So What's Love?

Sometimes I'm 'accused' of promoting a let's-all-just-get-along-and-hold-hands-while-singing-Kumbaya approach to life and loving others. Or I'm told I'm naive because the world is a bad and scary place. (Accused is in quotes, as if wanting to get along is a bad thing. Is it? And Kumbaya is a spiritual song, by the way, "Come by here, Lord." As for naive, take it up with Jesus because his world was painfully real and scary, and his message is nonetheless one of love.)

But at any rate, if you're tired of my (perceived) why-can't-we-all-get-along? musings, then this might be the post for you. This could be the one where different toes are stepped on.

First, kindness, respect, patience and unselfishness when dealing with others is not about how the other person behaves. It's not about approving or disapproving of what anyone does or does not do. That simply is not our job as Christians, as we are told numerous times in the New Testament. In this sense, love is unconditional, non-judgmental. We don't pick and choose who we're willing to love or help based on how they have treated us, on their lifestyle, appearance or other external factors. Jesus didn't teach us to 'sort out the sinners' before offering help and love.

However, there is indeed a crucial shift needed in how we treat others. Unconditional acceptance does not mean we should expect nothing in return for assistance with physical needs. Yes, yes, I see red flags of alarm going up. There are plenty of exceptions. Sometimes people are in no shape to do much of anything to help themselves. A horrible accident. A sudden, catastrophic illness. A house fire or natural disaster. Unconditional help is the correct response in those circumstances. No questions asked. Take care of what needs to be done. When those folks are back on their feet, they'll be the first to help when someone else needs it. That's what neighbors do.

I'm talking about another uncomfortable truth and reality. Part of our collective approach to generosity has created and is continuing to promote generational poverty. Don't jump on government-sponsored social programs here because actually, many such programs have already had some improvements (even though more are needed). This is about us, as members of our respective communities. It is time for churches, civic organizations and others who want to do the right thing to lead the way because a strange irony shows that many who complain about the inefficiency of government programs, often are worse offenders when it comes to providing assistance.

I am in no way suggesting we stop handing out food, school supplies, Christmas presents or other items, but I am suggesting a shift in how we do it. When it comes time for back-to-school fairs, for example, it seems a better approach would be for the community to help the schools directly with needed supplies and let the students -- ALL of the students -- show up on the first day of class with necessary supplies already at school. That way there is no distinction between who is able to buy supplies and who is not and the schools will have exactly what is needed. (Added bonus, teachers would not have to spend so much money out of their own pockets to fill in the gaps.)

Food pantries. Diaper banks. Help with rent or utilities. When churches, organizations and individuals assist with those types of things, something should be given in return by the recipient. Not everyone can do much, but everyone who is able to get to someplace to ask for assistance can do something. To the detriment of the greater good, we've gotten squeamish about even discussing this sort of thing, and right now there are readers who are getting ready with replies that start with something like, "But we can't let kids pay for their parents mistakes..." I agree. It's been something I've said many times and will continue to say. I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm saying it's time to start the conversation.

Children now will be the parents of the next generation. They're learning how to get to by in this world and they'll be teaching their kids to get by in the same way, whatever way it is that they've learned. We need to break the cycle of generational poverty. The good and useful thing is that kids usually already want to help others as a natural impulse. We need to build on their enthusiasm for doing the right thing, not ignore it or squelch it. (The Bridges Program in the West Plains Schools often sees the students they help be good volunteers within the program and that response is encouraged.)

One step in doing this is that it's time to stop thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them.' There is only us. We're all in it together. Those who think of themselves as the 'haves' often think they know best how to help the 'have nots' among us. That's usually nonsense. Unless someone has lived in poverty, they don't know what it's like. We need to start having conversations outside of our own circle of acquaintances, conversations that help us all understand what's needed for change. No program can be truly successful unless all of the stakeholders have a voice.

The problem with taking this new approach is that it's not easy. It takes investing in the lives of those who need help, getting to know one another. It takes more time and effort to work out a way for all to contribute than it does merely to say, "Here's some canned food and a box of macaroni and cheese. See you next month." But I believe it might be easier than we think. It might begin with saying, "We'd like to offer you something to do for others." Ask how they might like to help. Present a list of volunteer jobs available, jobs that would extend out into the community. (The sad reality is that because of income inequality there are some seeking assistance who already have jobs, already are contributing to the community. Helping them move up is also important and requires a different level of investment.)

