Last sunday (May 1) I preached a sermon that I thought was my best effort ever. Many people have asked for the tape this past week, so here is the full transcript of that sermon. It's a little long, but the material is really good. (By the way, I should credit Jeff Walling's sermon at the Tulsa workshop in 2003 as the source for many of these ideas.)
WHAT IS TRUTH? HOW TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU BELIEVE
1st Peter 3:13-16
When I grew up there were clothes you wore to church, and there were clothes you wore to school, and there were clothes you wore to play in – 3 kinds of clothes in the closet – church, school, and play.
Somewhere along the way at least 1 set of clothing, possibly 2, have been lost with this young generation.
Now let me be very clear – I do not believe that God looks at your clothing (cost, size, color) and judges you. God is concerned about your heart.
When I was your youth minister, I would go to youth conferences and youth minister lunches, and I both looked and felt like a middle school principal!
- Guess what the other youth ministers were wearing?
- Baggy pants, and tee shirts, and facial hair – little bits of it down here, and earrings, and studs – and some of them needed a comb badly!
- Now I want you to know that while I never quite fit in with those guys, I admire what they do – they are trying to connect with our kids so that this generation knows Jesus Christ is not someone fit only for the 1950’s, but no longer relevant in 2005.
- Our Lord is not an ancient artifact, but on occasion, the way you and I talk about him can make him sound that way.
- Which raises a big question: How will we pass on faith to the next generation and communicate what we believe to a generation and a world that looks and speaks so differently?
- Now I suppose every generation looks at the next one and asks this, but there is a much broader cultural shift that has taken place before our eyes.
- My parents were born in 1952. By the time these kids are adults, that world will have vanished. Never before in all of human history has culture, and technology, and politics, and communication, and travel, and religion changed as rapidly as what we have experienced! Never before!!
- The world we were born into has vanished forever, and it is not coming back!
Modernism/Postmodernism:
- How many of you are familiar with the terms and the tension between modernism and postmodernism?
- When I think of “modern,” I think new and fancy, but what does “postmodern” mean? - Is it new mail? Is it that new, automated machine in the lobby of the PO?
- Think of it this way. Those of us who go to church in a suit and tie represent the moderns, and our kids and their youth ministers with their scruffy goatees represent the postmoderns. Oh, and those weird baggy shorts – I’ve seen kids wearing shorts with 50 pockets, and they don’t even carry a wallet, and if they do, they chain it to the outside of the pants – go figure!
- Modern thinking is the way you and I grew up. It recognizes that we no longer live in the Dark Ages. We no longer live in a time when magic and superstition make sense. We are a people of logic and reason. We believe that if there is a problem we can solve it through investigation, reason, and science.
- This is the foundation of American thought – progress toward a better life through science and technology, understanding and knowledge.
- And then the 20th century happened – WWI, WWII, communism, terrorism, genocide.
- Has the world gotten better through progress?
- Now that we understand so much about diseases, people don’t die anymore? But they do, don’t they?
- Now that we understand so much about psychology, we don’t have crime anymore? But we do, don’t we?
- Now that we have science and technology, and people are better educated, our world is more moral, right? No!
- And the postmoderns say, “Now you’re gettin it.”
- The postmodern mindset says life is not about getting smarter, and being righter in this world of rational thinking that has not delivered what it has promised.
- These scruffy postmodern kids who don’t speak my language, and don’t appreciate my need for structure, are saying, “Man, there’s more to life than climbing the corporate ladder,” and we should say – “Amen.”
- They are looking for meaning b/c they have looked at this modern world, and have said, “Science won’t fix all our problems.” Oh Yeah!
- But on the flipside they say to us, “Quit trying to explain your beliefs to me.”
- When you try to show them scripture, they will say, “Well that’s cool for you. I’m glad you’ve found something that works for you.”
- That drives me nuts, and I want to say, “I’m not talking to you b/c it works for me. I’m talking to you b/c it is true!”
And there we come to the crux of the matter.
- We moderns have a strong sense of truth. 2+2=4, and the postmodern says, “I’m glad that works for you, but everyone has to experience truth for themselves.”
- This is why a scientist like Kent will have students try and negotiate for a better grade on an exam where there are only right and wrong answers. They don’t define truth the way we do.
- The postmodern person is far more likely to volunteer to serve in some inner-city ministry, but less likely to have a deep faith reason why they’re doing it.
- They are far more likely to go out and get involved in doing Christ-like things, but less likely to believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
- Okay, actions do speak louder than words, but look at:
Hebrews 11:6 (Read)
- In the NT “faith” is a loaded word – it encompasses belief, and a body of knowledge, and it is the motivation for action.
