Last week my wife informed me that we would need to get a third car since I will be in South Carolina for 3 months and she did not want to share a car with Danielle.  I obliged by leaping into action to purchase a vehicle for myself to drive.  The first car I looked at, a 1993 Volvo Wagon, brought my oldest daughter to tears (I am not exaggerating).  The vehement complaints of my 17 year old is usually a good barometer that I am on the right track, but this car just did not seem to fit the bill, so I continued to look.  I found several different early 90s diesel Mercedes and I thought that I could finally take my desire to make bio-diesel and go into full scale production, but as surveyed my time and lack of workspace, I decided to pass.  While looking at a few older European sedans at a local dealership I spied a shiny little Saab 900SE Turbo Convertible.  Ahhhhh, that would be cool.  But what would people think?  I have never been seen driving a car with less than 200,000 miles!  I took this car for a test drive and and when I returned the gray sky opened, The Spirit of God descended upon the Saab like a dove and I heard a voice say, "This is J's car, with whom I am well pleased."  Whom am I not to buy this car?

After some heavy duty bargaining with dealership I purchased this 65,000 mile car for only a 1,000 more than I paid for my bare-bones used Saturn!  Whooo Hooo!  I also wanted good gas mileage and the turbo motor delivered 31 MPG on my recent trip to Illinois. The Saab has power everything, heated seats, CD Changer in the trunk and little tiny wipers on the headlights!   After a string of Plymouth Horizons,  Ford Festivas, and  Volvo 240s (all with over 200,000 miles) I heard something at the Starbuck's drive through that I have never heard said in my direction,  "Hey, that is a nice car."  The only problem I have now is that I am almost embarrassed to drive such a nice vehicle.  People are going to think that I am not being a good steward or worse yet,  they might think I am a Methodist!  I am sure that I will eventually deal with this car angst and every time I take a therapeutic ride with the top down it gets just a little easier to bear the embarrassment that I might feel.  Actually, this reminds me of my first week at Tolono First Baptist Church.  One of the church deacons (who soon left the church) questioned me about my rusty, but fine running 1983 Plymouth Charger and told me point blank that I should, "Drive a car more fitting with my standing in the community."  I replied, "I would be happy to if I was paid to fit my standing in the community!"     

I have fielded many questions over the years about the ethics of organ donation, life support machines, and do not resuscitate orders.  Where as I have not broad condemnations, I have urged extreme caution in these areas because of the sanctity of life.  Despite the popular sentiment to the contrary, I am not a organ donor because of the difficulty of determining exactly how dead is dead.  I am not against giving my organs to a needy person and I do not believe that there is a theological problem with organ donation per se, but when placed in context, this process is much more difficult to judge than is commonly presented.   Yesterday a story broke about a young man in Oklahoma who was in an ATV accident, declared brain dead after 4 months of coma and after giving approval for the harvest of his organs, the family saw his hand move while they were paying their last respects.  The idea of my organs being taken while still alive is not nearly as bothersome to me as the idea of putting my wife in the difficult situation of making this decision.

Another situation that I have encountered is older people who have had do not resuscitate orders on their medical records because they do not want to live in suffering.  The problem with this is that these people are often uneducated and unaware that resuscitation is a common practice in many major procedures and may not lead to their permanent disablement.  A DNR can lead needlessly to their death.  People are often quick to turn the common phrase, "I do not want to live if it means that I will be disabled", but this quip does not capture the complexity of the issue and does not take into consideration the sanctity of life.  Does a disability or dependence on another person make a person less valuable as a human being?  Is a life that is more difficult or even spent in suffering less of a life?  One of the criterion that people often use to make this decision is whether or not they can use their arms and legs, but a person such as Joni Erickson-Tada is a person who is a quadriplegic, suffers pain every single day of her life, and has lived an incredible life that has impacted millions of people.  Think through this issue carefully,  there are too many voices that are quick to end life (usually for economic reasons) and not enough voices that urge great caution because human life is precious. 

