Tag: Trump

Categories
In the News

Global Communication Means Always Having to Say You’re Sorry

In this age of global real-time communication, the public apology has become almost as routine as the daily weather report. No longer is it possible to catch a comment or an act when it’s still in the smaller stages of impact and do damage control before stuff really hits the fan. That great big fan is now running 24/7, so there’s no stopping anything once it’s been said or done.

We’ve all heard the apologies, from the politician confessing marital infidelity and typically accompanied by his stand-by-your-man wife who’d probably rather stab him at that moment than show her face to the world in front of TV cameras, to the Olympic athlete who “over-exaggerated” a story about a night of drunken reveling in Rio. And the questions are always the same: How sincere is this apology? Is it a real admission of guilt or just a “Damn, I got caught”? Accepting an apology is often even more difficult than making one, and the greater the number of hearers the greater the possibility for disagreeing on the sincerity or lack thereof.

What are the criteria for a sincere apology? Everyone has gotten the old non-apology a few times: “If I’ve offended you in any way, I’m sorry.” The speaker makes no admission of wrongdoing and therefore cannot be genuinely sorry. What this line really means is “You’re mad at me. I don’t think I did anything wrong, but I need to make you stop being mad, so I’m going to say some words to try to smooth things over.” The red flag here is the word “if”; I can’t possibly feel “sorrow” for something I don’t even know I did. According to Dr. Robert Gordon in his TED Talk The Power of the Apology, “Most people apologize to get something rather than to give something.” I couldn’t agree more.

Jeffrey Bernstein summarizes Dr. Gordon’s talk in a Psychology Today post entitled “The Three Parts of a Meaningful, Heartfelt Apology,” dated December 3, 2014. These are the three parts:

1) Acknowledgement – Being able to see how your actions impact others is key to making a sincere apology. The acknowledgement part of the apology needs to start with “I.” For example, “I am sorry for being late tonight.”

2) Remorse and Empathy  – Remorse is truly feeling bad for what you’ve done. Empathy is about being able to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and know how she or he feels.

3) Restitution – This means taking action to provide an act or service to make up for the transgression.

Start with acknowledgement. One has to be sorry for something. When a child is instructed to apologize to a sibling or playmate, the child often mumbles “Sorry” while facing the opposite direction and walking away from the offended party. Anyone can see the insincerity in this situation, but is the adult who says “IF I’ve offended you, I’m sorry” any more sincere than the child? Any apology must begin with an honest mea culpa. If I’m not willing to make a humble acknowledgment of what I’ve done, there’s no way I can be feeling any sorrow for my action.

Remorse is deep regret, and empathy is putting oneself in the other’s place. It means admitting how I would feel if the situation were reversed. It means feeling the heartache I’ve imposed on another person. When I can do those things, I’m ready to say “I’m sorry” and mean it.

And finally, restitution means being willing to do something to make the offended person feel better, whether it’s sending flowers after an argument or simply making sure the offensive behavior is not repeated.

I believe it’s also important to distinguish between “I’m sorry” and “I regret.” Expressing regret does not usually qualify as an apology, because it doesn’t acknowledge wrongdoing. It is possible to honestly deeply regret a situation without feeling any personal responsibility for it. For example,

  • “I regret having to break my promise to take you to the beach because we’re under hurricane watch.”
  • “I regret that you didn’t tell me you were married before I decided to date you.”
  • “I regret having to decline the invitation to your dinner party.”

None of these examples involve guilt on the part of the speaker, but the speaker may genuinely feel bad about the situation.

With these guidelines in mind, let’s look at how two public apologies from the last week measure up: Donald Trump’s statement of regret about things he has said in campaign speeches and Ryan Lochte’s public statement regarding his escapades in Rio.

In Trump’s latest effort to turn around his failing “campaign,” he offered this admission in a speech on August 18:

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that. And believe it or not, I regret it. And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

Is this a real apology? I would say “No.” And I would add “Hell, no!”

What’s missing here? Pretty much everything. First of all, it clearly sounds like what Dr. Gordon described as apologizing “to get something rather than to give something.” His campaign is failing and his poll numbers are sliding, so he clearly needs to get more support. Then why not try a new approach, something he had never done before? Why not admit that he has said some wrong things? Doing so might sway some voters in his direction. He was not giving anything, because he didn’t even state to whom he was “apologizing.”