- Now, in good modern fashion I have an orderly diagram, and if you’re a postmodern, just enjoy the colors:
Actions – What I do.
Attitudes – If you want to change people’s actions, change their attitudes b/c actions are built on attitudes.
Beliefs – Whether I know it or not, my attitudes and my actions are motivated by something that I believe to be true.
- Beliefs are important b/c they reflect your understanding of truth, which brings us back to the original question – What is Truth?
- You can learn a lot about God by experiencing him on a mountaintop or a retreat, or a walk in the woods, but you cannot know Jesus Christ unless you use your God-given ability to decide what do you believe?
* Our challenge in evangelism is getting the postmodern world to bring together what they believe and what they want to do – faith and deeds go together.
- Here’s where we start:
2nd Corinthians 4:13-14
- There is a chain-reaction – “I believe, therefore.”
- “I believe, therefore” – I serve, and I give, and I witness, and I learn, and I love, and I grow.
- The danger of postmodern thought is that it seeks to sever the tie between “I believe, and therefore.”
- Satan’s latest attempt to undermine the church’s effectiveness in the world is to get people to say, “I just want to serve Jesus. Let’s not get into all that doctrine and belief. That stuff doesn’t matter.”
- Now we are partially to blame for this because admittedly we have made religious discussion miserable!
- We have turned dialogue about differences into some kind of holy Jerry Springer gathering where we fuss and fight and throw chairs about what we believe!
* If we are going to communicate truth to the younger generation and a world out there that doesn’t share our values and traditions and understandings, we cannot resurrect all the old arguments, and fuss and fight about things that are not important!
- The postmodern generation, and the unchurched, and the unsaved have no time for that - and we can invite them to all the gospel meetings we can hold, but if we don’t change, they aint gonna change!
- If the truth is presented in a sour, uptight, judgmental package, they’d rather sleep in on a Sunday or go to the lake.
- So what do we do?
- Firstly, we need to make sure that truth (which never changes) is a cross-generational, cross-cultural platform for communication, rather than a barrier. Truth should connect people.
- Now, here’s the meat of the lesson – where the rubber meets the road.
There are 6 different ways the world defines truth. Remember Pilate’s cynical, sarcastic question to Jesus: “What is Truth?”
1) Truth is Pragmatism:
- Truth is whatever works for you. As long as something has function and gets you what you want or where you want to be, it’s true.
2) Truth is Populism:
- Truth is whatever the majority of people agree on. When a consensus is reached, that decision is truth, and if you’re in the minority, you’re wrong. Truth and morality are whatever brings about the greatest good for the greatest number.
3) Truth is Hedonism:
- Truth is whatever feels good – if it feels good or feels right, then it’s gotta be true.
- You know how this works – I’m sure you’ve heard it a million times.
- “Aren’t you guys gonna get married?” you say to Billy and Sally. “No,” they say, “We’re just gonna live together, we feel so good about our relationship.”
- And you want to say, “That’s not right!” And they say, “You don’t understand – it just feels so right.”
- Paul described that attitude in the Philippian letter as, “letting your stomach be your god . . . and their end is shame.”
- If you only do what feels good, you’ll end up looking like what you eat – Krispy Kreme donuts!
- If you only do what feels good, you won’t be a good husband or wife or child, b/c you won’t be faithful, you won’t be a servant, and you will never do the dishes b/c it doesn’t feel good.
- No one would ever do anything great if all we ever did was whatever felt good.
- Whether it be serving in Iraq, or getting up to go to work, or paying your taxes, or mowing your yard, none of that feels good.
- Truth has got to confront this idea people have that if it doesn’t feel good, can it really be God’s will?
- Absolutely! Ever heard of the cross?
4) Truth is Relativism:
- This says that truth is whatever makes sense to you. If it seems logical, then it must be true.
- Now here’s the danger b/c you and I can be sucked into relativism. Ever been in a Bible class where we read a text and then ask, “What does this mean to you?”
- Or relativism can be finding some survey out there to back up a biblical command b/c we want God’s commands to make sense.
- I’ve heard Christians trumpet a survey from the American Psychological Institute that says couples who do not live together before marriages have far healthier relationships.
- Now that’s great, but what about their survey that talks about the solidity and health of gay relationships? We don’t like that survey!
- If we only obey God when we understand it logically, we have also given in to relativism b/c we have left the control of God and come under the control of our own logic.
- If we only obey God when we understand why He does something, we are not obeying out of faith.
- If we are going to communicate truth to the world, we have got to teach them, by our example, to trust in God, by saying, “Okay, I don’t park my brain when I come to church, but, “I believe, therefore.”
5) Truth is Humanism:
- This says that truth is whatever serves humanity. Truth is whatever is good for the earth.
