Being Special Without Ever Trying

Iva Roxburgh would not approve of this essay.

She died last week at the age of 101.  If you've never lived in Arlington, Texas, you've probably never heard of her.  Yet she was one of those selfless people who is being remembered by literally thousands of people right now, as we mourn her loss.

Ironically, we all know her despite her lack of self-promotion.  She simply lived the life God gave her.  It sounds like such a cliche, but Iva is special mostly because she never tried to be.

For several decades, generations of Arlington children have attended Camp Thurman, a weekday summer camp nestled along a dry gulch in a little town called Pantego, which Arlington has grown to envelop.  Older kids who've outgrown Camp Thurman as campers have returned year after year as counselors, and the facility has grown to the point where it's about to burst through the maze of subdivisions that sprang up around it.

When I was a kid, I didn't attend Camp Thurman, and even though I don't now have any kids, I know full well the legendary status of the Roxburgh gift to our little corner of the Dallas - Fort Worth Metroplex.  Thurman was Iva's husband of 50 years, and although they never had children of their own, the Roxburghs - early homesteaders in what was then barren prairie - donated 14 acres of their land to their church for use as a children's ministry.  That was "way back in the day," as we say 'round these parts, when the Roxburgh's roomy yet understated brick ranch home was on a rural dirt road.

Indeed, although she didn't have children of her own, as long as Camp Thurman is around, Iva will never be childless.  These days, Camp Thurman is a bona-fide youth services organization serving 7,000 kids every summer with a reputation for down-home, wholesome outdoor fun despite our modern generation's fixation on personal electronics.  Their program also now includes evening activities and teambuilding events for adults.

Iva long ago gave up her personal oversight of the camp, but not her love of children.  For decades, she volunteered in the Sunday School at Pantego Bible Church, of which she was a founding member.  In fact, it wasn't until last year that she finally gave up her Sunday morning duties - after she turned 100.

Iva loved her husband, always wearing his wedding band on her right ring finger after his passing.  And most of all, she loved her Savior, Whom she worshiped with just about everything she did and said.  Pantego Bible Church was the congregation to which Iva and Thurman donated their land for the camp all those years ago, and despite many changes in the church, Iva never left... even though a lot of what changed didn't please her.  Her funeral there tomorrow will likely be standing-room-only, and I plan on being one of the folks unable to find a seat.

Iva worked secretarial jobs in a variety of offices throughout her career, until she retired - in 1980.  I got to know her when I worked in the financial office at Pantego Bible Church, where she'd already been a long-time volunteer on Monday mornings, overseeing the counting and posting of the previous day's contributions.

My boss, Linda, was officially in charge of counting the weekly contributions, but Iva was in control of the process.  She faithfully managed the team of volunteers who counted the money, cross-checked amounts, bundled the cash for depositing at the bank, tabulated the checks, and then created a grand total after adding everything up.  After lunch, Iva would then set to work at a computer, posting every recordable contribution into our finance software for IRS compliance.  I don't know how many software programs Iva learned during her 80's and 90's, but it was two or three at least.  Not bad for an old lady, huh?

Me greeting Iva at my father's memorial service last year.

Not that Iva was ever actually old.  As long as I knew her, she sported a luxurious dollop of pure-white hair, neatly arranged and always stylish.  Still, even into her 90's, Iva never really looked old.  She certainly never looked her age, even at 100.  And she didn't act it, either.  I never knew her use a cane, or be ill.  Her mind stayed sharp up until this year.  She attended my father's memorial service a year ago, not just because she was my friend, but because she remembered Dad from the Bible studies at Pantego Bible Church that he used to attend with me back in the 1990's.

Yes, Iva was my friend, but that wasn't because we were especially close; it was because I doubt Iva ever had a single enemy.  She never had a negative comment about anybody, which is something nobody, unfortunately, can say about me.

Nevertheless, she could be ornery.  Years ago, some young men from the singles group at Pantego Bible Church tried to start an outreach to widows in the congregation.  Since the church had undergone so many changes many of its older people hadn't embraced, there weren't a lot of widows left.  But Iva was one of them, and she didn't live with family, like some of the other widows did, or a retirement home.  So these guys decided that they needed to start doing Iva's lawn.