Where is his acknowledgment of wrongdoing? He does say he has sometimes chosen the wrong words and said the wrong things, but he doesn’t acknowledge any statement in particular; and we all know the list he could have chosen from would fill a book. This is very much like the toddler’s apology: “Sor-ry!” Trump also begins the “apology” with an excuse: he was “in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues.” He’s already implied even before his confession that he was only being human, that these things happen. And of course they do happen, but an apology must start with taking responsibility for one’s own behavior, regardless of the circumstances.

Body language counts, too. When I saw the video of these remarks, I noticed that he pauses after “I have done that,” with a facial expression that suggests this may come as a surprise to anyone who’s not been living under a rock for the last year. He seems to be expecting affirmation that he really is a good little boy and that what he said was not that bad.

Why does he preface his expression of regret with “And believe it or not”? Why would anyone have believed up to this point that he had any regrets, since he had never said he regretted anything, never retracted a statement no matter how outrageous, and never apologized for anything? He is even on record as saying he’s never asked God to forgive him for anything, even though he claims to be a Christian.

He “regrets” unspecified wrong words about unspecified people, then adds, “particularly where it may have caused personal pain.” May have caused? He knows the pain he’s caused, or at least he’s been told. Unspecified words about unspecified people which have done unspecified damage do not suggest remorse or empathy.  This is a classic non-apology: If I’ve offended anyone, I’m sorry. How about looking into the camera and saying “Mr. and Mrs. Khan, I am so sorry for the pain my words have caused you. Your son was a hero. Please forgive me”; or “Senator McCain, Thank you for your service and sacrifice. Please forgive me for my cruel words.” He could have directly addressed any of the other dozens of people he has callously attacked.

As for restitution, so far there’s been none. At last reporting, he has made no phone calls or any attempt to reach out and make amends to any of the people he has offended. And although he attributes his “wrong words” to “the heat of debate,” that excuse doesn’t hold up because he has never made his insulting remarks only one time. When confronted with any specific attack, his standard response has been to double down and reinforce the original words when he is no longer in the heat of a moment. And since he has made no effort at restitution after his speech, I think listeners are justified in doubting his sincerity.

Now how does Mr. Lochte’s public statement hold up to scrutiny? Here’s what he said:

I want to apologize for my behavior last weekend — for not being more careful and candid in how I described the events of that early morning and for my role in taking the focus away from the many athletes fulfilling their dreams of participating in the Olympics. I waited to share these thoughts until it was confirmed that the legal situation was addressed and it was clear that my teammates would be arriving home safely.

It’s traumatic to be out late with your friends in a foreign country — with a language barrier — and have a stranger point a gun at you and demand money to let you leave, but regardless of the behavior of anyone else that night, I should have been much more responsible in how I handled myself and for that am sorry to my teammates, my fans, my fellow competitors, my sponsors, and the hosts of this great event. I am very proud to represent my country in Olympic competition and this was a situation that could and should have been avoided. I accept responsibility for my role in this happening and have learned some valuable lessons.

I think this one measures up to the criteria a little better than Trump’s does. He does acknowledge a specific wrong: “not being more careful and candid in how I described the events.” I’d feel better if he’d said “I’m sorry for lying about the events,” since I’m not a big fan of euphemism; but this is at least a somewhat specific acknowledgment. He also expresses some remorse and empathy by naming specific people who were hurt by his actions and how they were hurt. He seems to have some understanding of how it would feel to be in their place. It remains to be seen whether he will make any form of restitution, and that decision will probably be dictated at least in part by the authorities. If, however, he has in fact “learned some valuable lessons,” we should be able to expect better behavior from him in the future.

On the other hand, he implies that he’s sticking to his original story when he offers the excuse about the stranger pointing a gun at him and demanding money from him. Like Trump’s excuse that he spoke “in the heat of debate,” this excuse weakens the apology by implying that his actions were the result of circumstances beyond his control.

Although Lochte acknowledges his wrong words, he says nothing of his wrong actions. He never mentions the acts of vandalism or public drunkenness, without which he’d have had no reason to lie about his evening and there would have been no story. His apology is better, I think, but still incomplete.