It was inevitable that race would become an issue in the 2008 election campaign.  I have gone through many different positions throughout my life and these positions have been influenced by the context in which I was in at the time.  I grew up in a town that had very few black people.  In my graduating class there were no more than three or four black kids out of over 300 students.  Mattoon itself had a very small black populace although it was much larger at one time.  On a side note,  there is some interesting history of Coles County about how there was a thriving black community in Coles County at the turn of the 20th century, but the community migrated, almost en masse to Kansas.  Anyway,  the almost homogenous populace in Mattoon meant that race was not an issue that was often discussed or ever came to the forefront (for us white people anyway).  The result of this was that I had a naive view of race.   For example,  I had the misconception that racism and prejudice was only about skin color and I could not understand why racism was so prevalent.  It was not until I left my cloistered Midwest world that I had my eyes opened to the larger issue of race.

I went to Army Basic Training in the spring of 1989 (almost 19 years ago to the day!) and was thrust into a barracks that was filled with kids from all over the country.  The two largest groups in the unit were white kids from the deep south and black kids from inner city urban areas such as Washington D.C. and Los Angeles.  In between this confluence cultures was a few like me from the Midwest.  It was not long before I discovered that racism was not only about skin color, it was about dramatic differences in culture as well.  On one day, I had never been with more than one or two black people in the same room and the next day I was in situation which almost half of our unit was black.  The whole situation was an eye opener.  There was tremendous friction between the races at first, but as time went on I noticed that the inner city blacks and the deep south whites were much more forthcoming in discussing issues of race.  There was no white-washing (no pun intended) of opinions of those two groups and everything was put on the table quickly!  I, however, fell into that trap of trying to side step my true reactions and did everything I could to appear as if I was not prejudice even though I was.  I started to make statements that were motivated by white guilt such as:  "I have a black friend",  "I work with a black man, he is one of the good ones", "white trash people are just as bad", "This black man I go to school with is so well spoken." and the church person variant, "I really like black churches, they really know how to sing and worship."  (this last one reminds me of the first scene of Blazing Saddles ) These comments are almost knee jerk reactions on the part of some white people when the topic of race is broached and are absolutely condescending. 

Twenty years later, I like to think that I have a more mature approach to race.  I have come to understand that there are, in fact,  differences between the races and even in 2008 there is still a cultural divide.  I have also come to understand Black Americans have a much different experience than White Americans.  Barack Obama made the statement about his grandmother who is a "typical white person" that has a negative reaction when she encounters an unknown black person on the street.  Obama is being criticized for this statement, but I think that it is absolutely true.  Most white people from my area of the country have some anxiety when they are in this situation (Ironically, I believe that people from the south are less likely to have this reaction due to the greater amount of physical integration even though our stereotype is that Southerners are more prejudice than us enlightened Northerners).   Does this reaction by whites, in addition to the fact that black people are more likely to be followed by mall security and are pulled over by the police more often have an impact on black culture?  Of course!  The question should not be whether or not there is racism (on both sides of the equation) in America, but rather how we move on from here and move towards racial reconciliation.  I want to hear Barack Obama's position on what we should do about this divide.  I am not critical of his experience of race, but I am certainly willing to be critical of his policy solutions to the problem (if in fact there are policies that can help the problem!).  My current approach to race is, not surprisingly, theological and I will lay out this position in greater detail with a later post.  

Tracy and I have decided to join Baxter Avenue Baptist church in Louisville.  The leadership and congregation at Baxter has dedicated itself to recovering important aspects of the church that have been lost in modern times.  This includes, but is not exclusive to recovering the practice of church discipline and reestablishing a real value to church membership.  There is no lack of Christians who understand how the notion of an "inactive membership" is absolutely ridiculous, but there are much fewer Christians who are willing to take action to correct this notion in our churches.   Concerning church discipline, Baxter Ave. understands the proper place of discipline as a tool for discipleship (seems almost silly to make such a statement, doesn't it?) and that the goal of church discipline is the recovery of erring members to right standing with God and with the body of Christ.  Church discipline has nothing to do with being capricious or "judgmental" but rather it has everything to do with loving our brothers and sisters in Christ and we work on the assumption that sin is harmful to those brothers and sisters. 