It would take organization and cooperation among groups, but it could work. No demands, at first, but a gentle persistence that doing something for someone else as a condition for continued assistance will yield results. People who really need help will be more than happy to do something in return. People who are in less need will eventually stop showing up for help, or else they'll continue to show up and work for what they're getting and that's fine, too. The lists of ways to help would grow as time went on, and there are really no limits to what could happen. Actual paying jobs might materialize for some, but a sense of satisfaction, belonging and purpose would eventually emerge and that's when the world changes for good because that's when our communities become better.

Jesus came to include all in his kingdom. In the Book of Luke he announced his public ministry with these words,"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

If we are to follow in his footsteps, we must be part of eliminating the oppression of poverty. We need a shift in thinking to realize that one aspect of oppression is when not everyone has the opportunity to share the gifts they have been given. Let's help one another shine and live free. I know we can find a way. Let's get along, hold hands and do it. That's the kind of love I'm talking about.

What kind of world do we want?

This is not a post about guns. It's about how words matter. It's about respect and decency. It's about how commonplace it has become to throw basic civility aside in favor of using rude, spiteful and belittling comments to make a point in even the smallest matters of disagreement, of how what we're saying to one another and how we're saying it is transforming daily interactions in a way which would have been unimaginable  a few years ago.

This is not about guns, even though it's prompted by a story involving a gun.

Allen and I have been on vacation this week. On Wednesday we were in Arkansas only a few miles away from where two law enforcement officers were shot. Hackett Police Chief Darrell Spells sustained minor injuries (grazed on the forehead by a bullet according to reports I've read) and Cpl. Bill Cooper, 65, of the Sebastian County County Sheriff's Department died as a result of his injuries.

The morning of the shooting we watched a local television station's reporter who was on the scene in the minutes following the incident as he tried to sort through what was going on. Where was the shooter? On the loose? What was his motivation? Law enforcement officers rushed from miles around to help. People were warned to stay away. All the usual stuff. It was so brutally hot that day that the reporter had sweat dripping off his face in a matter of minutes as he was standing at a rural crossroads which was as close as the press was allowed to get.

A recent report I've read (from NBC News, quoting Sebastian County Sheriff Bill Hollenbeck) said the officers had no idea they were walking into a deadly situation -- described as an ambush by another officer -- when they responded to a domestic call. Hollenbeck said [the shooter, I choose not to add to his notoriety by naming him] had been scheduled to appear in court on a petition to revoke a suspended sentence that day. "More information began to develop that [he] wanted to cause what was told to us as a 'ruckus,'" Hollenbeck said Wednesday.

A ruckus. Not so long ago, with few exceptions and especially in rural areas similar to where I was raised, a ruckus was usually nothing more serious than a fistfight. But now a ruckus ends up with someone getting killed? In fact I started thinking about writing this a few weeks ago after hearing the report from a neighboring small community about an ongoing personal dispute between two high school classmates which ended in one being shot and seriously wounded and the other one dead by his own hand. Escalation of violence -- violent thoughts leading to violent words leading to violent actions -- have sadly become the norm with each passing day in rural America and beyond.

I wondered at the time of that incident if the young man who killed himself had been influenced by over-the-top, angry discussions by the adults around him. I have no way of knowing that, but I wonder.

A man who wanted to create a ruckus in Sebastian County, Arkansas, ended up murdering a long-time law enforcement officer, who was a Marine veteran and getting ready to retire. An Arkansas television station quotes Hollenbeck as saying about Cpl. Cooper, "He could have retired years ago," but he stayed on because he "loved the men and women he worked with." A good and honorable man, dead as a result of doing his job.

This is not about what kind of weapon the killer used or where and how he got it. Because no matter how you feel about guns -- whether you think more or less 'control' would or would not affect gun violence -- those opinions are not pertinent to this post. If you believe guns are the issue here, you're missing the point. This post is not even about supporting our local law enforcement community. Where I live it goes without saying that they're some of the finest men and women you'll find any where, and it is a given that I support them.

This is about how words matter. Decency matters. This post is about loving one another. It's about the Golden Rule. I can't count the number of times that people, myself included, have been publicly mocked on social media for promoting love as an answer for violence. But that doesn't stop me. Because, ultimately, love is the only answer. Not a warm, fuzzy, feel-good attitude, but love as the complicated, profound force that it is. The idea of putting others ahead of ourselves. Of not demanding that every little thing must go our way.