Saying “I’m sorry” is hard, especially when it has to be said in front of the whole world. We all want to excuse our behavior, even when it’s wrong. “Humble pie” tastes terrible. It’s also sometimes hard to accept an apology: the hurt is too deep, I’m not quite finished being mad at you yet, you’ve given me no reason to believe you’re going to change, or I’ve heard this song before.

Public apologies will continue as long as there are politicians and TV/radio personalities. We’ve heard them before, and we’ll hear them again; but sometimes the apology comes too late, and sometimes it’s just desperate words and not an apology at all. Sometimes “sorry” isn’t enough to make up for the damage done. We’re the court of public opinion, and we’ll decide which ones we believe and which ones we don’t. Meanwhile, maybe we can all hum along with Elton John:

It’s sad, so sad, it’s a sad, sad situation
And it’s getting more and more absurd
It’s so sad so sad, why can’t we talk it over?
Oh, it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the hardest word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

. . . but words can never hurt me.

A familiar line? My parents and teachers taught me and my classmates and friends this retort to invalidate the power of bullies who said cruel things to us or called us mean names. And although it did make us feel a little better at the time, on reflection, this statement is simply not true. Bruises, abrasions, broken bones—these things heal in time; but the damage done by words lives on in the soul and can last a lifetime.

I had a graduate school professor who talked about “parental tapes”: those recordings in our brains of the things our parents said which continue to influence how we see ourselves and how we respond to the world well into our adult years. People who have been told that they’re lazy or too fat or less smart than someone else or that they’ll never amount to much will often fulfill those words in their adult lives. Words inform self-image, which leads to actions, which result in failure and unhappiness. On the contrary, children who have heard positive words about themselves will often live up to the image created by their good “parental tapes.”

I graduated from high school decades ago, but certain words spoken by unkind classmates still trigger involuntary responses in my mind. Even before high school, I recall watching my grandmother can jelly. Each time she prepared to pour hot jelly into a jar, she placed a spoon in the jar. When I asked why she did that, she replied, “To keep the jar from breaking, stupid.” My grandmother didn’t think I was stupid; this was a careless word spoken at a busy moment. She was a very kind and loving woman who was still raising and caring for grandchildren until she died. I remember many kind things she did and said, but that one careless word has also stuck throughout the decades.

The power of words to injure and to incite rage and violence in our age of mass communication, when every word spoken by a public figure is heard live or is on the Internet within minutes of being uttered, is extraordinary and causes thoughtful people to pause and reflect. I’ve heard it said recently, “You’re responsible for what you say, and you’re also responsible for what people hear.” How can that be? some may ask. I can’t help what someone else hears. Well, of course no one can anticipate how every listener will respond, but everyone can—and must—consider carefully the impact which spoken words might possibly have on those who hear them. Freedom of speech is not freedom to insult, bully, or harass. It is not freedom to incite violence or panic. It’s often been said, “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire”–pointing to the limits on our freedom to say whatever we like, when the words we say may cause harm to others. Laws governing libel and slander also enforce the requirement to speak responsibly and civilly.

To our great shame as a nation, we have a reality TV show going on right now in the guise of a presidential campaign. We have a candidate who is a loose cannon, saying whatever pops into his head at any given moment. The Republican candidate’s loose tongue is disturbing and dangerous on many levels. Insulting and bigoted remarks toward women, immigrants, the media—these all reveal deficiencies in his character and knowledge and are reason enough to discount his seriousness as a candidate for the highest office in our government. But even more frightening are his accusations against his Democratic opponent and our sitting president. Regardless of personal opinions about them, calling our national leaders the founder and co-founder of the world’s largest terrorist organization is unconscionable, especially by someone who thinks he’s fit to serve as our president and to unify us as a nation.

Statements such as calling members of the media “the lowest form of life,” suggesting that an opponent’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination, sparring with a Gold Star family, stating with “100%” certainty that his opponent can’t possibly win the state of Pennsylvania except by cheating, referring to his opponent as “Crooked Hillary,” remaining silent while his adrenaline-fueled supporters chant “Lock her up,” and suggesting that his opponent might be conveniently assassinated are unprecedented in presidential politics. They would be more at home in a high school locker room or a fifth-grade contest for class president. The fact that a chronologically mature adult would publicly make such statements defies belief.