Even though most of her property had long been deeded to Camp Thurman, Iva still had a sizable lawn.  And flower beds, and shrubs.  Nothing extravagant, of course, which would have been extremely un-Iva-like.  But there was a lot of it, and Iva kept it all very neat and tidy.

Another friend who already had befriended several of the older people at the church warned the guys that of all the people who needed help, Iva wasn't one of them.  "But she's in her 80's," they protested.  "She's got so much to maintain.  The Bible says we need to help her."

So they tried.  They contacted Iva and asked if she needed help with her yard.  No, she did not.

They tried again.  Are you sure there's nothing we can do?  Yes, she was sure; no, there wasn't.

Finally, Iva realized that these young men were genuinely trying to show her some respect and Christian affection, so she relented and agreed for them to come over one Saturday morning.

And on the appointed day, several single guys from church arrived with all the tools they thought they'd need.  Iva met them in the front yard with instructions, and some apprehension on her part.  As the young men began to labor over the grass, Iva didn't go back inside, but stayed outside with them, supervising.  She wasn't crazy about how they were mowing her grass, but she didn't begin to show her concern until they started on her hedges.  By the time somebody began pulling weeds in one of her flower gardens, however, Iva was reaching the limits of her patience and diplomacy.

"I really appreciate y'all trying to help me like this," Iva told the men, "but I think I'd better take care of the rest."

That true story was relayed to be by a couple of the fellows who'd been there.  I hadn't bothered to show up, since I was one of the guys who knew that Iva was mighty self-reliant.  But Iva was a good sport, as were the guys who, sheepishly, agreed that Iva really didn't need their help after all.  Even in our brutal Texas summers, for example, Iva had honed her lawnmowing ritual to avoid the worst of the heat, and she'd soak herself with the garden hose every little while.  Who cared what passers-by thought if she looked a little silly all drenched with water?  It wasn't that Iva needed to be a fashion plate, or keep the yard up for appearances sake.  It was work to be done, and Iva could do it, so you did what you needed to do to get it done.

I don't know a lot of people who have the pluck and fortitude that Iva had.  She was one of those people who simply kept on going, no matter what happened.  She never seemed to get rattled, or especially tired.  She kept her house tidy and clean, but she never updated it.  Her cars were purely utilitarian - plain models that she drove until they wore out.  It wasn't for lack of money, or even indifference.  She simply never saw the need to fuss about much of anything.

Except, perhaps, how somebody else manicured her yard.

"Miss Iva," as generations of kids who've grown up at both Camp Thurman and Pantego Bible Church call her, was one of the most widely-known yet uniquely genuine people we'll probably ever meet.  With her passing, the history of Pantego - both the town, and the church - becomes not only a memory of what used to be, but a celebration of what one person, unburdened by conceit while being quietly faithful to her God, can achieve.

Not because she was out to achieve anything.  But because she was content to let Christ live through her.

"Well done, good and faithful servant: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” - Matthew 25:23

Let's Live Beyond Politics

What do you let shine?

Often, I let my fear shine.  Or my jealousy, or my cynicism.  But God wants His followers to let His holy light shine in us, and radiate from us.

What shines from Donald Trump?  It's stuff that makes evangelicals like me dismayed by his candidacy.  Even more than Hillary Clinton, Trump lives his sins through his temperament, in full view of anybody and everybody.  Trump's particular temperament is well-documented as a pattern of unBiblical behavior from which he's made no concerted demonstration of repentance.  Indeed, he delights in it and considers it part of his identity.

Yes, we all sin, but most of us don't delight in it.  Hillary has made many crude comments both publicly and privately, but at least she tries to backtrack and apologize.  And up until Trump hit the magic metric and became a Republican nominee, most Christ-followers didn't find any urgency in defending his temperament. 

So what's different now, but politics?  Yet doesn't God wants us to live beyond politics?

Most of us closet our sins.  We hide them from others, we're embarrassed by them, or we're afraid of the repercussions if other people knew what we secretly think, or those after whom we privately lust.

