Pages

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Gatlinburg's Fiery Visitor



Last night, Gatlinburg was under the gun.

Eastern Tennessee’s popular resort town faced a mandatory evacuation notice as wildfires swept perilously close.  Nestled within the heavily-wooded flanks of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Gatlinburg’s very identity was threatened by a natural disaster stoked by one of the region’s driest summers in a decade.

Up to 14 separate conflagrations are believed to be eating up dried timber around the scenic community, which thousands of tourists each month use as their launching-off point for excursions into the lush park. 

I’ve been there, and indeed, the scenery is beautiful.  Mountains are impressive, hills are steep, and trees hug even the rockiest of slopes.  The views through valleys and from vistas can be poetic in their charm.  It’s kind of a mix of misty Appalachia, Old West bravado, and sultry Deep South charms.  And it’s not posh or remote, meaning it’s surprisingly accessible, both geographically and economically.  And that makes it especially popular, as you might imagine.

My brother and his family used to live in Sevierville, which is Gatlinburg’s largest neighbor, and home to even more Western-themed hotels and attractions.  Shucks, between Sevierville and Gatlinburg sits Pigeon Forge, a place that used to only be famous as Dolly Parton's hometown.  These days, however, Parton owns a world-class theme park there called Dollywood, based on the trifecta of historic Americana that gives the region its flavor:  Appalachia, the Old West, and the Deep South. 

In fact, that whole three-town area from Sevierville to Gatlinburg has exploded into it’s own sprawling theme park of sorts, with a plethora of kitschy kiddie parks, go-cart tracks, outlet malls, down-home-cooking restaurants, BBQ joints, music halls, water parks, Christmas stores, and other middle-class, blue-collar happiness that keeps traffic snarled and hotels full for most of the year.

Of the three towns, Gatlinburg is probably the most high-brow, with expensive hillside homes perched amidst heavily-treed slopes rising from the center of town.  And unlike some burgs whose old downtowns have died, Gatlinburg retains its vibrant, bustling main street, called a “parkway” since its final destination is actually the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

Indeed, despite its redneck proclivities, Gatlinburg itself is a hip new urbanist’s dream.  Nestled along the riverbottom of scenic mountain ravines, the town is very densely developed, since buildable land is at a premium.  And development has been centered on the main drag, both to capture the most tourist dollars, and because the topography isn’t easily suitable for big-box sprawl.  That makes most of Gatlinburg charmingly intimate and easily walkable, with scenic pathways and nicely-landscaped sidewalks running along a bucolic, babbling waterway – an urban tableau that many cities would deeply covet.

Unless you’re driving into the national park, there’s no reason to drive around town, or from your hotel to any of the many restaurants, for example.  Traffic moves too slowly anyway, since again, the topography doesn’t allow for lots of wide roadways.  Visitors to Gatlinburg may drive in, but they park, and then walk around the center of town.  Traffic snakes through on relatively narrow streets, lined with famous attractions such as Ripleys, the Ober Gatlinburg ski lift, and a Guinness Book of Records museum.  There’s an aquarium, new hotels being constructed all the time, and even a Ben and Jerry’s ice cream parlor.

Regular readers of my blog know I’m not easily impressed by much of anything, but during my couple of visits to Gatlinburg years ago, when my brother’s family lived in the area, I was struck by how appealing, functional, and vibrant a town it is.

Again, the urban planning geek in me would attribute much of that appeal to the town’s lack of sprawl and big-box development, but it also has to do with the town’s overt desire to perpetuate its quaintish, yesteryear-type vibe - and thus maintain its appeal to tourists.  Yes, much of the architecture is tacky and unapologetically exploitative of tired rural themes, but on the other hand, there are no garish glass skyscrapers to make the place look more like one of those big Yankee cities.

Indeed, I got the impression that Sevier County's Appalachian-Western-Southern motif was overdone mostly to remind tourists that they were definitely not in the North.  Even though historically, most folks in eastern Tennessee tended to sympathize with the Union during the War Between the States.

Architecture isn't all that Sevier County's attractions take liberties with.  Historical accuracy also takes a hit.  But then again, across much of America, what else is new?

Fortunately, today, word is that Gatlinburg dodged the worst bullets from those wildfires.  Most of downtown remains untouched, with the only damage being from heavy smoke that has blanked the area for a couple of days.  Unfortunately, however, at least three people are confirmed dead by the wildfires, and 150 homes and businesses on the outskirts of town have been destroyed.  In a community with 4,000 year-round residents, those are especially significant statistics.