The candidate continues to evade responsibility for his incendiary words by playing cunning games. His statements are made in ways that allow him to easily deny that he said what everyone clearly heard. He called President Obama and Hillary Clinton the founder and co-founder of ISIS. When an interviewer tried to give him a graceful way to make sense of his false claim, he dug in and said he absolutely meant the accusation in the most literal sense: they founded ISIS. But as media attention continued, he reversed his course, said he was only being sarcastic, and called the media stupid and “the lowest form of life” because they don’t get his humor.

Same game, different statement. When he suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of President Kennedy, he brushed it off as simply pointing out an article which other people had seen; “they” said these things, he didn’t. Same game, yet another statement. He suggested that the “second amendment people” might do something to prevent Hillary Clinton’s liberal SCOTUS appointments. But when confronted, he claimed he meant the “second amendment people” would surely vote against her and help him win the election.

Is it possible that he’s just so stupid he doesn’t know what he’s doing? It’s possible, but does anyone want someone that stupid to be leader of the free world? Or is it possible that he actually does know what he’s doing and phrases his messages in ways that allow him to deny responsibility? That’s also possible, and I for one believe he is well aware of the games he plays and is a master of manipulation who is consciously conning millions of people. He’s perpetrated scams before, but this one is by far the largest and has the most far-reaching consequences.

This is where the statement “You’re responsible for what you say, and you’re responsible for what people hear” becomes important. It doesn’t really matter whether Trump was suggesting that gun owners become assassins or simply use the power of their vote; it doesn’t matter whether he really meant to say that Obama and Clinton co-founded ISIS or he was being sarcastic. The statements are indefensible, regardless of their meaning, because what he said allows different people to hear very different messages. No one can control others’ hearing 100%, but it is the speaker’s responsibility to anticipate the obvious legitimate interpretations of his words and make every effort to be sure the intended meaning is the one that is heard. A speaker who doesn’t do that is either stupid or manipulative—neither of which belongs on a resume for the presidency.

Entire news cycles are devoted to parsing this candidate’s words to determine what they mean: time which could much more profitably be spent comparing candidates’ stances on real issues or reporting other important events. Instead, viewers are treated to nightly round-table discussions of the latest verbal vomit from the RNC candidate, keeping full media attention on him and away from his opponent or anyone else who may have happened to make news that day. And to the news media, I would also say, “It doesn’t matter what he meant!!!” His words disqualify him. Period. The most important thing we do every four years as a nation is elect our leader. This is a privilege denied the citizens of many other nations, a privilege we should treat with respect and reverence. Seeing this process reduced to reality TV should make every responsible citizen heart-sick and disgusted.

The defense “I was joking” or “I was being sarcastic” is not an excuse, either. This is not stand-up comedy or reality TV; this is a presidential campaign. Voters want to hear serious proposals or serious concerns about the opposing candidate–not outrageous “jokes” which serve only to demean the process and to plant seeds in the minds of unstable listeners who may take the “jokes” seriously and act on them. One doesn’t tell jokes at a funeral, especially ones that make negative statements about the deceased. Sometimes humor is inappropriate. The presidency of the United States is not a joking matter.

In a Daily Kos article, a writer who calls himself CleverNickName says he believes Trump was only joking about someone shooting Mrs. Clinton and adds:

But that doesn’t matter, because the threat that he made today isn’t limited to Secretary Clinton. When someone in the position he is in — a celebrity entertainer who is the Republican nominee for president — suggests that not only would it be acceptable for the Second Amendment Crowd to go take care of her, but laughs about it, he is normalizing violent behavior, on a national stage.

He continues:

But what about the angry alt-right guy who wants to go use his Second Amendment Remedy to take care of another [person] who bothers him?  . . . What about that guy, who is waiting to hear someone say what the voices in his head are saying? How much did the danger to us and people like us go up today, because Donald Trump normalized and amplified his thinking?