Trump, meanwhile, doesn't really care.  He says what he thinks and pursues whatever he lusts after.  And a lot of folks find that refreshing, as if public decorum and deportment have suddenly become old-fashioned.  At least when politics is concerned.

And yes, frankly, considering how deceitful many politicians are, an open-mouthed, cavalierly vulgar candidate like Trump can seem like a breath of fresh air.  He says what the "common man" is thinking, no matter how politically incorrect it is.  But just because something may be politically correct, should we automatically scorn it?  Sometimes, political correctness is genuine, deserved propriety and respect in disguise.

Sometimes, loving our neighbor as ourselves means loving others - despite their warts - as much as we love ourselves with all our warts.  Sometimes, acting properly means forcing ourselves to act in ways, and say things, that minimize the fury in our heart so we don't needlessly offend others, or come across as uncaring.  Sometimes, it's not that we create a public facade of the Fruit of the Spirit that is lacking in our soul, as much as it is keeping quiet and being still until we've allowed the Holy Spirit to grow His Fruit within us.

And I say that not as somebody who has mastered it, but is simply trying to practice it, however imperfectly.

For Christ-followers, this is part of our "sanctification", which is a process that culminates when we die.  Since it is a process, there are progress markers along the way for us to acknowledge and recognize, both in ourselves and others.  We need to have a repentant nature, and a willingness to concede our own errors.  We need to be striving not for personal success, but for God's glory, even at our own personal expense.  We need to appreciate the Biblical reality that if we say we belong to God, we actually do belong to God - and that means being willing to let Him control our lives, even if that control runs contrary to the template of our culture.

It's not easy, or popular, or fun.  It may not make us wealthy, or healthy.  But it will help make us wise.  Indeed, most of us can acquire intelligence simply by reading something, but wisdom is a process that cannot be acquired.  It is built, cultivated, nurtured, and often painful.  Pick any despot the world has ever known, and how many of them were wise?  Most have been smart, and exceptionally cunning.  But that's not wisdom.

On the one hand, perhaps it would be nice - or easy - to simply let our sins all hang out, so we can roll through life flippantly and casually, saying whatever we wanted to say, however we wanted to say it.  Doing whatever we wanted to do, however we wanted to do it.  But is that "authenticity"?  Is that "being real"?  Is that "refreshing"?  Maybe to yourself, but is it to others?  How much respect does it show others?  How good of a testimony is it of God's holiness?

Actually, isn't such a lifestyle a distortion of Godly living?  You see, it's not that God wants us to pridefully hide our sins, and bear the agony of deception.  Instead, God wants us to flee from sin in the first place.  He wants to free us from bondage to the attitudes and actions that cause us to feel like hiding them, and not being "authentic".

Displaying our sins isn't freedom if we're not trying to flee from them.

Indeed, our lack of comfort with our sins should be a good thing, right?  It should indicate that the Holy Spirit is convicting us, and that's part of the Holy Spirit's job.  But our goal shouldn't be to simply ignore the conviction, or only apologetic of our sinful behaviors.  Our goal should be God's honor and glory through our mortification of our sinful dispositions.

Not that we're hiding our sins to make ourselves appear better than we really are.  Instead, we control our display of personal sins in the process of confession, repentance, and regeneration towards the Christ-follower we should desire to be.  Remember, God is the One Who looks at our heart.  And in the meantime, as others look at us outwardly, they should recognize us as a person after God's own heart.

Perhaps if we stopped concentrating on our horizontal perspective between presidential candidates, and began to give greater attention to our lateral perspective between ourselves and God, the choices we have before us could become clearer, and far less acrimonious.  Yet of all the arenas in our lives, politics has become a main stage for relativism and accommodation, even for Christ-followers.

We let government become more powerful than God.  Ironic, huh; since many Christ-followers claim to be politically conservative, and believers in limited government?

So why don't we let loose of politics, and live beyond it?

Trump's Churchy Fans Doth Parse Too Much

The parsing of Donald Trump by self-professing evangelicals is getting desperate.

