoying the latest Downton Abbey venture.

Is it a great movie? No.

Is it realistic?

Certainly not in the sense we think of realism today. Stories that don’t always end right but lead us to see ourselves as we are, and perhaps to change, may be more realistic.

But fairy tales have their place. That’s why they’ve been around since people first told stories around a campfire.

Interesting that Downton, a nod to a vanished era, has been so successful when Britain and the United States appear to be falling apart.

But perhaps that’s the reason for its success.

Few of us want a class-based society as Britain used to be or a racist, gilded-age America as existed in the early twentieth century. Yet we sense that much in our long history is worth keeping.

Beyond the racism and wars and other abominable sins, we hunt for the promise of purer things: a sense of family, the carrying out of duty, simple caring—when those values are threatened.

Yes, fairy tales do have a place.

Local Color

Recently the newspaper for our nearest metropolitan area ran a research series about water rights in our state. Water is a precious resource. Should the buying and selling of water rights be run as a for-profit business? Selling water rights has become a way of survival for older farmers with no one to take their places.

The articles provided input for dealing with this issue before it becomes critical. They were typical of the research and reporting of this daily newspaper.

Our smaller community newspaper lets us know about our city council meetings and various local events. It provides a forum for the varied opinions of local citizens. To judge by the number and depth of recent letters to the editor for local candidates, you would not know it was an “off” election year. Local journalism is part of the process.

Newspapers tied to a particular area cannot be replicated by Facebook. Though I occasionally use Facebook for keeping up with acquaintances, I never, ever use it as a source of news. I don’t know why anyone would.

I know the bona fides of my local news sources. I don’t know if a Facebook piece is written by an expert, a Russian troll, or a mentally unbalanced hater.

I’m convinced more than ever of what I learned in my first journalism class in the days of the Cold War: a democracy cannot exist without locally supported newspapers.

What Does “Drain the Swamp” Mean?

The current administration promised to “drain the swamp” when it was elected. What has that meant?

Swamp draining has meant more political ambassadors, appointed because they donated money to a candidate. The number of career ambassadors serving at U.S. embassies is at the lowest level since records have been kept.

Draining the swamps has meant desertion of allies like the Kurds. It has meant holding back funds, for political purposes, voted on by Congress to help Ukrainian allies fight Russian incursion into their country. It has meant losing the respect of our allies.

“Please stay.” That’s the plea from the president of the American Foreign Service Association, as seasoned diplomats quit in frustration.

Fewer young people sign up to take the Foreign Service exam, no longer inspired to enter government service.

Not only in the State Department but in other agencies as well, turnover at the top has been unprecedented. Apparently, swamp draining means little cohesion even among those chosen by the administration. Cabinet secretaries and other appointed officials have quit, some fired by tweet, others leaving in disgust.

Here’s a look at the amount of turnover at the top tiers of our government.

Make your own decision about what draining the swamps means.

Youth: Climate Change—and Now They’re Reporting the News for Us Too

Amid stories coming out of the Trump/Ukraine affair, one bit of news was broken—but not by The Washington Post or The New York Times.

It was broken by a student newspaper, The State Press, managed by journalism students at Arizona State University.

The students were the first newspaper to inform the public that Kurt Volker, Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, had resigned, an event important to the congressional inquiries.

Can it be that our youth will lead us even beyond measures to combat climate change? Maybe they’ll also lead us back to fact-based newspaper journalism.

Lowering the Refugee Ceiling

“Many non-Christians seem to think the idea of an evangelical who cares about refugees is oxymoronic. They are aware of a poll showing that just 25 percent of white evangelicals believe the US has a responsibility to welcome refugees, far lower than any other religious demographic in the country. We’ve become known—fairly or not—as heartless and xenophobic.”

So writes Matthew Soerens in Christianity Today (“Don’t Underestimate the Impact of Lowering the US Refugee Ceiling,” 30 Sep 2019).