Beyond the surreal feeling of disbelief renewed with each daily dose of outlandish verbiage lie very real dangers. On Wednesday, November 9, if the Democratic candidate wins (Please, God!), the millions of people who have supported and voted for the speaker of these irresponsible words will not be going back to business as usual and happily looking forward to January and the inauguration of the second President Clinton. The adrenaline- and testosterone-fueled rally goers who chant, swing fists, assault protesters, stage angry mob scenes outside rally venues yelling “F*&% everyone” will be angry. By telling these angry mobs that the election may be rigged and that the opponent can win only by cheating, not only is Trump covering his ass in advance to explain his loss but he’s also insuring vengeance against the system and the opponent who beat him. If millions of supporters who already felt angry, cheated, and ignored now believe their messiah was robbed of his rightful victory, there could be riots unlike anything we’ve seen before. And since most of these people are also gun toters, the possibilities are frightening beyond imagination.

Donald Trump is playing verbal dodge ball: he says things, and when his words are thrown back at him, he ducks and dodges so that nothing sticks to him. But the damage is done as soon as the words are spoken, and the Republican Party can’t figure out what to do. The Party of Lincoln has become a national disgrace: what bitter irony! The party that saved the union and made us all equal is now set to begin a new civil war, in some ways more devastating than the war of 1861-1865. The hand-wringing, the tentative endorsements, the apologies for their candidate’s latest childish antic, the bail-outs by those who can’t stomach remaining party to the disgrace—none of this is going to stop the destruction of their party and the damage to our country.

Words matter. They may not break bones, but they can do irreparable damage.

In the words of Dr. Maya Angelou,

Words are things, I’m convinced. They get in your wallpaper. They get in your rugs, in your upholstery, in your clothes, and finally, into you. We must be careful about the words we use. Someday we will be able to measure the power of words.

In the same interview with Oprah Winfrey, Ms. Angelou continues:

On June 4, 2003 I wrote, “When I was thinking about how to explain why one’s choice of words are so important, I came across an article titled ‘Seeking Peace Through Our Words’ written by Lauren Grabelle, a rabbinic intern at Congregation Beth-El Zedeck in Indianapolis.”

This was during the first war in Iraq when the elder George Bush was in office. Grabelle wrote, “Jews are instructed not simply to desire peace, but to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ (Psalm 34:15). The question for us, then, is how do we seek peace when we are in the midst of conflict? How do we pursue peace in a time of war? The same psalm that instructs us to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ tells us to ‘guard your tongues from speaking evil and your lips from deceitful speech.’ Peace begins with the very words we utter. When we speak words of hate, we create hate. When we speak words of peace, we create peace.”

Dr. Angelou continues to quote Ms. Grabelle:

“We can pursue peace by engaging in dialogue. We have to consider the words of those whose views are different than [sic] our own. Hearing perspectives other than our own allows us to continue to see those around us as btselem elohim, created in the Divine image.

In the current situation, we may not feel like we have much control over what is going on in the world. Yet we do have control over what we say in response to the world around us. We could use our words and our voices to say hateful things about those with whom we fight and disagree or we could use words to seek common ground. We could make statements of resignation. Or we can use our words to uplift ourselves and to remind us of our common humanity.”*

Peace and love to you all!

 

 

*Here’s the link to the article about Dr. Angelou: http://jewishpostopinion.com/?page_id=1608

And this is the link to the Daily Kos article:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/9/1558491/-Trump-s-assassination-call-isn-t-just-a-threat-to-Secretary-Clinton?

Categories
Politics Religion

Evangelicals for Trump. Seriously???

Evangelicals find themselves facing a yuuuge moral dilemma this November. They can’t stomach the thought of voting for a Democrat, especially that woman. Yet their default candidate sends shivers up their spines every time he opens his mouth. Some are exploring third-party or write-in candidates, but others recognize the pitfalls of voting outside the two major parties, since so far no third-party candidate has ever won an election and there’s no way to be certain which major-party candidate will be more affected by third-party votes. What’s a god-fearing, self-respecting evangelical to do? For a number of them, the answer seems to be “rationalize.” Vote for someone who in every way violates your confession of faith, but construct arguments to make the wrong you’re about to do feel right.