- It’s amazing that we have the audacity to talk about saving the planet – we can’t keep a goldfish alive in our house. I’ve killed more potted plants than I can count!
- Ecology is great, and environmental stewardship is biblically mandated, but we are not driven by what is good for humanity in a physical sense, we are driven by what God says is good for humanity in a spiritual sense.
- We serve and worship the Creator, not the creation.
6) Truth is Universalism:
- Universalism says that whatever you believe is true. It’s just, “Whatever.”
- Don’t you love that word? “Whatever.” It’s the one word that will make you wanna slap a teenager, and it’s not even a curse word – “Whatever.” It’s a zero-content word, like “maybe.” Are you going to do this for me? “Maybe.” “Well what do I know now that I didn’t know before you spoke?”
- That’s what universalism is – “Whatever maaan, whatever you think is cool with me.”
- And it sounds so tolerant and wonderful, but how quickly we find out that doesn’t work – just let your wife tell you she’s been with another man, yeah, I’ll bet you’ll say, “whatever.”
- Just let your teen wreck your car – “whatever.”
All those things are distortions of Truth, but it’s the way our world operates.
So how do we communicate truth today?
5 Things we have got to know:
1) Know who you believe in:
- Christianity is about Jesus.
- We do not approach people with a litany of facts, we tell them first and foremost about Jesus.
- Paul says in Philippians, “I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection.”
- Our faith stands on Christ alone. If we hold him up God will draw all people to him.
- Paul says in 1st Corinthians that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are “of first importance.”
- Do not be ashamed of Jesus, and do not substitute knowing Christ for a set of facts about his church.
2) Know what you believe in:
- “Well, you said it, I believe in Jesus.”
- But you have to be more specific.
Illus: Japanese food.
- Have any of you ever eaten over here at the Fuji Steakhouse? You know, they cook the food on the grill right at your table, and flip the shrimp into pocket – I call it a “chop/chop, wam/wam” place.
- For me, that’s Japanese food.
- But, for John and Donna Hanson, Japanese food is sushi. Actually, the English translation is “yucky.”
- And if we took that sushi over to the Fuji, they could cook it, and it would be good.
- When we say to someone, “I believe in Jesus,” and they say, “Cool, I believe in Jesus too,” we have to say, “What do you mean?”
- Muslims believe in Jesus too, but they do not believe what Paul stresses in Colossians, that Jesus was bodily God. Fully God and fully human at the same time.
- You need to know that plenty people sing songs of praise to Jesus, but deny his humanity.
- They will talk about Jesus as a good force, as a spirit, like “the force” in Starwars, and you can find yourself talking with someone about Jesus, and while you may be using the same words, you’re not speaking the same language.
3) Know why you believe:
- The modern mindset likes to get into all the history of Christianity and textual evidence, but the postmodern mindset says, “Don’t bore me with all that stuff, just show me how this impacts my life – how is this relevant?”
- These are the roots and the fruits of Christianity.
- And both are important!
- We had better be able to talk on both sides of this fence b/c they’re both God’s back yard – He has given us a brain to read and understand scripture, but He expects it to change our lives!
4) Know how to verbalize why you believe:
- I believe that God exists b/c the evidence is overwhelming.
Illus: Campsite
- Image walking along in the woods, and you come across a clearing with a tent, and a clothesline, with some shirts hanging on it, and a fire, with a pot of coffee, and a pan of sizzling bacon – your natural reaction would be to say, “somebody was here. Somebody did this.”
- It would make no sense at all to say that that campsite just happened by accident.
- This watch just appeared one day, with the word SEIKO on it!
- And I also believe that Jesus is the Son of God b/c of the evidence: Hundreds of years before he was born several prophets accurately predicted where he would be born, how he would die, who would betray him, where the money would come from, what would happen to it.
- The chances of all this being a coincidence is zero!
- And I believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead b/c credible and believable eyewitnesses went to their death b/c of their conviction that it was true.
5) Know how to live what you believe:
- Last Sunday night I said that living consistent with what you believe is the heart of a life of truth and integrity.
- What is truth? It is walking the talk.
- The next generation and the world out there will never believe us if we do not live what we believe.
- The greatest challenge we have is walking out that door and saying:
I believe, therefore I trust
I believe, therefore I have confidence in God
I believe, therefore I will live a pure life
James 1:22-27
Monday, May 09, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Tiger Rocks
I installed the new Mac OS X on my Powerbook G4 yesterday, and Tiger rocks! I added the new iLife and iWork as well. They also rock! Oh, and I added an airport extreme card and got an airport express. This is my last week as a student, so I'm taking advantage of Apple's student discount. It all just works. I'm a Mac fanatic, but even I feel like a kid at Christmas time!
