jeffreymark

BELATED THOUGHTS CONCERNING TRUE GRIT

Rooster Cogburn's been resurrected. That's right. He now, however, resembles Jeff Bridges. And, like the Duke of old Bridges performs with Oscaresque precision.

Cogburn confirms that humanity's most surly among us often possesses a soul. Enter a young girl named Matti Ross. Matti hires Rooster to hunt down her father's cold blooded killer. Jeff Bridges convincingly baits us into hating mister Cogburn. Hailee Steinfeld (Matti) inspires us to love him.  

True Grit implicitly serves up other ethical offerings such as justice, selflessness, and character transformation. 

A good time should be had by all who delve into True Grit's compelling pleasures.

HARD KNOCKS UNIVERSITY

My WWII hero dad taught me much about wisdom of the ages. He never graduated from college, but he reminded me that the university of hard knocks provided some of the best, deepest, securely ingrained wisdom. He was right. In fact, our politicians and academicians live with the false premise that a finely university tuned intellect guarantees spiritual prosperity. Problem is-most intellectuals live in what we ex seminarians call ivory towers. Far removed from the interweavings of social networks and collective wisdom, ivory towerism produces compelling theses and rather impotent working knowledge for life's complexities. Today I post a few of the gems I picked up along the road of hard knocks.  

1. Proverbs proclaims a centuries old proven truth when it declares, “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.”  My fear has nothing to do with what God might do to me. It has everything to do with what I bring on myself when I walk outside God’s will. 
2. We Methodist believe in prevenient grace. This goes along with number one above. God’s grace walks with us even when we reject him. It beckons us to follow him and actually aids in saving us from ourselves. John Wesley described this grace as a wooing sort of impetus designed to take us to our knees.
3. Everyone is bluffing.
4. Character and humility go hand in hand. Good people know much of the good that happens to them is not of their own doing, and they often feel undeserving. 
5. Arrogance and confidence often appear one and the same. They are not. Arrogance is based on  compensating for unconfessed wrongs or subconscious insecurities. Confidence stands on the solid rock of knowing one’s self and admitting to short comings. Confidence’s theme remains, “By the grace of God, there go I.” 
6. Group think reigns in a person’s life no matter what his/her age. Be careful who you bond with. You may begin to look like them. That’s why God told the Hebrews to stay away from those who worshiped idols. They failed to heed the warning and it led to their self destruction. Methodist missionary E.Stanley Jones called this phenomenon the "Herd mentality." He assures us the herd stands as one of the most potent motivators in life. If you don't believe it just enter the political world. 
7. Materialism produces a false self-a walking robot who must always put forth an unnatural public image. Historically nations have fallen because of their materialistic facade.
8. If one has a family and a God that loves them they have all they need. 
9. Always do more than what you get paid for and eventually you will get paid for more than you do.

WHY IS THIS MAN ACTING SO STRANGE?

When a man goes against his scruples and recklessly puts his family to shame he behaves rather bizarrely. Extra marital affairs drive men to the utmost shame one can imagine. Even King David of the Old Testament bible, a man after God's heart, went berserk following his affair with Bathsheba:

 ¹ In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
 ² One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, ³ and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" ⁴ Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then  she went back home. ⁵ The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."
 ⁶ So David sent this word to Joab: "Send me Uriah the Hittite." And Joab sent him to David. ⁷ When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how the war was going. ⁸ Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. ⁹ But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master's servants and did not go down to his house.
 ¹⁰ When David was told, "Uriah did not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?"
 ¹¹ Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!"
 ¹² Then David said to him, "Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. ¹³ At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
 ¹⁴ In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. ¹⁵ In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die." (2 Samuel 11:1-15 NIV)

Later God sent a prophet by the name of Nathan to bring David to his senses. Here's the story:

 ¹ The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. ² The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, ³ but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
 ⁴ "Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him."
 ⁵ David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! ⁶ He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity."
 ⁷ Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. ⁸ I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. ⁹ Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. ¹⁰ Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.' (2 Samuel 12:1-10)