He's a proud womanizer, a serial divorcee, a luster of his daughter, an owner of casinos, and possessing a severely narcissistic temperament.  He doesn't pay his bills, he cheats his business partners, he mocks the handicapped, he makes crude comments about women he finds unattractive, he's unapologetically xenophobic, and he's a compulsive self-aggrandizer.

Yet somehow, Clinton is still worse, at least to America's evangelicals, a sanctimonious group of folks who believe they have the inside scoop on what's moral.  And right now, abortion is the unpardonable sin.

Many of America's evangelicals have also become a brittle mob of patriots who consider the Constitution about as sacrosanct as the Bible, if not more so.

When the editors of the evangelical World magazine drafted their call for Trump to withdraw from this year's presidential race, they knew their stance would run smack into the political wall many evangelicals have constructed around their amalgamation of freedom, tolerable ethics, money, and power.  And World's editors were right.  While thousands of World's readers appear to approve of the magazine's stance, hundreds of others are writhing in fury over it.

After all, nobody likes being challenged, especially when it comes to one's faith.  But the fact of the matter is that many of America's evangelicals have listened more to Rush Limbaugh than Jesus Christ when it comes to how our country should be run.  And the rise of Trump has been due in large part to these faithful church-goers who refute the notion that a Republican presidential candidate should be called on the carpet for their temperament.

Especially when somebody as evil as Hillary Clinton stands to benefit from Trump's splintering support among evangelicals.

Yet does God call us to prevent a pro-choice candidate from occupying the Oval Office?  Or does He call us to honor Him in all that we do?  Since He is the One who installs and deposes rulers, He is the One Who will allow Hillary to be president if that is indeed the way this election goes.

Yes, the moral distinctions between Hillary and Trump are practically invisible on a personal level, but God does tell us the kinds of temperament that best suit those in leadership positions.  No, God doesn't expect us to elect the perfect candidate, but He does expect His people to vote according to His principles:  The Ten Commandments.  The Fruit of the Spirit.

Not politics.

The editors at World are saying that Trump's temperament makes him unsuited to lead.  We may not like the policies Hillary plans to enact, but her personal temperament is not nearly as insulting and degrading of others as Trump's is.  If we evangelicals in general - and Republicans in particular - expect to continue to wage war against Roe v. Wade on moral grounds, how can we do that with somebody like Trump?

But many evangelicals don't care.  They're angry at World and have told the editors as much.

What follows is a listing of key rebuttals self-professing evangelicals have posted on World's website in response to the magazine's editorial.  If you find yourself agreeing with these rebuttals, then please consider my rebuttal to each rebuttal, and see if you can better understand what we never-Trumpers are trying to say.

If you still don't want to believe that, frankly, you are wrong, and we are right, then that's your prerogative.  Just remember, though:  It's truth that sets us free, not politics.


"Clinton is far more wicked, criminal and unfit to serve as president than Trump is."
Does God judge on the sliding scales we use for sin?


"Hillary wants to force me to spend my money on abortions."
Are abortions the only heinous things for which our government spends our tax dollars?


"Choose your poison."
Fortunately, we don't have to.  Write-in Mike Pence!


"Only God knows Trump's heart."
Yes, but our fruits show the world what is in our heart.


"Which of the only two viable candidates could make our country great again?"
"Great again"?  According to whom?  The slaves?


"King David had his future mistress' husband killed, yet he was a man after God's own heart."
Yes, but King David didn't deny what he'd done; he repented of it, and he respectfully accepted the harsh punishment God inflicted upon him.


"God is allowing two deeply flawed candidates to run.  We have a responsibility to do the best with the choices we have."
That is true, but when one of them consistently displays an egregious and defiant indifference to basic sexual morality, aren't the victims of sexual abuse worth at least a token amount of support?  Is sexual abuse somehow less evil, the greater the "good" the person who commits it could do elsewhere?


"Donald Trump is a good man with a big mouth.  We´ve all had friends like him.  They´re a pain in the butt, but when it´s money time, they come through... and they´re very loyal."
Oh.  Wow.  Where to begin on this one?  Trump is a "good man"?  By God's standard?  What difference does it make if we've all had friends like him?  And is loyalty when money counts a genuine Biblical quality?  I suspect the mentality of the person who wrote this comment is more popular among evangelicals than we'd care to admit.