When I moved into my new office and set up my new HP last month, and ran through all the checks and install verifications and appropriate nasty disclaimers, it worked great - for about four minutes. Then, something happened. Something attacked. Something swarmed the computer the instant I tried to move around online and the computer slowed and bogged and cluttered and crashed, and multiple restarts and debuggings only brought up only a flood of pop-up windows and error messages and claims of infestation of this worm and that Trojan horse and did we want to buy McAfee antivirus protection for $39.95?
I’m not a computer expert, but here is my big obvious question: Why do people put up with this? Why is there not some massive revolt against Microsoft? Why is there not a huge contingent of furious users, demanding the Windows monster be sacrificed at the altar of decent functionality? There is nothing else like this phenomenon in the entire consumer culture. If anything else performed as horribly as Windows, and on such a global scale, consumers would scream bloody murder and demand their money back and there would be some sort of investigation, and class-action litigation. Imagine it: “Here is your brand new car, sir.” You drive it off the lot, and suddenly, the new car shuts off. The new car barely starts again and then only goes about 6 miles per hour and it belches smoke and every warning light on the dashboard is blinking on and off and the tires are screaming and the heater is blasting your feet and something smells like burned hair. You hobble back to the dealer, who only says, “Sorry, we thought you knew - that's the way they all run. Enjoy!” Would that not be the last time you buy a Ford?
When I moved into my new office and set up my new HP last month, and ran through all the checks and install verifications and appropriate nasty disclaimers, it worked great - for about four minutes. Then, something happened. Something attacked. Something swarmed the computer the instant I tried to move around online and the computer slowed and bogged and cluttered and crashed, and multiple restarts and debuggings only brought up only a flood of pop-up windows and error messages and claims of infestation of this worm and that Trojan horse and did we want to buy McAfee antivirus protection for $39.95?
I’m not a computer expert, but here is my big obvious question: Why do people put up with this? Why is there not some massive revolt against Microsoft? Why is there not a huge contingent of furious users, demanding the Windows monster be sacrificed at the altar of decent functionality? There is nothing else like this phenomenon in the entire consumer culture. If anything else performed as horribly as Windows, and on such a global scale, consumers would scream bloody murder and demand their money back and there would be some sort of investigation, and class-action litigation. Imagine it: “Here is your brand new car, sir.” You drive it off the lot, and suddenly, the new car shuts off. The new car barely starts again and then only goes about 6 miles per hour and it belches smoke and every warning light on the dashboard is blinking on and off and the tires are screaming and the heater is blasting your feet and something smells like burned hair. You hobble back to the dealer, who only says, “Sorry, we thought you knew - that's the way they all run. Enjoy!” Would that not be the last time you buy a Ford?
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
I'm baaack!
Well folks, I have not gone away. It's been so long since I've updated this blog, but I'm going to be more disciplined from now on, oh, and not so politically motivated. I'm glad Bush won the election, but I'm also glad we have a two-term limit. When Bush clears out in 2009 I'll be very relieved. I'm a cautious Bush supporter, not a Bush boot licker (like Sean Hannity)!
I got the preaching job at Baker Heights. September to January was the hardest 5 months of my life - being the youth minister and preaching minister at the same time, going through the selection "process," and handling some severe criticism at the same time. Anyway, Mike Tackett and I are now the "co-evangelists." We really work well together, but more on this later.
Last week I did a sermon on the Lord's Supper. It was tough! Wrestling with the text (1st Cor.11) is something the congregation doesn't see. I lay awake on Saturday night trying to figure out a way to communicate the full measure of the term "incarnation" - that God became flesh in the person of Jesus, that Jesus lives in common bread and wine ("this is my body"), and that he still lives in common people - the church is the "body of Christ. It's so symmetrical. It blows the mind!
I got the preaching job at Baker Heights. September to January was the hardest 5 months of my life - being the youth minister and preaching minister at the same time, going through the selection "process," and handling some severe criticism at the same time. Anyway, Mike Tackett and I are now the "co-evangelists." We really work well together, but more on this later.
Last week I did a sermon on the Lord's Supper. It was tough! Wrestling with the text (1st Cor.11) is something the congregation doesn't see. I lay awake on Saturday night trying to figure out a way to communicate the full measure of the term "incarnation" - that God became flesh in the person of Jesus, that Jesus lives in common bread and wine ("this is my body"), and that he still lives in common people - the church is the "body of Christ. It's so symmetrical. It blows the mind!