Let’s face it: every honest person will have to admit to doing something in their life that has violated their own personal moral code. I admit I have. Sometimes the deed is the result of too much temptation and too little will power. Sometimes it’s a gross error in judgment. And sometimes we feel that we’re forced to choose the lesser of two evils, in which case we’re likely to be left feeling guilty no matter what we do because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Whatever the reason for our lapse, the resulting spiritual turmoil is painful.

So how does one make peace with one’s own conscience after having done something which has grossly offended the conscience? I would argue that the only honest way to proceed is to simply own the deed: admit it, accept your human weakness, seek forgiveness from anyone who has been hurt by your action, confess and seek forgiveness from God if that is part of your belief system, and then most important of all, forgive yourself. Then go on and live your life, believing you are still a good person, not damaged goods, who is still entitled to respect and is able to make sound moral judgments in the future.

I would also argue that the most dishonest and damaging way to make peace with a troubled conscience is to construct an argument that changes wrong to right. That approach leads one deeper into self-delusion and further from any connection to or understanding of truth. People who lie to themselves no longer see the dividing line between truth and falsehood. In Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” Polonius gives a long list of advice to his son Laertes, ending with the most important: “This above all: to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man.” If Polonius is right, one who is honest with oneself can’t be dishonest with anyone else, isn’t it fair to say the opposite is also correct: One who is dishonest with oneself can’t possibly be honest with anyone else.

Evangelicals* (See note at end) have been doing battle with their consciences for over a year now, and that battle intensifies with every day we move closer to November 8. Some, as I mentioned before, are looking at third-party and write-in candidates; others are going to sit out this election (cowards); others are just going to swallow hard and vote for Trump because he’s the only Republican on the ballot. Then there are the most disturbing of all: the ones who are going down that dark, twisted trail of attempting to construct an argument that will morally justify their choice and quiet their consciences.

I mentioned one of those in a previous post: Wayne Grudem, whose article “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” is being read, parsed, and widely refuted. Wayne Grudem is an influential evangelical theologian, professor of Christian ethics, author, and study Bible editor. Professor Grudem rationalizes:

He [Trump] is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

I’m still choking on “lacks nuance” and “I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws.” But moving on, in another passage he says,

But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.

In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.

I agree with Professor Grudem that single-issue voting is narrow and disqualifies otherwise good candidates for a single disagreement. However, character is an overriding factor which encompasses who a person is, to what extent the person can be trusted, and the moral compass by which the person lives. That’s NOT the same as voting only on a candidate’s stance on immigration, guns, or abortion. There is NO way Professor Grudem can honestly reconcile his own description of Trump with his own belief system.

Here’s an Evangelical Statement of Faith, taken from the National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/. Of course, individual groups will add to or alter the list in accordance with their personal interpretations, but I think this list is a pretty basic general summary.

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no way of knowing what Donald Trump believes concerning the first three items on the list; of course I could comment, but I’ll resist. I’m most drawn to the fourth and fifth. Can anyone honestly argue that someone who attacks and vilifies women, immigrants, people with disabilities, people who were captured in war, Gold Star families, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father; who boots a mother with a crying baby from a rally; who has described his own daughter as “hot” and said he’d date her if she were not his daughter; who is being sued for child rape; who condones and incites violence; who proposes banning entire people groups from our country—that this person exudes the spirit of one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit or who is living a godly life? That’s too big a stretch for my imagination!

And how about the last item on the list: “the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Has Professor Grudem’s “flawed candidate” done a single thing to promote unity since he launched his campaign? Or has everything he has done promoted division and discord? Of course, Mr. Grudem would argue that Hillary Clinton is even more flawed in regard to Evangelical standards, but the title of his article is not “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is Better than Voting for Hillary Clinton.” It’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice,” and I think that statement cannot be argued without compromising one’s evangelical beliefs.

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Then as I was still reeling from Professor Grudem’s article, I came across another article this morning, this one written by an unnamed author, “To the ‘Never Trumper’—A Biblical Case for Trump.” The author introduces herself thus:

I fit the classic profile of a “Never Trumper.” I am a highly educated, staunchly theologically and politically conservative pastor’s wife, who plans to one day homeschool her children. I even want to be a “Never Trumper.” I really do. It sounds so principled, so brave, to be a political nonconformist who refuses to buckle under the weight of societal temptation, or fall under the spell of the big mouthed billionaire with his lofty promises for a better future. I CANNOT, however, allow myself [to] ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God for situations such as the political debacle Americans have unfortunately found themselves in.