"The one thing we must not do is turn on each other for our decisions in these difficult times."
So, why are pro-Trump Christians bashing the Trump-is-unfit Christians?  There's truth, and there's falsehood, and God expects us to champion one at the expense of the other.


"We aren't trying to create heaven on earth, rather we're trying to limit the power of our would-be oppressors.  We are voting for freedom."
Biblical freedom is not political freedom.


"Um, well, perhaps the only person who could wake up America is Donald Trump!  God knows what He's doing, no?"
Um, no, Trump is in no way the only person who could "wake up America".  Although God may be using Trump to wake up His own people who are wandering astray.  Besides, why can't God use Hillary to "wake up America"?


"Maybe praying for him, praying for revival, praying for Christians to display to the world we are forgiving all way to the cross;  we are believers who have the faith that even this man can do some good and even God's work.   He is the one for now.   Show the strength of your faith... do not cower!"
So... again, we're wasting our prayers if we pray for Hillary?  And forgiveness exists in a vacuum apart from consequences?


"Don't give up on the obvious candidate that desires to turn our country around from the direction and people that have been uprooting this country's values from the Constitution."
So the Constitution carries more weight than the Bible?


"If virtually any presidential candidate during our lifetime had to undergo the scrutiny of the world of 2016, I´d suspect that every one of those past candidates would suffer 'revelations' similar to what has been revealed about Donald Trump."
Oh really?  Both Bush presidents?  Jimmy Carter?


"Trump is a fighter who is not under the spell of political correctness, and thus is one in a million who has the guts to make the changes needed."
And... that makes up for his sordid temperament?


"Trump is a man who seems to have been triggered by this campaign into growing spiritually and intellectually, a growth that could continue into a Trump presidency."
We should all be growing spiritually and intellectually.  An increasing spirituality and intellect aren't necessarily exceptional qualifications for anything, especially when you want them to override the temperament Trump displays.  We elect a person based on their past behavior and how we hope it will translate into future actions.  Otherwise, if such hope springs eternal, what would be wrong with Hillary?


"Trump´s going up against the whole world.  He has been treated more unfairly than any political candidate in history."
Warning:  This is what happens when you consume too much Rush Limbaugh.


"Donald Trump was caught speaking like a male speaks, or at least speaking like most men have spoken at one time in their lives."
This one makes me especially sad.  It's a very, very dangerous excuse for a professing Christ-follower to utter.  Attitudes like this perpetuate all types of sexual abuse, and is wholly unBiblical.


"What is a sexual predator?  A man seeking to have sexual intercourse with a beautiful woman. The country is full of them.  Do you honestly believe the hearts of all the other Republican nominees in the past several decades were so much purer?  We are not electing Miss Christianity.  We are electing a chief executive officer for the country. I continue to see Donald as much more genuine, and reverent toward the values that made America great, than our other choice, a known traitor."
Again, an extremely sad perspective to hold.  Dismissive of sexual abuse, scornful of attempts at resuscitating morality in our country, and appreciative of an offensive temperament simply because it's "more genuine".  If Trump is "reverent towards the values that made America great," why should his history of inherited wealth, exploitation of subcontractors, objectification of women, xenophobia, etc. be worthy of repetition?  And if you know of Hillary's traitorous ways, shouldn't you report them to the FBI?


I could go on, but can you see how depressing these reader responses are?  What lack of faith they embody?  What clutching to political rhetoric they betray?

The ends do justify the means, at least to these people.  Two wrongs do make a right.  Morality really is relative.

You know that gasping sound you hear?  That's 2,016 years of Christianity being suffocated by partisan American politics.

Yes, I want Trump to withdraw from this presidential race.  And, as I wrote the other day, I want Hillary to as well.  Yet even in the unlikely event that they do, we're still going to be stuck with a lot of evangelicals with a lot of bad ideas about the type of people who are competent to lead.

No, we're not electing a pastor here.  And apparently, judging by how American evangelicals say they interpret the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that's a very good thing.

Funeral or Farewell Party?