What do we do instead of church discipline?  We sit idle as our brothers and sisters sink in the quagmire of their own sin and hardheartedness and we do so in the name of "love" and fear that we may "lose them from the church."  Worse yet, we may even make them a Deacon or Sunday School teacher to lure them back into right standing with God! Do you think I am speaking in hyperbole?  I have heard this statement with my own ears from church members, "Maybe they will come to church more if we made them a deacon"  The practical result of this mind-set is that sin festers within the church and our unwillingness to address it emboldens others to enter into that same sin.  If a church fails to properly handle, for example, pre-marital sex and having children out of wedlock,  the problem will spread and each generation of young people will fall into the trap of that sin.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf! 

I need to be part of a church that has for its goal to be a place of real accountability for real sin (not just perceived) and then knows what real reconciliation and forgiveness means.  Our sanctification takes place in the context of the body of Christ, not as individual people separated from the life of the church.  I cannot grow in holiness or in the likeness of Jesus Christ on my own,  I need the love, accountability, prayers, and genuine concern of brothers and sisters in Christ who covenant together to glorify God, mortify sin and grow ever closer to our Lord Jesus Christ.  The church is that union of believers for whom Christ died and was established as a witness to the world and it is the church that is charged with holding the keys to the kingdom.   Wake up and strengthen that which remains!  If we abandon even the possibility of real change and growth in Christ, then what is left for the church to do?  Are we truly the Body of Christ in these circumstances or has our lampstand been removed?

Here is a sermon, not by me, but of the Pastor of Baxter Avenue Baptist Church,  Ben Lairamore.   I want you to listen to it.  In this sermon you will find many of the themes that I touch upon here

My 2 December 2006 post about Franz Schubert's musical rendition of Goethe's poem Der Erlkönig is, by far, the most read posting on Fear and Trembling!  I get no less than two or three hits per day from people searching on Google.  I have to admit I am a bit confused and disappointed that considering all of the theological and political commentary on my site, this is what interest outside readers the most on a regular basis, but a reader is a reader!  I am a man that is always in need of an audience, regardless of the topic. So if it is Goethe that the people cry out for, it is Goethe that they will get!  Perhaps a review of some of his poetry or fiction will be popular among the netizens of the world.  A commentary of Faust ought to bridge the gap between Goethe and Theology. 

The video below scores some points in reference to my last posting.  Obama did not back away from Rev. Wright entirely.  I was glad to see that Rev. Wright is still part of his family despite disagreements that he has with him on the comments that he made.  Obama also makes the same point that I made about Rev. Wright being from a different generation of black leadership (does Barack read Fear and Trembling?).  I do, however, take to task Barack Obama's denial that he has never heard such incendiary comments either in the pew or in private conversations.  I believe that this is just an out right lie on the part of Barack.  This is how preachers work:  When we get something on our mind that we want to preach, we talk about it with every one who will listen for weeks at a time.  The topics that are burdening us are on our lips at the dinner table, in the pulpit, at the grocery store, in Sunday School,  talking to our wife at night, seeing an old friend on the street, making a visit to our congregation members and even when tele-marketers call us selling long distance.  Did Barack every hear incendiary comments?  Of course he did.   Do you believe that Rev. Wright screams out "God Damn America" and then called Barack to talk about the Cubs

I probably have a different take than most commentators on this week's circulation of sermons from Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright,  Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years.  First of all, I am not at all shocked at the content of the sermons.  These sermons are fairly consistent with other "social gospel" preachers from African-American churches and did not reveal anything new to me.  Second,  I am not offended by the content despite my strong disagreement with Rev. Wright.  What does bother me is how quickly Obama moved to distance himself from his pastor when the public outcry began.