For owners and occupants of those properties, of course, and the loved ones of those who were killed, last night was devastating.  But for Gatlinburg’s economy, as well as the region’s, it was mostly a close call that hopefully can soon pass into the history books.

It could have been much worse.  The way much of those three towns are built into the mountains, with sloping hills covered with vegetation reaching down into subdivisions and strip-malls with no buffer from a national park teeming with timber and tinder, forest fires in the area are surprising only because they’re as rare as they are.

These current fires have started and spread mostly because the area is in a drought.  And as we all know, from watching wildfires from California to Canada, nature itself uses conflagrations that humans often can’t control to clear deadwood and aging trees.  Not exactly something that makes us humans safe, especially the closer up against – and within – the forests we live.  But at least these Appalachian towns have been around a while, remnants of bygone settler days, when folks stayed behind as other pioneers kept moving westward, mining the various mineral deposits and farming what flat stretches of rich earth they could find.  Newer parts of Gatlinburg have been carved into the surrounding forests by real estate speculators, but that's only because there are literally no open patches of ground left to develop.

Of course, the science of forestry didn’t exist when towns like Gatlinburg were originally settled.  But as the science has evolved over the years, and we’ve learned more about wildfires, perhaps the prudent, purely utilitarian approach would have been to clear-cut swaths of forest ringing the town, and maybe even bulldozing some of the smaller hillsides to prevent mudslides in the absence of soil-holding trees.  Such preventative measures likely would give Gatlinburg’s residents and businesses a significant sense of safety and confidence that a wildfire near their borders could be successfully controlled, since vegetation – fuel for a fire – was being kept to a bare minimum.

However, obviously, that would also mean that Gatlinburg’s sole industry – tourism – would cease to exist.  As it is, there’s little else keeping folks in the area – or attracting them there – except the scenery.  There is no other industry to speak of.  That’s one reason why Appalachia has suffered so much economically over the years.  It shore is mah-tee pur-tee, but good jobs shore are scarce.

Cut down some of the trees, level some of the hills, and then what’s so special about the place?  Interestingly enough, when the Great Smoky Mountain National Park opened in 1934, it was mostly the result of efforts to stop commercial logging around the town.

As scenic as it is, I have to admit that I never would have visited Gatlinburg – or Pigeon Forge, or Sevierville – if I hadn’t had family there.  And they haven’t lived there for years now… and I haven’t been back.  But that’s just me.  Plenty of other people love visiting Sevier County.  And for the folks who make their living on their hometown’s scenic beauty, I hope the wildfires that have ravaged Gatlinburg haven’t damaged the woodlands too severely to keep tourists away.

But even if the tourists stay away, one can never be sure that wildfires will.  As popular a resort as Gatlinburg may be with us humans, nature can be both a blessing and a dreadfully unwanted visitor.


Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Two Hundred Thanks

On this Thanksgiving week, I am thankful for:

1.  God the Father
2.  God the Son
3.  God the Holy Spirit
4.  Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (which, theologically, represent three individual benefits)
5.  God choosing me as His own
6.  God's sovereignty
7.  God's providence
8.  God's grace and mercy (which, theologically, are two separate things)
9.  Love
10.  Joy
11.  Peace
12.  Patience
13.  Kindness
14.  Goodness
15.  Faithfulness
16.  Gentleness
17.  Self-Control
18.  God's Word
19.  Bible-believing parents
20.  My family
21.  The United States of America
22.  Our freedom to worship
23.  Maple Flats Baptist Church in Cleveland, New York
24.  Kenwood Heights Alliance Church in Oneida, New York
25.  Rome Alliance Church in Rome, New York
26.  Arlington Alliance Church in Arlington, Texas
27.  East Park Church of the Nazarene in Arlington, Texas
28.  Pantego Bible Church when it was located in Arlington, Texas
29.  Calvary Baptist Church in New York City
30.  Arlington Presbyterian Church back in Arlington, Texas
31.  Park Cities Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas
32.  A comfortable place to live
33.  Electricity
34.  Air conditioning
35.  The old house and memories from Cleveland, New York
36.  Our two collies, Felice and Feliz
37.  Our cats over the years
38.  Good friendships
39.  Reliable transportation
40.  Central Park, my most favorite place in New York City
41.  Gramercy Park, my 2nd-most-favorite NYC spot, around which I used to frequently walk
42.  Summer days in upstate New York
43.  Spring days in north Texas
44.  Newly-fallen winter snow in upstate New York (but only in the early days of winter!)
45.  Big trees
46.  My mother's cooking
47.  Clean sheets
48.  Indoor bathrooms
49.  The Internet
50.  Classical music
51.  Pipe organs
52.  Junior's cheesecake
53.  Freedom of expression
54.  Cheddar's restaurant
55.  Uncle Julio's restaurant
56.  Honest and reliable mechanics
57.  Pilots
58.  Tilt-and-telescopic steering wheels, to accommodate my long legs
59.  Rain
60.  Umbrellas
61.  Automatic lawn sprinkler systems
62.  Green grass
63.  Smooth roads
64.  Seersucker shirts
65.  Handkerchiefs
66.  Coastal Maine
67.  "Annabelle's beach" on Maine's Blue Hill Peninsula
68.  Grammie and Grampa's house in Sedgwick, Maine
69.  First Baptist Church of Sedgwick, Maine
70.  Fresh-caught Maine lobster
71.  Seashells
72.  The tide
73.  Buoyancy
74.  Kimbell Art Museum (only the original Kahn building, however)
75.  Safe, clean, walkable downtown Fort Worth, Texas
76.  Police departments
77.  Fire departments
78.  Our military
79.  Our ability to vote
80.  My ability to read
81.  My ability to write (OK, you might not be thankful for this one!)
82.  Good medical care
83.  Eyesight
84.  Humor
85.  Hard work (mostly when it's over, of course!)
86.  Tenacity (mostly in others; if I discover it in myself, I'm usually just surprised)
87.  Hope
88.  Forgiveness
89.  The ability to share in the collective upkeep of public property through taxes
90.  The ability to help others
91.  Air traffic controllers
92.  Supermarket stockers
93.  Elevators
94.  Stairs
95.  Chairs
96.  Ben & Jerry's ice cream
97.  Deodorant
98.  People who are willing to serve as volunteers
99.  Teachers
100.  The ability to smell
101.  Odors that are pleasant
102.  Odors whose unpleasant smells serve as a warning of something negative
103.  Our body's ability to properly process waste
104.  Toilet paper
105.  Refrigeration
106.  Ice cubes
107.  Soap
108.  Rakes
109.  Eyeglasses
110.  Time
111.  Entertainment
112.  Clean air
113.  Clean water
114.  Garbage men (after all, have you ever seen a "garbage woman"?)
115.  Photography
116.  Pizza
117.  Creativity
118.  Fingernail clippers
119.  Toilets
120.  Alarm clocks
121.  Privacy
122.  Windows
123.  Meteorologists
124.  Engineers
125.  People who love math (so I don't have to)
126.  Respect
127.  People who honesty deserve respect
128.  Our ability to communicate
129.  Our ability to reason (even though some of us use this more than others)
130.  Gravity
131.  Fingernails
132.  Photocopy machines
133.  Shoes
134.  Socks
135.  Ceiling fans
136.  Nails
137.  Hammers
138.  Screws
139.  Screw drivers
140.  Fences that keep good things in, and bad things out
141.  Underwear
142.  Judges, lawyers, and laws (not quite sure why this comes right after "underwear")
143.  Windows
144.  Doors
145.  Locks
146.  Keys
147.  People and things that are reliable
148.  Tenacity
149.  Toothbrushes
150.  Televisions
151.  Remote control
152.  Computers
153.  Lawns
154.  Lawn mowers
155.  Staplers
156.  Paper clips
157.  Batteries
158.  Energy
159.  Light
160.  Purpose
161.  Bridges
162.  Watertight roofs
163.  Farmers
164.  Butchers
165.  Bakers
166.  Zippers
167.  Buttons
168.  Sewing needles
169.  Thread
170.  Truth
171.  The ability to discern right from wrong
172.  The courage to do what is right
173.  The strength to resist temptation
174.  Chocolate
175.  Pasta
176.  Walks through my leafy neighborhood
177.  Good neighbors
178.  Immigrants whose desire to live here reminds me how good America is
179.  People wealthier than me, who remind me that riches are relative
180.  People poorer than me, who also remind me that riches are relative
181.  The ability to be content
182.  The ability to wait
183.  Summer breezes
184.  Winter thaws
185.  Colors
186.  Shapes
187.  Dimensions
188.  Harmless comforts
189.  Necessary stimulations
190.  Pecan pie
191.  Affirmation of the good
192.  Caution against the bad
193.  The Chrysler Building, America's most elegant skyscraper
194.  Frank Lloyd Wright's "Fallingwater," America's most intriguing house
195.  My college education
196.  Graduating from college debt-free
197.  Being able to help care for my dear Dad during his dementia
198.  Being assured that Dad's in Heaven, along with everybody who has trusted Christ as their Lord
199.  Being similarly assured of my own destiny
200.  You - for reading this!