Have you already planned your funeral?

Not that I know some big secret about how much time you still have left here on Earth.  I'm not suggesting there's any urgency for your funeral planning.  So, as my aunt Helena used to say, "not to worry."

She passed away this past summer, by the way, and was remembered with two memorial services.

Nevertheless, since we're on the subject... how much have you thought about your funeral?  Have you already lined up the person (or people) you want to give your eulogy?  Do you have the music picked out for your final fifteen minutes of fame?  Favorite scripture passages you’d like to have read at your memorial?  Maybe the style of your coffin - if you’ve already decided you don’t want to be cremated?  And if you’re getting cremated, have you chosen the urn in which you wish your ashes to be placed?  Some of them can get pretty pricey.

Or maybe you’re doing one of those flashy signature funerals, like being buried in your car, or having your funeral on your favorite hole at your treasured country club?  Maybe you want to have a theme funeral, where all the guests have to wear green, or 1920’s costumes?  You can plan it all online these days, right down to the menu for your guests and gift bags for them to take home.

Have you created a list of charities to which your mourners can donate, in lieu of flowers?  Or do you want fresh flowers splashed about the funeral home, and you’ve already listed out the types of bouquets, sprays and plants you like?

Time was, a funeral was obligatory when somebody died.  And practically since the beginning of time, humans have used graves - whether in the ground, in caves, or in mounds of dirt above the ground - to bury their dead.  Different cultures have different ceremonial elements to mark a person's death, but generally speaking, despite differences in how corpses are treated and the loss of loved ones is mourned, death has been a special time of moral dignity across the human experience.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Lately, however, with the rise of funeral costs and the efficiency of cremation, particularly among Western societies, some folks have begun asking if the conventional funeral might be heading towards relic status?  We Americans, in particular, have gotten commonly casual in our religious observances, what with church attendance being in decline, as well as marriage rates.  Even how we dress at weddings and funerals - not to mention weekly church services - has become far less stuffy than in the past.

From some corners of evangelicalism, cremation has come under fire, if you'll pardon the pun.  Some evangelicals have preached sermons or written articles for Christian magazines fretting about whether burial is more holy than cremation.  Apparently there's something more dignified about burying a corpse than burning it, especially since the Bible uses the imagery of fire when referencing Hell.

Then there's the recent trend of forgoing a funeral altogether.  At least, a funeral in the traditional sense of the term.  Although there are no hard numbers, end-of-life professionals have recognized that a small percentage of people are now requesting no funeral at all.  This may be for economic reasons, or for a lack of family, or simply as part of a fad, since celebrities like David Bowie sought privacy by not even allowing his cremation to be publicized.  This funeral-less concept alarms some professional Christians, who fret that since funerals are for the living, not the dead, denying loved ones a chance to grieve is not helpful to the grief process, and could be considered a form of selfishness.

Of course, if too many people opt out of having a funeral, such a decline in the number of funerals professional Christians perform - and for which they are generally remunerated by the deceased's family - could begin to affects them in their pocketbooks.  My aunt's two services were informal affairs in Texas and Florida, with no ordained clergy or funeral home directors in charge.  Years ago, my father conducted two funerals himself for neighbors who believed in Jesus Christ but didn't attend church.

I've come to learn that a will is not as powerful a legal document as it probably used to be, but for whatever weight it still conveys, mine stipulates that I want no funeral.  I understand that funerals are for those left behind, not for the deceased.  And I myself attend many funerals, at least compared with the number of weddings to which I'm invited.

It's not that I have anything against funerals, although they're hardly enjoyable events.  I can appreciate our society's general use of the funeral ceremony to convey respect and acknowledgement of life's mysterious importance.

And believe me:  My love of classical corporate worship would lend itself quite effectively towards crafting quite the magnificent funeral service, if I were so inclined.  Think "O Love of God, How Strong and True," which is an epic hymn; or "For All the Saints," a glorious funeral anthem; plus "Be Still, My Soul," the tear-jerker sung to Finlandia, a must for any Finnish believer's funeral.

But, as the kids today say... "Meh..."