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
The Louder the Commercial, the Dumber They Think You Are
I have this theory about car ads on radio and TV. The louder and more obnoxious the advertisement, the dumber the dealer thinks his customers are. I now think that the same holds true for political campaign commercials.
When you hear about a commercial with a background of loud noises, and two announcers screaming phrases like "$99 down, $99 a month" over and over, or when you hear announcers screaming idiotic, mindless phrases like "All credit applications accepted", you know that you are listening to a commercial for a relatively inexpensive car, the type of car generally purchased on credit by someone at the lower end of the economic scale. Take the high-end cars like Mercedes or BMW. You will never hear commercials for these automobiles delivered in a screaming, obnoxious fashion. Why not? Because the dealers know that the type of person who has worked hard enough to afford a decent car is going to be turned off by a commercial that screams at them.
That brings us to Kerry’s recent speeches and ads. It is clear from the shrillness, the loudness, and the fraudulent claims that the Kerry camp is working overtime to appeal to the less intelligent voters out there. Case in point? The recent idiocy over those "missing" explosives in Iraq. This was going to be the blockbuster story that sent the Bush campaign reeling into the ropes the day before the election. What a scenario! The International Atomic Energy Agency warns Bush that there are 380 tons of explosives in one particular facility in Iraq. Now we learn that the explosives are gone! They've disappeared! Bush didn't guard those explosives! After he got that warning from the IAEA he let those explosives disappear! What a mess! Can't this guy do anything right?
Let’s do a little reality check. Democrats, the next few minutes will be painful for you! When the 82nd Airborne arrived at the site to secure the 380 tons of explosives, they were not there. Gone. Vanished. The explosives were removed before the first American boots hit Iraqi sand. Saddam left about 1,000,000 tons of weapons when he ran to his spider hole. We have destroyed about 500,000 tons. The 380 tons that are "missing" constitute 0.38% of the weapons Saddam had, and 0.76% of the weapons that coalition forces have already disposed of. So, we have two realities here. First, the amount of explosives we're talking about is small - less than one coffee bean in a one pound bag. Second, the only way George Bush could have secured these weapons was to step up his invasion plans and move in to Iraq before he did. Is that what Kerry is suggesting he should have done?
As soon as the New York Times ran its story the Kerry campaign produced a television ad. Here's the script:
"The obligation of the Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe. In Iraq George Bush has overextended our troops and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kinds used for attacks in Iraq and for terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk and make our country less secure, and all he offers is more of the same."
There you go. That's Kerry's $99 down, $99 a month moment. He knows his ad is an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. He also is fully aware that at this point in the election the voters he is most likely to sway are those who are uninformed and those incapable of being informed. In other words, the ignorant. So if you like being lied to, manipulated, insulted, condescended to, and having your intelligence insulted, go ahead and vote for Kerry!
When you hear about a commercial with a background of loud noises, and two announcers screaming phrases like "$99 down, $99 a month" over and over, or when you hear announcers screaming idiotic, mindless phrases like "All credit applications accepted", you know that you are listening to a commercial for a relatively inexpensive car, the type of car generally purchased on credit by someone at the lower end of the economic scale. Take the high-end cars like Mercedes or BMW. You will never hear commercials for these automobiles delivered in a screaming, obnoxious fashion. Why not? Because the dealers know that the type of person who has worked hard enough to afford a decent car is going to be turned off by a commercial that screams at them.
That brings us to Kerry’s recent speeches and ads. It is clear from the shrillness, the loudness, and the fraudulent claims that the Kerry camp is working overtime to appeal to the less intelligent voters out there. Case in point? The recent idiocy over those "missing" explosives in Iraq. This was going to be the blockbuster story that sent the Bush campaign reeling into the ropes the day before the election. What a scenario! The International Atomic Energy Agency warns Bush that there are 380 tons of explosives in one particular facility in Iraq. Now we learn that the explosives are gone! They've disappeared! Bush didn't guard those explosives! After he got that warning from the IAEA he let those explosives disappear! What a mess! Can't this guy do anything right?
Let’s do a little reality check. Democrats, the next few minutes will be painful for you! When the 82nd Airborne arrived at the site to secure the 380 tons of explosives, they were not there. Gone. Vanished. The explosives were removed before the first American boots hit Iraqi sand. Saddam left about 1,000,000 tons of weapons when he ran to his spider hole. We have destroyed about 500,000 tons. The 380 tons that are "missing" constitute 0.38% of the weapons Saddam had, and 0.76% of the weapons that coalition forces have already disposed of. So, we have two realities here. First, the amount of explosives we're talking about is small - less than one coffee bean in a one pound bag. Second, the only way George Bush could have secured these weapons was to step up his invasion plans and move in to Iraq before he did. Is that what Kerry is suggesting he should have done?