Happy Thanksgiving!


Thursday, October 20, 2016

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


Friday, October 14, 2016

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?


Thursday, October 13, 2016

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.


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

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!


Monday, October 3, 2016

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?


Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Don't Put Heaven in a Box


What happens to us when we die?

Is that it?  Finito?  Kaput?  When we die, does life cease?  As my brother used to joke, "Thank you for being on our show!"

Or, is there a soul in each of us that continues onward, somewhere else?

These are questions, of course, that have daunted and haunted mankind for millennia.  Skeptics say religion exists to help us figure out answers to these questions.  We need some sort of belief system to answer such staggering ponderables, to provide some sort of incentive to continue on our life's journey, and to reward people for behaving in their current circumstances.  Good people then go to good places like Heaven, while bad people go to bad places like Hell.

Alternatively, the traditional evangelical theology of Heaven holds that God has not designed Eternity for "good" people per-say.  Heaven is for people who believe that Jesus is His Son, and He died on the cross of Calvary to pay the guilt of our sins.  Alternatively, Hell isn't for bad people; it's where people go who spend their life on Earth without truly confessing faith in Jesus Christ.  This means that plenty of "good" people end up in Hell, while plenty of "bad" people end up in Heaven.

In fact, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ's salvation of the souls of believers, we're all bad.  Goodness is only a matter of our opinion, not God's.  God is sovereign and all-knowing.  He doesn't have opinions.  He is truth.  Shucks, He's truth's Creator, and truth's Teacher, through the power of His Holy Spirit.

You can re-read that if you need to.  You've got time.  I'll wait!  And yes, as a born-again follower of Christ, I believe all of this.  To people who don't consider themselves evangelical Christians, it's all a bunch of fables and sanctimonious rhetoric.  But at least the things I believe about why we exist, and what happens to us when we die, are consistently taught throughout the Bible's 66 unique books.

So I believe that people like my father, and my aunt, both of whom recently passed away within this past year, are right now in Heaven, since both of them each personally professed faith in Jesus Christ as their holy Savior.  I'm not quite sure what they're specifically doing at this very moment, like I'm sure of what I'm doing.  I'm typing out a blog essay.  And right now, you're reading it.  However, if you have loved ones in Heaven, you're probably like me:  Not as sure of what they're doing right now.

Generally speaking, based on those passages of the Bible that discuss Heaven and the death of Christ-followers, we can be confident that our loved ones who "die in Christ," as the saying goes, are literally in the presence of God and Jesus Christ, in Heaven.  I believe that's where my Dad is, and my aunt.  And their mother.  And hopefully, loved ones you've recently lost.  And hundreds and thousands and ten thousands of other saints from around the world, throughout human history, who have believed what God has told us about Himself and His Son.

It's mind-boggling, isn't it?

Yet still, what are they DOING?  Are they milling about, like at a reception of some sort, sipping coffee and munching on hors d'oeuvres until the rest of us show up?  Are they chatting with friends who've been there much longer, like a drawn-out family reunion, or maybe standing in lines to meet the Bible's famous heroic personalities, like some autograph session, as everybody bides their time before Eternity officially begins?

Many of us like to anthropomorphize those who've gone on to Heaven before us.  We like to imagine that they're still watching us here on Earth.  We presume they're still interested in our comings and goings, our love lives, how our jobs are going, who's giving birth, who's graduating college, who's making a stunning play for their football team.  Somewhere up there, Heaven has celestial floor-to-ceiling windows, or maybe scuff-proof glass panes in Heaven's floor, through which saints can view us down here, despite the clouds somehow...  Or maybe God installed closed-circuit TV or WiFi in Heaven with supernatural 24/7 coverage and 100% uptime reliability.