Mark Sanford now needs a Nathan to shake him up a bit. Each of us possesses the nature to do indescribable evils. Our forefathers, far from mindless Utopians, instinctively comprehended the natural proclivity toward hurtful behavior as reflected in their checks and balances. I for one, believe somewhere deep in Mark Sanford's soul exists a spark of light. He will, however, need the help of fellow friends to see it and bring it to the surface. If he's serious about principled leadership he will step down and find healing. And, I indeed think his peers will convince him to do so. If he remains Governor he may open himself up for more hypocrisy charges, and poor judgment. The nation needs to know that conservatives refuse to tolerate moral hypocrisy in any party.  

South Carolina senate leaders offered substantial reasons for the Governor to resign. Those reason are cognitive more so than scrupulous. :

"He's lost the moral authority to lead our state so he needs to step down for the good of our state," said Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, who said he called Sanford and asked for his resignation. Grooms has voted frequently in favor Sanford's ideas.
Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney, also said Sanford should resign.
"There's just no way he'll be able to continue as governor," said Peeler. "I'm really concerned about his mental well being. ... He changes his story, it seems like hourly. That's not a man who looks like he's focused." 

 

SENATE SLAVERY APOLOGY

Thursday the Senate passed a resolution formally apologizing for slavery and opening the the doors for reparations. One of my mentor bloggers, UCLA corporate law prof. Stephen Bainbridge, offers a compelling analysis of why there is no legal basis for corporate reparations made on behalf of an institution abolished several generations back. Professor Bainbridge suggests that legal liability can be established on the grounds of deterrence, compensation, and retributive justice. He then argues that modern efforts toward reparations advances neither deterrence or retributive justice. The good Prof's arguments provide for his students a didactic assessment of modern corporate law.

I might add as a theologian, that a moral impetus lies behind the apology and call for reparations. With today's identity politics and our culture's greedy disposition, reverse racism is at work. Many see this moment as a golden opportunity to engage a sort of misdirected anger and advance a selfish desire to gain wealth. Fortunately, if Prof. Bainbridge's argument holds up in the halls of justice, such racism and greed may need to seek an alternate, redemptive outlet. 

(Read Bainbridge's post here.)

MARK TOOLEY NEW PRESIDENT OF IRD

The Institute on Religion and Democracy, primarily a United Methodist organization, recently elected Mark Tooley president. Tooley is a committed evangelical whose writings have inspired Christian social responsibility in mainline churches across America. 

Mark Tooley has been appointed the new president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), the leading watchdog of the Religious Left. Tooley has been with the IRD since 1994, directing its program for United Methodists.

Retiring IRD President Jim Tonkowich plans to remain with IRD as a scholar, in which position he will continue to offer commentary on how Christians develop a political witness.

Tooley is a lifelong United Methodist from northern Virginia. He has been active in United Methodist renewal for over 20 years. Over the last 14 years at IRD, has been a frequently published and interviewed commentator on churches and their political role in America. His writings have been in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and the American Spectator, among others. Previous to IRD, he was employed with the Central Intelligence Agency.

IRD advocates that churches uphold theological orthodoxy, espouse a responsible political witness, and plead for persecuted religious believers around the world. The IRD was controversial in the 1980s for challenging Mainline Church groups that touted Marxist “liberation” movements. In the 1990s, IRD critiqued radical feminist theology and urged fidelity to historic Christian teachings about marriage. Most recently, the IRD has warned that the emerging Evangelical Left may lead evangelicals to repeat the same mistakes that culturally sidelined Mainline Protestants over the last 40 years. IRD has particularly focused on apocalyptic forms of environmentalism that have captivated some evangelicals.

The IRD board’s election of Tooley was unanimous. Board members include influential church leaders and thinkers such as Methodist theologian Tom Oden, Catholic ethicist Michael Novak and journalist Fred Barnes.

The chairman of IRD’s board, Mrs. Terry Schlossberg, commented:

The board of directors is pleased with Mark Tooley's acceptance of this appointment. Mark brings to the position a level of intelligence and energy that have been characteristic of the IRD's impact on the church and the world.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

More than ever before, the IRD is needed today to continue to challenge America’s churches to be faithful to their great traditions and to shun liberal fads that always spiritually and culturally marginalize once great churches.