As soon as the New York Times ran its story the Kerry campaign produced a television ad. Here's the script:
"The obligation of the Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe. In Iraq George Bush has overextended our troops and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kinds used for attacks in Iraq and for terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk and make our country less secure, and all he offers is more of the same."
There you go. That's Kerry's $99 down, $99 a month moment. He knows his ad is an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. He also is fully aware that at this point in the election the voters he is most likely to sway are those who are uninformed and those incapable of being informed. In other words, the ignorant. So if you like being lied to, manipulated, insulted, condescended to, and having your intelligence insulted, go ahead and vote for Kerry!
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Lame Euphemisms
Okay, here's something a little less political and much more lighthearted. This past weekend I took a short course in ACU's Conflict Resolution program. The class, "Conflict in the Workplace" mainly dealt with avoiding the costs of litigation. That got me thinking of all the lame euphemisms we use in an effort to be "politically correct" (also a lame euphemism). So enjoy, and add some if you can think of any.
After Janet Jackson’s bare breast at the Superbowl, "wardrobe malfunction" is the euphemism of the year, a staggering achievement in language distortion. Some medical euphemisms now appear in the fine print of your hospital bill. You may see charges for "disposable mucus recovery systems" (Kleenex), "thermal therapy" (a bag of ice) and an "oral administration fee" (the charge for handing you a pill in a paper cup). How about these terms for firing workers: "facility and cost rationalizations," "dehiring," "normal involuntary attrition," and "negative employee retention." In its science teaching standards, the state of Georgia changed the word "evolution" to "biological changes over time," then backtracked to "evolution" when protests arose.
The Bush administration contributed "temporary steel safeguard measures" (tariffs), "healthy forests" (more logging) plus "earned legalization," "regularization" and "normalization" (amnesty for illegal immigrants - sorry, “undocumented workers”). Another political euphemism is "managed" or "fair" trade (protectionism). Remember the under-the-table funds that went to members of the International Olympic Committee when Salt Lake City was picked as an Olympic site? They weren't bribes, they were "payments to encourage good feelings about Salt Lake."
In some Canadian Catholic churches priests are called "mass presiders." Even the military uses lame euphemisms: "Body bags" (Vietnam war) and "human remains pouches" (the Gulf War) are now "transfer tubes" in Iraq, a term like "choice" for abortion that successfully eliminates any hint that death might be involved. The British have a new word for military retreat, "exfiltration." This is not a great euphemism, but it sounds lots better than "running away” (the French phrase for retreat). China's economic expansion under one-party rule gave rise to several euphemisms, including "cloaked capitalism" and "soft Leninism." Why not "totalitarian freedom"? Many universities use a dirty trick to control free speech on campus. They announce small "free-speech zones," thus establishing 99 percent of their campuses as places where free speech is in some form prohibited.
The "war on terror" is a widely overlooked euphemism. "Terror" isn't a party to the war, militant Islam is. Terror is their tactic. Reuters famously refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" because the news service thinks it's a subjective term. The BBC says its reporters may not call Saddam Hussein a former dictator. Reporters must refer to him as "the deposed former president." No word yet on whether Hitler can be called a dictator. Oops, make that "the former legally selected leader of the Third Reich."
Whatever!
After Janet Jackson’s bare breast at the Superbowl, "wardrobe malfunction" is the euphemism of the year, a staggering achievement in language distortion. Some medical euphemisms now appear in the fine print of your hospital bill. You may see charges for "disposable mucus recovery systems" (Kleenex), "thermal therapy" (a bag of ice) and an "oral administration fee" (the charge for handing you a pill in a paper cup). How about these terms for firing workers: "facility and cost rationalizations," "dehiring," "normal involuntary attrition," and "negative employee retention." In its science teaching standards, the state of Georgia changed the word "evolution" to "biological changes over time," then backtracked to "evolution" when protests arose.
The Bush administration contributed "temporary steel safeguard measures" (tariffs), "healthy forests" (more logging) plus "earned legalization," "regularization" and "normalization" (amnesty for illegal immigrants - sorry, “undocumented workers”). Another political euphemism is "managed" or "fair" trade (protectionism). Remember the under-the-table funds that went to members of the International Olympic Committee when Salt Lake City was picked as an Olympic site? They weren't bribes, they were "payments to encourage good feelings about Salt Lake."