From the accounts, it seems as though Obama did not have merely tangential relationship with Rev. Wright.  Obama was associated with the church for 20 years, he performed the wedding ceremony for Obama and his wife, christened his children and was called a "spiritual mentor" by Obama himself.  If Obama was in such fundamental disagreement with Rev. Wright, why does he choose now as the time to disassociate himself?   Has there been a shift in Rev. Wright's position in just the last few years?  I believe Wright's sermon after 9/11 shows that this is not the case.  If this man is Obama's pastor and if Barack has stood by him for 20 years then he should continue to do so.  To do otherwise, shows me something about Barack Obama's character. 

Is Rev. Wright an "angry black man?"  Sure, but I can understand the reasons why and I am not going to tell Black America that they have no reason to be angry.  It does not shock or horrify me when I hear a leader from the black community frame his message in terms of us versus them because for a very long time it was, in fact, us versus them!  Wright is from the same generation as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,  Jessie Jackson, and  Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s and is fairly consistent with that brand of activism.  Here is a speech by Martin Luther King about the war in Vietnam that has many of the same anti-western themes that Wright uses in his sermons, but we name streets after Martin Luther King, get the day off from school and every modern politician tries to claim some sort of connection to Dr. King!  Should America be critical of Barack Obama because he has strong ties within his own community?  Should America only vote for a black man who is has no connection the struggles of Black America?  As a Southern Baptist, I have often been criticized because my denomination once supported slavery(to some extent), but I understand that even though some of our leadership was wrong on this issue, it is no longer the case with the SBC that we are institutionally racist and it does not mean that I must reject everything that was taught by our founding leadership or that I must reject our entire spiritual heritage.  

This is also a personal issue with me as well.  If I every decide to run for office I would have to deal with my relationship to my pastor, Rev. Mike Wright (no relationship to Jeremiah Wright)  Do you know how many times that I was absolutely mortified with embarrassment when we attended Baptist associational meetings together?  EVERYTIME!  If there was ever a controversial character, it is MY pastor.  Mike looks like reject from "The Outsiders",  lives in a trailer park,  has a checkered past and I love him dearly.  He has stuck with me through every situation in my life and I cannot imagine turning my back on him.  He and I certainly don't see eye to eye on everything!  In fact,  I left as his associate pastor after he and I almost got in a fist fight behind the church house.  It was a classical "time to leave the nest" situation, and God used the situation to press me into finding my own church.  If anyone ever gets a hold of his sermons while I run for office,  I would sit him right next to me and say, "This is the man who first gave me the Gospel and for that I am eternally grateful."    I also happen to agree with 95% of his sermons as well, so I would not back away from what he has taught either.   

In the end, I think that the pundits are more insistent that Barack denounces his pastor than the actual voters are.  This is totally speculation on my part, but I suspect that it would be a positive for Barack if he stood next to his pastor and said "I am going in a different direction than my pastor, but I am standing next to him as an important part of my life and influence on me as a person."  Although I do not know this for sure, I am sure there are good reasons that Obama included Wright in his life as a pastor.  What has this pastor done in his community?   What are his positive qualities?  I want to hear Barack step up and strongly defend his pastor.

On 16 January, I posted statements about the positive aspects of a Black President on Black America and the state of race relations in the United States.  I still stand behind the essence of these comments, but due to statements by Barack Obama in the past few weeks concerning Iraq,  I no longer believe that Barack Obama's positive effects outweigh the potential harm that he can cause.   Here are some issue statements that come from Obama's official website.

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

He continues with his non-military solution for the tensions that are inherent to the Middle East

"Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction."

These two positions, when taken together, are the equivalent of  showing a poker opponent your hand before he makes the decision to go all in or fold.  With no consideration of what the ground conditions are like in Iraq come January 2009, he has made an arbitrary decision to pull out troops and, according to recent statements, have the troops out in the first year of his presidency.  Diplomacy is a a series of sticks and carrots and Barack Obama has decided to remove the greatest stick available to the United States: close to 200,000 soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen deployed in and around Iraq.  There was great criticism of the Bush Administration about the intelligence reports that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program, but I did not hear the obvious question: Why did Iran stop their nuke program in 2004?  Did Iran suddenly develop a conscience about their role in the international  community or did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regret his statement, "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map"?  Or,  and this is much more likely, did Iran flinch when the most effective military on Earth set up operations just miles from his border?  I also put forth the more public case of Libya.  In early 2004, Libya publicly reversed their position on weapons of mass destruction and asked for assistance to dismantle their program.  What possible motivation could have moved them to act in this way if not for fear of military intervention?