It's comforting to imagine that our loved ones remain connected somehow to us here on this planet.  But is it Biblical to think that way?  The only time the Bible ever mentions somebody in the Hereafter watching those they left behind on Earth is Luke 16's account of the wealthy man in Hell, who looked over to Heaven and asked Abraham to send Lazarus over with some water.  Which, of course, is not a literal account of something that ever actually happened.  This is an allegorical parable Jesus told in order to convey the idea that faith in Him, and not faith in money, is the key to Heaven.

Other than that, there's not much of anything in the Bible to give us proof that people in the Afterlife are living the same type of limited, sin-tainted reality that we have here on Earth.

We do know that there's no marriage in Heaven, at least among ourselves (perhaps for some of us, that's a strong endorsement right there for Eternity with God).  Figuratively, we will be the "Bride of Christ," but what that will look like in a practical sense is something for theologians to debate.  We know there will be work for us to do, but it will not be laborious.  We won't be sick, or get tired, or sad.

It's all hard to imagine, since life for us right now is so full of good things that have been deeply corrupted by sin.

Some people - even faithful Christ-followers - tend to succumb to the impossibility of appreciating the fullness of Heaven's glory, especially when a loved one dies.  Indeed, grief can provoke distortions of reality - especially Heavenly reality.  There are some who say they receive visions of their dearly-departed from Heaven, and they've been able to maintain a continued relationship of sorts even after death.  Yet while I sympathize with those who grieve, I don't believe our loved ones sending us anything - prayers, love, good wishes, emotional connections, verbal communications - from their new Heavenly home.

Why not?

Because they're in God's holy presence!  Everybody who dies in Christ is immediately embraced by God's divine being.  The Bible says so.  "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

And considering how utterly magnificent it must be to find oneself in God's presence, won't mortal concerns pale in comparison?  We might fancifully imagine that our loved ones continue following along with us on our Earthly trek, even after they die in Christ.  But that's a deeply self-centered idea for us to have, isn't it?

Can you see the fallacy?

"Um... OK, I'm up here three mansions away from the Pearly Gates... I've got Jesus Christ over there, just beyond the Apostle Paul and my late brother-in-law... Oops - I guess I'm "late" too, or are the rest of the saints still on Earth the ones who are actually late?  Hmm... I wonder what's happening where I used to live?  I can look through the Celestial WiFi at something going on down there, even though it's where sin abounds...  Although, frankly, I can't even look upon sin anymore, now that I've seen God..."

Yeah; about that sin thing:  Are there blips in the Celestial WiFi so your loved ones can't experience your sinful thoughts?  Is there, like, a three-second delay on the transmission for Heaven's audio/visual tech angels to delete what your lustful eyes see?  Sure, we may think lots of parts of this Earthly life are pretty pure, but in light of Heaven, aren't most of our lives corrupted by sin?  Pollution?  Crime?  Speeding traffic?  Selfish thoughts?

Selfish thoughts.

Pining for loved ones who've passed into Glory isn't exactly selfishness.  But figuring they're still with you, and transmitting good vibes and lovely well-wishes from Heaven gets us pretty close to the very definition of selfishness, doesn't it?  Not that there's anything sinful about fantasizing how our dead relatives might be reacting up in Heaven to something that happens to us here.  But let's not start believing that our mortal lives hold more interest to folks in God's presence than, well, God's presence does.

After all, this faith we believe, including this Heaven place?  It's all based on God's glory, isn't it?  And if, when we die, God's glory isn't enough to distract us from what we used to have on Earth, than how magnificent is God's glory?

If Christ-followers go to Heaven when we die, being with God is our eternal reward.  Being released from the bindings and trappings of Earth - there's a reason they're called "trappings"! - is part of our eternal reward.

Right now, you and I can't adequately express what Heaven is like.  Or what our loved ones up there are doing right now.

We know what God is doing:  He's rejoicing over us, and He's singing as He's doing it.  But our loved ones who've died in Christ?  All we know for sure is that they're worshipping their Savior in person.

I'm thinking that's something consuming all of their attention at this point.  And frankly, wouldn't that be far better than whatever we're doing right now?


Friday, September 2, 2016

Dallas Holdout Stumps New Urbanism


If you're white, relatively prosperous, and ambitious, gentrification could be something from which you benefit.

At least, if you like big, aging cities that have managed to cultivate a hip grunge vibe within their older neighborhoods.

Gentrification allows mostly white, mostly affluent, mostly educated people to live closer to the center of a city than they could in suburbia.  Indeed, to gentrifiers, suburbia is anathema; it's where their parent live, it's where they grew up, it's vanilla and malls and so very, very not trendy.