The IRD will continue and expand its critique of the Religious Left while urging churches to uphold their great doctrines and to offer America a responsible social witness.

ITS YOUR ETHOS STUPID

The philosopher Aristotle, who instructed his students in the art of debate and public speaking once opined:

Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. . . his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. ( Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.2.1356a.4‑12)

One wonders what words of wisdom Aristotle might impart to newly converted Roman Catholic Newt Gingrich. According to the NYT Mr. Gingrich, a former Southern Baptist, converted to his wife's religion last Sunday. I sincerely hope Newt found Christ in a new, life changing way when he joined the church. Newt, like a few other conservative leaders such as Rush Limbaugh, espouse a compelling conservative ideology.

Unlike liberalism's relativistic standard, conservatism by nature lifts up an absolute moral and ethical standard. Yet, when the preachers of such a noble endeavor fail to live their personal lives in a manner that bolsters conservatism's principles, the unconverted mock all that conservatives stand for. When Rush Limbaugh, a champion of families cannot stay married, one must ask, "Does he really believe what he preaches?"  Newt Gingrich's multiple marriages, the last one based on an adulterous relationship, cause the unbeliever to dismiss his rhetoric. In contrast, liberals look at Obama as a good family man with cute little children and they tend to wonder about his ethos. We conservatives abhor his forced collectivism, but we must admit his personal family ethos apparently carries moral weight. The Apostle Paul of the New Testament once addressed this same sort of issue. We might apply Paul's hypocrite principle to our conservative magniloquence:

 ¹⁷Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; ¹⁸if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; ¹⁹if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, ²⁰an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— ²¹you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? ²²You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? ²³You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? ²⁴As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."    (Romans 2:17-24)

Politicians who hold their hand out must compromise on occasion, particularly in relation to public policy. And they can do this without surrendering their personal morals or sacrificing their families. The next time around  (I love Newt's conservatism. Rhetorically and creatively he is one of the best out there.) we conservatives might fare better if we push for candidates whose ethos lines up with their political speak.

To be sure, a tenet of conservatism recognizes the human condition. We are flawed. Previously, in an article with the American Thinker and in relation to disgraced Congressman Mark Foley I said this:

The quizzical word 'sin' provides the infamous sword that draws the line in the sand. Evangelicals infer its reality. Secularists and amoral thinkers often deride the concept as old fashioned scare language. They view wrong actions through the lens of social victimization.
The word 'sin' for evangelicals identifies foul behavior as both an anthropological characteristic and a targeted choice.  People commit evil acts because of a predisposition to do so. Sin, at its core, identifies the motivational warrant for this bent toward evil. It subliminally declares, 'If there's a god I'm it.'  I do what I do because I want to.  Everyone else be damned.
The Foley affair demonstrates this phenomenon. He is, he wants to, therefore he does.  And his baneful selfish (I'm god) actions, transfer a contagion that devastates even the innocent, including  the collective political party. The aftermath leaves scattered human debris for which no one claims responsibility. 
This irresponsibility is the telltale sign of sin.  Evangelicals predicate the solution on the assumption that Mr. Foley must accept personal responsibility for his actions, renounce his sinful life style, and entrust his life to a group of Christians who incarnate Christ.  Likewise, other individuals involved in Foley's 'sin' must do the same.
This explains why evangelicals continue to support the party philosophy.  They throw the dirty water out, and keep the baby.
Liberals, on the other hand, keep the dirty water — a water indicative of a tainted baby.

Having said this, however, the party philosophy can and will get watered down by unethical behavior. Checks and balances built into our nation's fundamental structure allow for this flawed behavior. Our forefathers were not idealistic, neither were they naive concerning human nature. But, I'm referring here to validation. Hypocrisy carries absolutely no weight with the unconverted. If we truly believe conservatism offers a better way, we must live our lives as an affirming testimony to our belief.