It's also about a soul-searching examination of what we want our nation to be. Do we want to follow basic tenets of compassion, kindness and respect for the opinions of others? Or do we want to angrily cast insults at one another over minor differences? For those who identify as Christians, does the notion of 'turning the other cheek' when someone offends still apply? Or has that become a quaint, old-fashioned idea as we fight in the loudest way possible to be heard on every point?

You might not agree with me that love is the answer. You're free to disagree, but tell me this: What does work? Take long-term historical evidence and convince me that...whatever...building walls -- literal and figurative -- is what we need. Or maybe fewer guns -- or more guns? -- is the answer. Perhaps you believe more money for policing and more demanding of our rights can help. Will your favorite presidential candidate make all the difference in our day-to-day lives? We argue about it like a Trump or a Clinton or someone else is either the answer to all of our problems or to blame for the decisions we all make every day. But I ask you, would any of these things have changed the situation in Sebastian County? No. Be honest with yourself regardless where you stand, and the answer is still no. 

Sometimes it seems as if we don't have any control over our own words and actions and how we treat one another simply because politicians are behaving badly. Collectively, we need to get a grip on our emotions and our attitudes. And the answer has to come from within ourselves and a willingness to change the way we think and talk. A willingness to see that children are being influenced every day by the world around them and we, the adults, are the ones shaping the world. Are they being fed a steady stream of anger, fear and hate? Or do we offer hope that a better future is possible and that there is still something worth living and working for?

I can't convince anyone to change. I can only change myself and although I want to do better every day, some days I'm not even very good at accomplishing that. But we can't allow ourselves to give up doing the right thing even when others do wrong. These words from the New Testament (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) tell of the love I'm talking about:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

You don't have to be a Christian to instinctively know the kind of love described in those verses is what we need more of in this world. 

I believe as a country, we're standing at a crossroads, just like that reporter, and we're trying to figure it all out as the situation unfolds. One road leads to more strife, bitterness and despair created with the words we use daily over minor disagreements, while the other leads to healing the rifts we've created by those ugly conversations with our friends and neighbors. It's not that simple, you say. No, it really is that simple. But it isn't easy. 

It involves making an effort to see situations from another's point of view and sometimes that will mean swallowing our pride and admitting that we've made a mistake or that our point of view was influenced by emotion not fact. It means that we understand that no one is always right and no one is always wrong. It means having discussions without personal insults which add nothing of value.

Every day with our attitudes and words we're creating the world our children and grandchildren will inherit. Will it be one where a ruckus is merely an argument or regularly a gunfight?

What Does Government Look Like in Your View?

Many of us are so taken in by a partisan way of framing the way we think that we have become unrealistic about the role of government and about who and where we are as a country. We are not living a world that looks like it did 250 years ago. We're not a nation of a few million people getting around on foot and by horseback, and we're no longer satisfied with mud streets, reading by candlelight and hand-pumping water from a well. 

'Getting away from it all' sounds pleasant and idealistic which is amusing considering most of us have our cell phones and other devices with us constantly and if the electricity goes out for longer than a few days civilization grinds to a halt.

As much as some of us admire the libertarian way of thinking or claim that we're members of a party which promotes 'small government,' we have moved fully into a society which relies on what the government at local, state and federal levels can provide for us that we cannot provide for ourselves as effectively or efficiently. Call it what you will, but we collectively started working together as members of a civilized society many decades ago and if we don't continue to work together, things will start crumbling. Maybe the outcome would be best, in the long run, but at least consider what we have come to expect:

- We want solid, functioning and well-maintained highways, bridges and infrastructure.
- We want county roads with no potholes. 
- We want effective and well-equipped law enforcement officers and emergency personnel who are at our beck and call. 

- We want a justice system in which crimes are solved quickly and those who are a danger to persons and property are locked up. 

- We want our mail delivered to our front door six days a week. 

- We want a strong military to defend us and national guardsmen for emergencies. 

- We claim that we want all children, veterans, those with disabilities, the homeless and the elderly to be safely housed and well cared for. 

- We want to breathe clean air, drink fresh unpolluted water and eat food which is not going to make us sick or kill us. 

- We enjoy our national and state parks and monuments and want them maintained. 

- We want the fastest Internet and the most reliable power grid and cell phone service possible.

- We want to be free of disease and discomfort and to have the best and least expensive health care in the world.

- We want an outstanding system of public education. 

- We want innovation.