The problem with gentrification, however, isn't that it's helping to revitalize vast swaths of America's biggest cities that just a few years ago were the not only not trendy, but quite dangerous as well.  Few fault gentrification because it helps salvage derelict buildings.  Gentrification provides an infusion of desperately-needed economic vitality, and repurposes land that has languished on city tax rolls.

The problem with gentrification isn't even that it mostly benefits affluent white people.  This is not so much a racial issue, as it is one of economics.  Hey, revitalizing old neighborhoods takes a lot of money.  Mostly because the people who have lived there during decades of urban decay haven't been able to afford to maintain their properties well.  Yes, urban blight is a direct result of white flight, but most of the whites moving back and "reclaiming" neighborhoods that became minority-majority don't see skin color.

They see opportunity.  They see shops and restaurants within walking distance of their apartments.  They see charismatic old buildings with details and craftsmanship you can't find these days in new construction.  They see a different type of lifestyle that requires less household maintenance than their parents have in suburbia, with those sprawling lawns.

Gentrification is not some racist ploy to make life miserable for the blacks and Hispanics who disproportionately filled-in the urban core as whites fled it.  Gentrification is an economic reaction to social trends that, actually, indicates far less hostility towards racial and cultural differences than those trends did that created urban blight to begin with.

But that doesn't mean gentrification doesn't have costs - especially for people who can't afford it.

Consider the case of Hinga Mbogo, who in 1986 dared to open an auto repair shop in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods of Dallas, Texas.  Back in the 80's, white flight had already decimated most of Ross Avenue, from downtown through Old East Dallas and beyond.  The formerly respectable Bryan Place neighborhood was reeling from its new status as a haven for drug dealers and gang wars.  Students at Dallas Theological Seminary, which held its ground on a leafy campus just south of Ross Avenue, and became something of a champion for urban missions, heard gunfire almost every night.

But Mbogo found a building he could afford, and opened his auto repair shop near where several others already operated.  It was about the only type of legitimate commercial enterprise that could survive in that environment.  His establishment is greasy and grimy, and completely unattractive.  But Mbogo cultivated a reputation for honesty and hard work.  He'd always wanted to own his own business, and Dallas was helping him fulfill that ambition.

He was a striver from Africa.  His skin color may be black, and he's striving towards a goal many college-educated white strivers wouldn't ever consider for themselves.  But Mbogo was there when Ross Avenue was at its worst.

Now that neighborhoods all around downtown Dallas are being rediscovered by those white strivers, however, Dallas officials want him gone.

Or at least, they want his shop gone.  The city has re-zoned his property against his will, because his grimy auto repair shop doesn't fit with the trendy redevelopment plans developers have for his neighborhood.

If Mbogo's plight is beginning to ring a bell, perhaps its because his story has been percolating for about 11 years now, with media outlets as prestigious as the Wall Street Journal voicing support for him.  Here's a guy who assumed all the risk when he started his business, and now, when he's in his 60's, finds the city pulling the rug out from under him, using a rarely-deployed trick akin to eminent domain, to deprive him of his livelihood.

How un-American is that?!

City hall's defenders contend that Mbogo has had 11 years to relocate his company.  And he's the last holdout along Ross Avenue.  Everybody else - there were several other similar businesses near Mbogo's affected by the city's 2005 edict - has already caved to city hall's pressure and moved out.  Mbogo has simply been the most stubborn, they say.  In 2013, he petitioned the city for a two-year allowance to defer his move.  He even publicly promised the city that he'd move his shop.  He claimed he was a man of integrity, and the city could take him at his word.

Yet he hasn't moved.  His deferment expired in April of 2015.  And Dallas officials say that now Mbogo has gone back on his word.  Not only that, but Mbogo has dug in, rallying his customers and supporters across Dallas (and now, the country), to defy the rezoning of his property.

In November of 2015, Mbogo held a press conference, asking for another extension and presenting a Change.org petition with 90,000 affirmations of support.  He was joined by lawyers from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that threatened to sue the city for Mbogo.

Instead, this past July, Dallas sued Mbogo, fining him $1,000 for each day since April of last year that he's kept his Ross Avenue shop open.  And that financial clock is ticking even today, and will for however long Mbogo doesn't move his business.

Is this what gentrification is supposed to be about?