In some Canadian Catholic churches priests are called "mass presiders." Even the military uses lame euphemisms: "Body bags" (Vietnam war) and "human remains pouches" (the Gulf War) are now "transfer tubes" in Iraq, a term like "choice" for abortion that successfully eliminates any hint that death might be involved. The British have a new word for military retreat, "exfiltration." This is not a great euphemism, but it sounds lots better than "running away” (the French phrase for retreat). China's economic expansion under one-party rule gave rise to several euphemisms, including "cloaked capitalism" and "soft Leninism." Why not "totalitarian freedom"? Many universities use a dirty trick to control free speech on campus. They announce small "free-speech zones," thus establishing 99 percent of their campuses as places where free speech is in some form prohibited.
The "war on terror" is a widely overlooked euphemism. "Terror" isn't a party to the war, militant Islam is. Terror is their tactic. Reuters famously refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" because the news service thinks it's a subjective term. The BBC says its reporters may not call Saddam Hussein a former dictator. Reporters must refer to him as "the deposed former president." No word yet on whether Hitler can be called a dictator. Oops, make that "the former legally selected leader of the Third Reich."
Whatever!
Friday, October 01, 2004
"A Time for Choosing"
As I have watched the political conventions, and Thursday night's debate, I would like to offer this gem as something to think about. It is Ronald Reagan's first big speech, delivered at the GOP convention of 1964. It is priceless, especially the last paragraph.
"A Time for Choosing"
Reagan 1964
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this. It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government." This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments. We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure. Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp. Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
"A Time for Choosing"
Reagan 1964
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this. It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government." This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments. We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure. Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp. Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
We're Hated - So What?
I watched the president’s speech to the U.N. today (yeah, ministers get to watch TV at 9:30 in the morning), and for the most part I liked it, particularly his optimism, confidence in the power of liberty, and invocation of “God bless you” at the end. The fact that he didn’t level Kofi Anan and the others implicated in the Iraqi oil for food scandal tells me that Mr. Bush is a man of patience and temperance, while the U.N. is corrupt, morally bankrupt, and too stupid to know it’s not prudent to bite the hand that feeds you (22% of the U.N. budget comes from the U.S., not to mention that fancy building on the east river). John Kerry, of course, was quick to respond with some nonsense about Bush “lecturing” the delegates, which sparked off the daily debate. As I watched and listened today, it occurred to me that there is now another way to philosophically divide Americans - those who are ashamed of America for being hated and those who wear this hatred as a badge of honor. I am in the latter group.
Either America is evil and hatred of it is merited, or America is a decent country and the haters are evil. The correct answer is so obvious that only someone who already hates America or who is simply morally confused would choose the first. To assess the veracity of this, all we need do is compare America, a country that has liberated more people from tyranny than any other, and which has been a place of refuge, tolerance and opportunity for more people from more backgrounds than any other in history, with those who hate America. So here we go:
Militant Muslims hate America. These people include the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist organizations, the Islamic regimes of Iran and Sudan, and members of Hamas and the many Palestinians and other Muslims who support it. Now, what types of people are these, and what societies have they made or seek to make? To call the Taliban primitive is to insult the many primitive peoples who were light years more civilized than these totalitarians who forbade girls to get an education and prohibited women from such innocent activities as going to the zoo. They murdered anyone who loved liberty, beheaded any Muslim who converted to another religion, and blew up some of the most priceless sculptures of the ancient world because those works of art were of a different religion. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Taliban hated this country? Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists seek to impose Taliban-like regimes on everyone in the world, beginning with the Muslim world. They routinely slaughter innocent people - literally slaughter, as cutting off the heads of their human sacrifices is their preferred method of murder. They are monsters in human form. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists hate this country? The Islamic regime of Iran has taken one of the brightest nations on earth back into the darkest past of human civilization. Their great ally is the genocidal regime of North Korea. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Islamists in Iran hate this country? The Arab Islamic regime in Sudan has killed about one million non-Arab, non-Muslim blacks in the south of its country. Rape and enslavement of these blacks is routine. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Sudanese regime hates this country? Hamas and its many supporters among Palestinians have developed a new theology of cruelty and death - that a Muslim boy who blows himself up while maiming and murdering as many innocent Jews as possible goes to heaven where he is then sexually serviced by dozens of virgins. In the annals of the history of religion, no analogous theology of cruelty and vulgarity has ever been devised. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that Hamas and its Palestinian supporters hate this country?
When you look at the roster of the America-haters and realize that none of them hates France or Sweden, this assessment of America-hatred is rendered even more obvious. America, largely alone, calls these groups and regimes what they are - evil. America, largely alone, wages war against them. And America, largely alone, prevents them from assuming far more power. In the last century, America’s enemies have read like a who's who of evil, led by Nazi, Communist, and now Islamo-fascist murderers. So, the question is, can we assess the moral quality of the American people by noting who our enemies are?