Iva Roxburgh and me
at my father's memorial service,
just about a year ago.
Iva passed away yesterday
at age 101.

Part of my indifference about having a funeral for myself likely stems from my being unmarried, and having no children.  If I live long enough and eventually managed to encounter a woman grounded enough to tolerate me full-time, I suppose one's spousal unit generally gets the last word when it comes to things like funerals.  But in the meantime, I'm not holding my breath.  Or planning my funeral.

Today is the one-year anniversary of my father's death from Alzheimer's.  Yesterday, a 101-year-old friend of mine passed away.  A close friend of our family's is battling stage four cancer.  Indeed, as they say, death is a part of life.

And it's not that I'm afraid of dying.  I'm not looking forward to the process of dying, especially if takes an arduous course like my Dad's did.  But I believe that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8).  So, at least as I discuss it theoretically like this, and not while I know I'm staring it in the face, death "holds no sting" for me.  And I say that honestly and truthfully.

Of course, if any of y'all still want to have a party after I'm gone, I won't be around to stop you.  But if you do, just try not to celebrate too heartily over my passing and absence.

A little decorum, please!

Everyone Wants Everyone Else to Change

Here's the problem:

Everybody wants everybody else to change.

Think about it.  Muslim extremists want "infidels" to convert to Islam.  Evangelicals want everybody to embrace traditional Christian morality.  Gays want evangelicals to embrace same-sex marriage.

Liberals want everybody to let the government have more power.  Conservatives want everybody to force the government to downsize.

But nobody actually wants to change.  Who thinks they need to change something about themselves?  At least, besides losing weight, or eating healthier meals, or getting a better job, or somehow achieving some other sort of change that directly and tangibly benefits themselves?

We have become a world full of narcissists.  We know what's wrong with other people, and even though we'll readily admit our own minor faults, we can't possibly be as wrong about so many major things as so many other people are.

If there's one thing I've learned after seven years of writing this blog, it's that hardly anybody wants to be told what to do.  People will read blogs and articles and websites, but they don't read expecting to be challenged.  They read to see how much an author agrees with their already-set viewpoint.  People want affirmation, not confrontation.

For example, simply pulling from our bulging files of current events that never seem to go away:  Black men continue trying to evade arrest, and then when one of them gets shot by the police, suddenly it's the cops who are at fault.  Meanwhile white people scoff at claims of police brutality, but don't really push for investigations that could hold police departments more accountable for their actions.

And then, Donald Trump is found to have not paid taxes for probably many years, and his legions of supporters and apologists guffaw, chortling with only the mildest embarrassment that Trump's merely a master at exploiting our tax code.   Meanwhile, very few Republicans are saying that Trump's massive tax dodge is emblematic of a tax code that obviously favors the rich more than it does the middle and lower classes.  Why not?  Probably because so many Republicans feel beholden to the party and its celebrated wealth barons who don't want our tax code to favor the 99%.

It may be a new day, but the news is old.

In Los Angeles on Saturday, Carnell Snell Jr. was shot and killed while fleeing from police.  The 18-year-old black man knew the police were chasing him, yet when he was confronted by officers in a squad car, he refused to cooperate (as if running from the cops, up until this point, could be interpreted as any type of cooperation).

“They jumped out of the car and they didn't tell him to freeze or nothing,” a witness recounted to a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, describing what she viewed as the police's apparent impatience with Snell. “They just shot him... If they would have given him a command he might have complied.  But they didn't give him no option.”

This witness offers a common response from some in the black community after these police-involved shootings.  The police should let black suspects pretty much control the situation, according to subscribers of the "Black Lives Matter" movement.  Never mind the inability of police officers to read minds, or immediately process the entire context of the situation.  While white people get blamed for asking "why don't you simply stop and follow police orders," the question remains:  Why does it seem as though black men disproportionately feel entitled to write their own rules in situations involving the police?

It seems as though, day in and day out, week after week of hearing about these shootings, the same pattern plays itself out, with black men trying to achieve a different outcome than what usually happens.  The narrative we're told is that cops need to change their own behavior if police brutality is going to end.  But when the police order somebody to do something, whether you think it's degrading to your self-respect or not, what's the harm in doing it?  Stopping when cops tell you to stop.  Putting your hands in the air when they tell you to put your hands in the air.  Is that brutality? 