Don't misunderstand me,  the diplomatic effectiveness of the United States has been abysmal during this post-9/11 period.  We have failed to properly take advantage of the force that we have displayed for the last eight years.  A cohesive and coordinated diplomatic push to rebuild Iraq's political stability has been late to the game and questionably effective, but will the diplomatic situation improve with a President who wants to tie his own hands?  Obama's goals in the second statement are certainly admirable and necessary, but will he accomplish these by "encouragement" without the Rooseveltian "big stick?"   I am concerned that Obama's position is tantamount to surrender and failure.  Without the presence of the United States military, Iraq will tear itself apart and lead to an inevitable re-re-deployment of forces to gain back ground lost by an unnecessary retreat.  This will undoubtedly lead to more U.S. causalities and make the current sacrifices meaningless.  I believe that a black President can be good for American society, but I also believe that this particular candidate's position will deliver a jarring blow to the American psyche by retreating with no victory in Iraq and will undermine American strategic positions in the world.   I never thought that I would make the following statement, but I trust that Hillary Clinton would not make such a mistake as Commander-in-Chief.  All things being equal between Clinton and Obama's stance on most issues,  I have to pull for Hillary to gain the nomination because of this single, but critical, approach to International Relations.  John McCain, is certainly the most qualified and right thinking (pardon the pun) candidate on this issue for the 2008 election, but on the chance that McCain loses to the Democrat in November,  I hope that Hillary is the alternative (wow, that sounded weird as I wrote that!)

After spending the weekend with soldiers in their natural environment (open bay barracks),  I noticed quite of few issues that will affect their reintegration to civilian life.  This has been a major issue for National Guard soldiers since they return to their civilian life less than 24 hours after leaving combat zones.  Active duty soldiers at least return to an active Army post which provides a buffer.  This has caused higher rates of reintegration problems with Reserve and National Guard Soldiers.  Here are just a few of the critical issues that I noticed while my unit was together for 3 straight days of training and living together.  I assume that 12 months of this will only exacerbate the problems. 

1.    In the civilian world it is not appropriate to narrate your bowel movements in public restrooms.   Soldiers have an unhealthy fascination with their own bowel movements and the bowel movements of their fellow soldiers.  This problem is made even worse by regular consumption of MREs and gives occasion to regular performances in busy latrines.

2.    Back home it is not recommended that you run up to your friends and "NUT" them.  For those of you who have not experienced this phenomenon, it is when one soldier will unexpectedly strike another soldier in the genitalia with an object such as a helmet,  full canteen or even a closed fist if an appropriate object is not readily available.  This leads to great rejoicing from onlookers in the barracks, but could possibly lead to legal action or even arrest in places such as the civilian workplace.

3.   Strategically placing yourself over people's personal items (such as pillows) or in close proximity to their face before passing gas is not considered polite behavior in most social settings (other than maybe dorm or fraternity houses).  This action can be potentially tragic if it happens to accidentally coincide with activity #1.  This has been known to happen on many occasions.

4.  Privates and other low ranking enlisted personnel will often hide under furniture (such as cots) or behind large boxes.  This sort of behavior is instinctual to soldiers E-4 and below in response to NCOs who often find "busywork" to keep privates busy (this behavior on the part of NCOs is also instinctual and is part of symbiotic relationship with the enlisted personnel).  Hiding under the bed can lead to marital problems, employment problems and could lead to dangerous situations as the cycle of hide and seek escalates, leading  to dangerous hiding places such as the box compactor at Wal-Mart or small heating ducts at their accounting firm.

Ok, this list is certainly the lighter side of a serious topic, but that doesn't mean that these activities don't actually happen and it doesn't mean that they won't be hard habits to break!