The answer is, yes! We should be honored to be hated by them. But not all Americans regard this hatred as a moral badge of honor. Some Americans regard this as a badge of shame. If we are hated, these people contend, it must reflect our moral failings, not the moral failings of those who hate us. So, for these people, the fact that throughout the Muslim Middle East, religious leaders pray publicly for the extermination of the Jews, that the leading Muslim scholars praise suicide mass murderers, that Arab newspapers regularly publish articles that manufacture Nazi-like lies about Jews only reflect on Jewish and American wrongs, not on the low moral stature of the haters. So, too, the fact that most Saudis and other Muslims in the Arab world applauded the terror of 9/11 says to these Americans and many other Westerners that something must be wrong with America, not with the societies that produce the terror and hate. This is the view of Europe, another place that dislikes America. But again the same question may be asked: After morally assessing, let us say, France, the leader in anti-American rhetoric, would you rather be admired or disdained by France? And would you rather be admired or disdained by the United Nations?
For this humble immigrant, and soon to be proud American citizen, those questions are rhetorical. Woe unto us if Saddam Hussein, the Iranian mullahs, the Sudanese regime, and the U.N. start liking us as much as they like France.
Either America is evil and hatred of it is merited, or America is a decent country and the haters are evil. The correct answer is so obvious that only someone who already hates America or who is simply morally confused would choose the first. To assess the veracity of this, all we need do is compare America, a country that has liberated more people from tyranny than any other, and which has been a place of refuge, tolerance and opportunity for more people from more backgrounds than any other in history, with those who hate America. So here we go:
Militant Muslims hate America. These people include the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist organizations, the Islamic regimes of Iran and Sudan, and members of Hamas and the many Palestinians and other Muslims who support it. Now, what types of people are these, and what societies have they made or seek to make? To call the Taliban primitive is to insult the many primitive peoples who were light years more civilized than these totalitarians who forbade girls to get an education and prohibited women from such innocent activities as going to the zoo. They murdered anyone who loved liberty, beheaded any Muslim who converted to another religion, and blew up some of the most priceless sculptures of the ancient world because those works of art were of a different religion. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Taliban hated this country? Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists seek to impose Taliban-like regimes on everyone in the world, beginning with the Muslim world. They routinely slaughter innocent people - literally slaughter, as cutting off the heads of their human sacrifices is their preferred method of murder. They are monsters in human form. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists hate this country? The Islamic regime of Iran has taken one of the brightest nations on earth back into the darkest past of human civilization. Their great ally is the genocidal regime of North Korea. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Islamists in Iran hate this country? The Arab Islamic regime in Sudan has killed about one million non-Arab, non-Muslim blacks in the south of its country. Rape and enslavement of these blacks is routine. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Sudanese regime hates this country? Hamas and its many supporters among Palestinians have developed a new theology of cruelty and death - that a Muslim boy who blows himself up while maiming and murdering as many innocent Jews as possible goes to heaven where he is then sexually serviced by dozens of virgins. In the annals of the history of religion, no analogous theology of cruelty and vulgarity has ever been devised. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that Hamas and its Palestinian supporters hate this country?
When you look at the roster of the America-haters and realize that none of them hates France or Sweden, this assessment of America-hatred is rendered even more obvious. America, largely alone, calls these groups and regimes what they are - evil. America, largely alone, wages war against them. And America, largely alone, prevents them from assuming far more power. In the last century, America’s enemies have read like a who's who of evil, led by Nazi, Communist, and now Islamo-fascist murderers. So, the question is, can we assess the moral quality of the American people by noting who our enemies are?
The answer is, yes! We should be honored to be hated by them. But not all Americans regard this hatred as a moral badge of honor. Some Americans regard this as a badge of shame. If we are hated, these people contend, it must reflect our moral failings, not the moral failings of those who hate us. So, for these people, the fact that throughout the Muslim Middle East, religious leaders pray publicly for the extermination of the Jews, that the leading Muslim scholars praise suicide mass murderers, that Arab newspapers regularly publish articles that manufacture Nazi-like lies about Jews only reflect on Jewish and American wrongs, not on the low moral stature of the haters. So, too, the fact that most Saudis and other Muslims in the Arab world applauded the terror of 9/11 says to these Americans and many other Westerners that something must be wrong with America, not with the societies that produce the terror and hate. This is the view of Europe, another place that dislikes America. But again the same question may be asked: After morally assessing, let us say, France, the leader in anti-American rhetoric, would you rather be admired or disdained by France? And would you rather be admired or disdained by the United Nations?
For this humble immigrant, and soon to be proud American citizen, those questions are rhetorical. Woe unto us if Saddam Hussein, the Iranian mullahs, the Sudanese regime, and the U.N. start liking us as much as they like France.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)