Soerens writes to express his sorrow at the lessened number of refugees the United States will be letting into the country in 2020. The average ceiling for refugees has been around 95,000 for the past four decades. In 2020, the number has been reduced to 10,000.

Recent wars, famine, and violence have contributed to massive numbers of refugees, yet we are choosing to help fewer of them. Not only are we ignoring desperate needs. Our example influences other wealthy nations to ignore refugees as well.

Soerens is World Relief’s US director of church mobilization. He has co-authored a book, Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate.

Soerens is not advocating “letting everybody in.” He is not advocating open borders.

What alarms him is reducing to practically nothing the reasoned, systematic intake of those who have always strengthened our country and contributed to its success.

In so doing, we are throwing away one of the foundation stones of this country. Welcoming a fair share of desperate men, women, and children who have lost homes, livelihoods, and safety is part of our DNA that has blessed us and blessed the world.

Wars Forever?

Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy professor at Johns Hopkins, lists contenders for power faced by the United States today. He names them as Russia, China, and Iran. (“The New Containment; Handling Russia, China, and Iran,” Foreign Affairs; March/April 2019)

He suggests we apply the lesson we learned so well in our dealings with the former Soviet Union. We persevered in that contest through containment. Thankfully, though we engaged in smaller wars on the planet, wisely or unwisely, we never engaged the Soviet Union in an all-out war that no doubt would have devastated the planet.

Our problems differ with each one of today’s contenders. Russia nibbles at countries close by like Georgia and Ukraine. China wants hegemony in her area of the world, but the U.S. and China are huge trading partners. Our interest in Iran is limited to containment of conflict in the Middle East.

Mandelbaum did not mention North Korea. That county exemplifies the dangers of rogue nations developing nuclear weapons.

His reasoning involves working with allies, not abandoning organizations like NATO. Nor should we abandon allies like Japan and South Korea and Taiwan.

The widespread use of sanctions against North Korea is one example of smart power. Many nations signed on to the sanctions because of the obvious danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of someone like Kim Jong-un.

The rise in populism endangers our dependence on allies. It would be unwise for populists to scrap the global role of the United States in the world, especially since the current setup calls, not for military action, but careful tuning of U.S. partnerships with allies.

Cautions Mandelbaum: “Should the country turn decisively away from its global role and allow the revisionist challenges to advance unchecked, however, Americans’ happy detachment from the world beyond their borders may disappear. And by the time they realize what they need to protect, it may be too late to do so without great difficulty and high cost.”

How Do We Prevent Another Rwanda?

The African country of Rwanda was devastated by horrible massacres of one ethnic group by another in 1994. An estimated 500,000 to 800,000 were murdered in genocidal attacks merely for being born into a particular ethnic group.

The Nazi genocide of European Jews remains the best known example of this kind of atrocity—the attempted extermination of one group of people by another. People are hunted and murdered merely because they are born into that group.

David Rawson, the U.S. ambassador to Rwanda when the massacre occurred, discussed the need to better understand and prevent such atrocities.(“Predicting and Preventing Intrastate Violence; Lessons from Rwanda,” The Foreign Service Journal, September 2019)

He states: “Great powers are reluctant to intervene, especially in little countries off the radar scope of their national interests.”

After all, with the results of our now-regrettable intervention in countries like Iraq, who wants to send our troops to yet another trouble spot?

Writing in the same issue of The Foreign Service Journal (“Getting Preventive Stabilization on the Map”) , David C. Becker and Steve Lewis suggest a cheaper way: going after movements before they become conflicts.

Neither article is especially optimistic, but the idea of prevention suggests a glimmer of hope. Prevention includes the requirement to work with local partners “and a willingness to take modest risks with meager resources.”

An example was cited of a few aid agency groups in Indonesia who encouraged talks between Christian and Muslim community leaders. The talks led to the realization that outside groups were trying to encourage violence, leading the locals to repudiate such violence.

A quote based on conversation attributed to Winston Churchill says: ““Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.”

Talking is certainly less expensive in lives and resources. And who knows? It may work.