Mbogo's detractors say that the law is the law, and he's violating it.  But what if the re-zoning was unfair to begin with?

Mbogo's detractors say he's standing in the way of progress that will benefit far more people that just Mbogo, his family, and his employees.  But are gourmet bakeries, high-priced restaurants, and hip wine bars suitable replacements for businesses run out of town simply because developers wanted the land for more lucrative projects?

Do the ends justify the means?

It's not like Mbogo is running a strip club, or a lead smelter.  It would be funny, though, if he was running an old bar - a bar that would likely be considered seedy by his new neighbors, who want their alcohol served in an establishment suitably reminiscent of a dive-like place, but still trendy enough not to be classified as "seedy."

Yet now his detractors say he's not being fair, considering how all of his old neighbors have been forced to close or move their businesses without the types of special favors he's gotten - and still wants - from the city.

Of course, the big problem here isn't Mbogo, or his auto repair shop.  It wasn't all of the other private businesses that have also been affected by the Ross Avenue redevelopment plans. The problem here is the Utopian visions developers and Dallas officials have for their new city.

Isn't it ironic how people who generally claim to be so pro-minority and pro-diversity suddenly become anti-local when it comes to their views on gentrification!  Okay, so people like Mbogo leveraged white flight, but doesn't he deserve not only the benefits of being a legal property owner, but also the benefits of holding his own when his Ross Avenue neighborhood was indeed one of the most neglected and dangerous in the city?

It's not that Dallas and its politicians don't have the right to zone a property according to their perceptions of what a neighborhood needs.  Indeed, if they'd decided to apply a new zoning designation on Mbogo's property to exclude an auto repair shop when he sells the property, that would be both normal and fair.  After all, Mbogo probably could have sold his property for top-dollar to somebody who wanted to construct a new luxury apartment building on the site.  That would be conventional capitalism at work, as Dallas continues to evolve.  As it is, Mbogo now claims that his property is hardly worth anything, since developers know about his protracted fight with the city.  Being forced out at this point means he has no negotiating power.

So that's his own fault, right?  Or is it unfair to Mbogo that his property was retroactively re-zoned, kicking him out?  City lawyers insist their tactic isn't eminent domain, since the city isn't officially reclaiming the property.  But isn't that merely a technicality?

Oddly enough, part of the fascination new urbanists used to cherish in old American cities involved the kind of organic randomness one finds in established neighborhoods that have undergone a series of transitions.  There's a quirkiness to places that have been around a while; a mix of styles and uses the likes of which suburbanization remains too new and regimented to have experienced.  Our urban fabric is frayed in places, and that used to be an attractive quality to more affluent newcomers.  They used to willingly tolerate - even embrace - the grime and grit of urbanity's tendency for aesthetic disorder.

So, has gentrification itself evolved?  At least in Dallas, anyway, it seems that new urbanists want a pre-packaged type of sterile cosmopolitanism that looks more like a TV sitcom set from Seinfeld or Friends than raw reality.

Those bumpy brick pavers, for instance, that cities paved over to keep car axles from breaking; those are now aesthetically desirable, even though women walking across them in designer heels look as though they're going to twist an ankle.  But a car repair shop?  Isn't there, like, a bad part of town where those should be located?

Too bad if Ross Avenue used to be one of those bad parts of town.

Although, considering how essential cars are in Dallas - despite the city's astronomic pricetag for its flashy light rail system - wouldn't having a reliable car repair shop located down the street from one's over-priced grunge-ethos loft be a plus?

When Mbogo opened his shop in 1986, his dream was to be an American entrepreneur.  And while the city of Dallas hasn't exactly denied him that dream - he could have acquiesced, sold out, and bought a place where his shop could relocate - they're certainly sounding very un-American.

Or does living in America not only involve dreams like Mbogo's, but also the dreams of big-money developers who think the plans for which they're striving outclass dreams like Mbogo's?

As it is, it wasn't fair for the city to re-zone Mbogo out of his business's current location.  Just because other businesses didn't fight city hall doesn't mean Mbogo shouldn't, either.  And while it does seem a bit awkward for Mbogo to obviously go back on his promise to move, perhaps a compromise can be found?

After all, with his rising notoriety and media fame, letting Mbogo keep his auto repair shop on Ross Avenue as trendy new hipster developments spring up all around it will make him and his shop something of a local landmark.  And new urbanists are supposed to love local landmarks.