It might be demeaning, but it's not brutality.  Have you seen the videos of innocent victims in mall shootings and school shootings?  The police make everybody line up and file outside, with their hands in the air.  It's degrading for the people who've just witnessed a mass shooting, and are already upset.  Nevertheless, the police don't know who's dangerous or not.  Everybody is a suspect.  And everybody usually complies, because they understand the cops have a charge to protect the broader community.

Why is it so hard for black men to comply?  Is it the gangsta culture that is so popular these days?  Is it really the intimidation many of them feel directed towards them by the police?  We know that disproportionately, black men get shot by cops at a higher rate than anybody else, so there is a legitimate problem here.  But why should a black man in this day and age need to be told to "freeze"?

They're wanting the cops to change.  But for cops, an uncooperative suspect is what stands between that moment, and their desire to get home safely to their family tonight.

And as for Trump, isn't it obvious by now that Republicans need a serious "Come to Jesus meeting" regarding the GOP's tolerance of sloppy ethics?  Trump, perhaps far more so than Hillary, is the poster boy for "the ends don't justify the means," yet some conservatives are heralding Trumps' tax dodge as superlative revenue gamesmanship.  Hey - he exploited the tax code in legal ways, which shows how smart he is.  Or at least, how smart his tax lawyers are.

But look at how bad that makes him look!  He's the weasel many folks have already said he was.  He's the Leona Helmsley of New York's real estate community.  Remember her famous line, "only the little people pay taxes."

If Trump really had an ethical bone in his body, he'd have known that his loophole exploits could seriously snag his campaign.  So at the very start, he could have exploited his exploitations, holding a press conference and proudly announcing that he'd legally not paid taxes for years, and the reason is because America's tax code is horribly inefficient and stacked against the middle class, and by golly, he was going to change that, because he's for America's middle class.

He's always relished his status as the GOP's anti-establishment candidate, and vowing to bust up Washington's good-old-boy tax code would certainly have made him very unpopular inside the Beltway, not to mention exclusive country clubs across the country.  But no, he didn't even see that he could turn his sneaky accounting to his political advantage, because he's a hardened money-grubber who doesn't want the tax code changed.  He has no intention of paying one dime more in taxes than the current laws will allow.

And frankly, it's hard to blame anybody for not wanting to pay any more taxes than they're required to pay.  But the revelation of Trump's tax situation also revealed that thousands of millionaires don't pay federal income taxes.  They're part of the cohort of Americans who right-wingers have vilified for years as not paying their fair share to fund our government.

Oops.

Yet Republicans, ever since this story broke over the weekend, have generally been giving Trump a big free pass, parroting Rudy Giuliani who called Trump a capitalistic "genius."  They don't want to change their view of Trump as a worthy occupant of the Oval Office.

Not that Trump would be the sleaziest person to be president, but his tax dodge merely piles up alongside all of the other frustratingly bad examples of things by which the Republican Party used to not want to be characterized. 

So Americans keep clashing and thrashing our way through another presidential season, and through another cop shooting, as life becomes more fractured and fractious between people living in states that are supposed to exist as a union.  Mostly because nobody thinks they're wrong.

Everybody is doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25, Judges 17:6).  But how can we free ourselves from this destructive path?  What else sets us free, but truth?

Two simple things, at least for starters:

1. Respect authority (Romans 13:1).  If cops are pursuing you, stop and comply.  This also implies that the authorities instituted by God are responsible to Him, and need to comply with His standard of justice.
2. The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Timothy 6:10).  Trump is no exception to the rule.  So if you want to blame people who don't pay federal taxes for the state of our country's deficit, GOPers need to blame their own presidential candidate.  Awkward, huh?

It may sound awfully simplistic.  But who makes "truth" complicated, except us?  And if this is too religious for your tastes, ask yourself:  How effective are the secular ways we've been using to try to fix our problems?  Sometimes, the truth hurts, as they say.

Who do you think should change?  Did you immediately think of somebody else?