“A Nation of Strong Communities”

A column in The Economist (August 3 2019, “Lexington: The mighty Dolphins”) praised one American community’s enthusiasm for its swim team. The columnist then reflected on this country’s unique community spirit.

The nineteenth century French commentator on America, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted “a nation of strong communities founded on voluntary service.”

Yet Americans have been commenting for some time about the weakening of their community spirit.

Churches and labor unions have less influence, Lexington said. Careers have become more important for both fathers and mothers. Exhausted parents have less time for groups outside the home.

Well-off parents and activists are more likely to practice community activities. They are more likely to have freer hours, as well as money.

What can we do to give other citizens opportunities for such activities? More paid leave time? Perhaps we should also praise those who are able to temporarily drop careers for a while to serve their families and communities. Less time on digital media and more time with family and friends would serve community, too.

The Cost of Learning

John Thornton, a Baptist pastor in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, writes: “Spending on consumer goods has not driven people into debt. Rather the rising cost of fixed goods like housing, healthcare, and education combined with stagnant wages have.” (Plough, Winter, 2019)

Thornton has incurred a large debt for his education. He lauded the schools he attended as successful in instilling in him the character he needed in his career.

It also, however, left him with a monetary debt. That debt influenced him in the choices he had to make to pay it off.

Choices in education increasingly have to do with what fields are more economically rewarding. They have less to do with equipping someone to serve or to explore knowledge. Choosing education has become a “consumer decision.”

Given this outlook, we may produce less teachers and scientists and more computer engineers and CEO’s of finance. We may neglect service careers as well as the “why” careers, the ones seeking knowledge and meaning.

Creating faster computer chips and working ever more efficiencies into our economic machines are not evil in themselves. Good things result: better medical diagnostic tools, for example, or more efficient energy systems.

But our technology also has provided new ways to spread hatred and to kill. We have also improved our economic machines at the expense of the average men and women who maintain them. The underclass that resulted is riddled with growing suicide rates and drug overdoses.

For kindness and meaning and a reason to live, we need thinkers and teachers and healers and spiritual leaders.

We need more of our resources underwriting the basics mentioned by John Thornton: housing, healthcare, and education. Cheaper basics make it easier for the less materially rewarded, including, perhaps, thinkers and teachers and healers and spiritual leaders.

Second Amendment? What About the First Amendment?

Leonard Pitts Jr plays on the words from one of Shakespeare’s plays: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

This Shakespearean line, spoken by the character Dick the Butcher, is a back-handed compliment to lawyers, who may impede tyranny.

Today, Pitts suggests, some are trying to kill all the journalists. (“Trump’s anti-journalism hit squad,” The Seattle Times, Sep 1 2019)

Apparently, a group is targeting journalists unfavorable to President Donald Trump’s administration, searching for any less than admirable episodes in their past lives. The goal is to blacken and render suspect any journalist who writes against the policies of the president.

Trump himself has tweeted against reputable news organizations as “enemies of the people.” He has called The New York Times, winner of over a hundred Pulitzer prizes for excellence in reporting, “an evil propaganda machine.”

Evil propaganda machines certainly exist, mostly the sort who seed the internet with unverifiable rumors. Newspapers who engage in research, who send experienced reporters to the far corners of the earth, and whose reporters sometimes have died to bring the truth to their readers, do not fall in the category of an evil propaganda machine.

Reporting on government, popular and unpopular, is, in fact, the job given the press by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Press freedom is right up there with freedom of religion and of speech and of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition their government for wrongs done them.

If you want to see what happens to a free press as a democracy is stifled, read an article, in The Economist (“The Entanglement of Powers,” August 32, 2019) about Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban.

Orban has virtually taken over all three branches of Hungary’s government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. He has been able to do this in part because his party also controls most of the country’s newspapers, turning them into a propaganda machine for Orban.

Times of change and turmoil, as the world has been in at least since September 11, 2001, tempt people to look for simple solutions. Deep reporting on real issues may conflict with nostalgia for easy answers, but we need it all the more.