Except when the complaints start trickling in from Mbogo's new neighbors.  Complaints about revving engines, clanking equipment, unpleasant odors, puddles of oil...

New urbanists like their grit and grime to be seen and not heard.  Or smelled.  Or even seen, unless it's really, like, super-photogenic.

Either way, whether he moves or stays, Mbogo is going to end up being forced to comply with somebody else's dictates.


Friday, August 26, 2016

Elegy for My Cyclist Uncle Wyman

Wyman Black in Sedgwick, Maine, summer of 1959



On this date in 1959, my only uncle died.

I never met him, since I wasn't born until the late 1960's.

He was killed on a rural road in beautiful coastal Maine, on the Blue Hill Peninsula, as his motorcycle rounded a curve and lost traction on some gravel.  His bike crashed into the shrubs, trees, and brush lining the narrow roadway.  He wasn't wearing a helmet.

His name was Wyman Black, and he was my mother's younger - and only - brother.  Her only sibling, in fact.  He would be 74 now; retired, ostensibly, with who knows what kind of family.

Or maybe not.  Maybe he would have died earlier from some other tragic turn of events.  Who knows?  Maybe he would have gone into the military and been killed in Vietnam, for instance.  The guessing games about what he might have become turn pointless pretty quickly.  He died when he did, and speculating about all the "what if's" is a hollow exercise at best.

When I was born, Mom and Dad gave me his first name as my middle name.  For a while, when I was younger, and the thought that one day I'd get married and have kids was still within the realm of possibility (pity the poor wife, though, whomever that would have been!), I imagined I'd repeat the honor with my firstborn son.  If I had one.

Again, the supposing could have gone in how many different directions!  What if we'd only had girls?

Wymanette?  Wymanella?  Wymanene?

My uncle died doing something he truly enjoyed - riding a motorcycle.  How many people get to die while doing something they truly enjoy?  Granted, my uncle probably was fully aware that he was crashing, and the pain he likely felt just before he died almost certainly wasn't enjoyable at all.  But his death was relatively quick, and as utterly lovely as summer days usually are in Maine, transitioning from there to Heaven must have been a version of going "from glory to glory," as the saying goes!

Plus, my Uncle Wyman died being well-loved by his family, and well-liked by everybody who knew him in their tight-knit community on the peninsula.  How many people die without enemies, or people who can't stand them?  Lol... I'm not sure I can claim to not know people who can't stand being around me!

He died without any baggage.  He was a professing Christ-follower, so when his life ceased here on Earth, it resumed in perfect fullness in Heaven.  His family was not wealthy by any stretch of the Western imagination, but my Mom, my uncle, their parents, and their grandparents never knew starvation or homelessness.  They had to share a lot, and make do with bare minimums, and learn how to find the brighter side of many dark circumstances, but all things considered, theirs was a remarkably functional and nurturing family, considering all they had to do without.

The motorcycle my uncle crashed wasn't his personal property; it belonged to a friend of his.  I'm not sure how that all worked out insurance-wise, in the aftermath of reclaiming a vehicle on which somebody else has died.  For her part, Mom made sure that my brother and I knew full-well that we were never to ride a motorcycle, at least while she is alive.

I've never asked my brother if he's ever ridden a motorcycle.  Actually, he's into planes and helicopters, but those are far safer vehicles than motorcycles.  I've never ridden a motorcycle, but not just because of how my uncle died.  Frankly, I'm not all that excited about putting my keister on a leather pillow just above a gasoline-powered engine.  The optics of the many ways such a juxtaposition - of fleshy anatomy and internal combustion components - could go awry seem unworthy of whatever pleasures one derives from cycling.

Would my uncle have survived his accident if he was wearing a helmet?  Again, that's a tough question to answer, since nobody saw the wreck, or how his body reacted to it.  Besides, were motorcycle helmets back then as well-engineered as they are today?  And maybe it wasn't his damaged brain that killed him, but a damaged spinal cord, or some other internal organ.  No autopsy was performed, since no foul play was involved.

For what it's worth, however, I suspect that wearing a helmet helps give motorcyclists an important measure of safety, and whenever I see a motorcyclist not wearing one, I think about my uncle, and let some of those "what if's" waft through my brain.

But that's not all I do whenever I'm driving about, and see motorcyclists on city streets or a freeway.  I also tend to take extra care and give them lots of space.

After all, the person riding it may be somebody else's uncle or aunt.

It's kinda my own little memorial to my late Uncle Wyman.