- Many -- within every socioeconomic level -- want and get subsidies, tax credits and government grants for projects.

The list goes on. 

In short, we want it all. We want to live long and prosper, so we make demands. We want safety and freedom. We want convenience and leisure. We want city council to make sure our neighbor mows his yard. We want a strong economy and jobs that pay more than a bare minimum living wage. Many of us don't want regulations. We complain when we don't get everything fast and in the exact manner we believe we should. 

And apparently, especially within the past few years, we have come to expect that nobody should pay for any of it, individually, corporately or as a state or a country. At the very least we want everything at a rock-bottom bargain price. How does this make sense? How does it work? I really am open for suggestions because it sounds like utopia to me.

Ideally, many of these things can and would be taken care of within communities, and I'm a real fan of that notion, but it will take some work getting back to that, and realistically, some things cannot be accomplished at only a local level.

A country populated with less than 3 million people can function in a different, simpler way than a country of over 300 million. Politics has divided us and clouded our thinking in this regard. We have definitely gone overboard in many areas with bloated government, and the pendulum needs to swing back to a more reasonable way of doing things. But if all we're willing to do is throw tantrums when things don't go our way, if we want to continually blame someone else for our woes without taking responsibility for ourselves and those who are less fortunate, if we're not willing to step up and help figure out a more balanced way going forward....well, simpler times will be forced upon us, and I don't think many of us will enjoy it as much as we claim we would.

Remember, Facebook doesn't work without the Internet and electricity.

The Religion of Loudness

Loudness surrounds us. In many circles of public discourse, screeching rhetoric and the need to be the most raucous voice in the room have out-paced critical thinking, common sense, calmness, compassion and consideration for our fellow human beings. This is the case in politics, but it is the case in religion, too, and the two things have become linked together in what should be thought of as an unholy alliance.

Religion, the outward expression of our inward spiritual relationship with our Creator, was not meant to be loud. For those who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, consider his example. His goal was often to draw away from the crowd, to find time for quiet and solitude, to gain strength from contemplation. When he stepped into the public square, he did not attempt to shout down his opponents and he did not demand that his religion should have any special rights or claims to privilege. 

Yes, he was angry when he drove out the money changers in the temple, and I'm glad he was because it gives us the example we need in a certain context. The anger Jesus expressed was directed at those within his own religion (Judaism in the context of his birth) who were taking advantage of people and misusing power and position. I dare you to find an example of Jesus trying to shout down his oppressors or get in the face of those who were adherents of another religion or philosophy. Did he speak the truth? Yes, but it was the truth in love. It wasn't the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mindset as many have come to understand love. It was simply love. An unconditional love that didn't have anything to prove or an ax to grind, a love designed to heal rather than cause further harm.

But a loud, clanging religion has evolved over time. Rather than the quiet life and loving interaction with the world that is designed to set believers apart, something else has emerged for a large segment of mainstream Christianity in America, something which is less a city on a hill or a candle shining in the darkness and more a white-hot spotlight with a blaring bullhorn attached to it, mounted on a Humvee, roaming roughshod over the streets of the world.

Something dark has emerged which makes it fine to blast (literally and figuratively) other religions, to disparage fellow Christians and to say things in the name of Jesus that are mind-boggling in their hurtful audacity and inappropriateness. For those who are rooting for the likes of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, that is certainly your prerogative as a citizen, but when support for the mindset they proclaim is applauded in the context of Christianity, there's a problem with that.

Running a campaign laced with rants which feature themes of exclusion, mockery and discrimination based on differentness; demonization of refugees and their religions; talk of carpet-bombing until the desert glows; and other snide, sniping and snarling diatribes, and trying to frame any of it in the context of Christianity leaves me struggling to find words sharp enough to cut through the deception and immorality at the heart of it. 

We didn't arrive at this sad state overnight. Gradually introducing any ideology is the way to make it acceptable and that is how it has come to be that loudness is not only part of our religious discourse, but often it is accepted and applauded in mainstream ways. I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 13:1, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

It is time to quiet the gongs and still the cymbals. It is necessary for believers to recognize and call attention to the hypocrisy of those who would have us believe hatred is a virtue, and furthermore, we must choose not to take part in it. This situation became acceptable gradually, but if we all were to put into practice the simple loving principle of only doing to others what we wish done to ourselves, then we could shut down the loudness in our own lives and the world would follow.

I have a long way to go before I achieve this in my own life, but I want to always be guided by a still, small voice, not the loudness.