Her tone throughout the article is confrontational, her logic is confusing at best, and the accusations she freely hurls at Mrs. Clinton are unsupported. As the title suggests, her target audience is voters in the “Never Trump” movement, which means she’s speaking to Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump. Unlike Wayne Grudem (whose article she references at the end of her own), this writer does not deny any of the negative charges against Trump; in fact, the above quotation suggests that she agrees with those charges, as does this one:

I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to a political office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.

I am simply stating that in this specific office, as President, he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that he will protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical if he were to be elected, even if he does not personally embrace those values. . . . He has even organized a “faith advisory committee” comprised of some of the most respected Christian leaders in America.

Note that she has omitted how Mr. Trump will “protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical.” Could it be because he has never told us how he intends to carry out any of his “plans”?

Going on to address the “lesser of two evils” that we’ve heard so much about, she says:

The difference is that one “evil” has promised to do his best to protect your right to worship freely, and one has promised to do everything within her power to suppress them. You may argue that Trump will turn tail and act against Christians once elected. You are absolutely right. He could. We can be CERTAIN, however, that Hillary will do her best to destroy what little sense of decency we have left.

Am I the only one who missed the parts of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign speeches where she says she plans to suppress our right to worship freely and to destroy our sense of decency? And I’m curious what “them” is in line 3, that says Mrs. Clinton has promised to “suppress them.”

There’s more:

Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

Following that statement is a list of things which Never Trumpers will have lost the right to complain about if Mrs. Clinton is elected: the right to act as a martyr when she comes after your right to speak freely about issues such as homosexuality and the exclusivity of the Gospel; third-trimester abortions; future liberal supreme court rulings; your pastor being imprisoned for hate speech crimes; losing your right to bear arms and having to fret about the safety of your family.

I admit I am disturbed by third-trimester abortions, but I guess I fell asleep during the time Mrs. Clinton was talking about destroying our sense of decency, imprisoning our pastors, and taking away everyone’s guns.

And finally, here’s the wrap-up:

I am not arguing that Trump is a great man.

I am not even arguing that Trump is a good man.

I am arguing that in the words of Christ Himself, God can use an individual that is “not one of us” to further His purposes and protect His people.

I am arguing that in this time, and in this particular circumstance as the only nominee for Republican Party, Trump is the RIGHT man to serve as President of the United States.

So it seems this author is admitting that Donald Trump is all of the awful things we know he is but believes Jesus can use him anyhow to protect and defend us. I’d like to know a little more about how anyone can know that Jesus is behind a political candidate, but I guess I’ll have to wait for her sequel.

Her “argument” is, of course, sprinkled liberally with cherry-picked Bible verses because no self-respecting evangelical would dare debate those. If you want to “prove” something, just pick a verse–any verse.

https://lastchanceamerica.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/to-the-never-trumper-a-biblical-case-for-trump/

So far, the only “moral” arguments that have been advanced in favor of electing Donald Trump as president are based solely on the facts that he’s not Hillary Clinton and he’s not a Democrat. I saw a comment on social media this week calling the Democratic Party the “Party of Satan.” And most evangelicals I know, even if they don’t use such strong language, seem to agree with that statement at least in sentiment. It goes without saying that the standard bearer of the Party of Satan must then be Satan herself, which also seems to be a widely shared sentiment among evangelicals. That neither of those judgments can be substantively supported has not deterred any of those who continue to piously proclaim them.

Okay, I get it. You will never vote for a Democrat, especially not that Democrat. If the Republican Party nominates a hamster, you will swallow hard and vote for the hamster because it’s a Republican. Whatever! But can we at least be honest? Do whatever you have to do to be at peace with your conscience. Vote for the person who in no way represents your moral code if you feel you must. But puh-leeze spare the rest of us the ridiculous mental gymnastics of trying to convince yourself that what you’re doing is in harmony with your stated beliefs. It’s not.

 

*Note: I belong to the Christian faith, but I am not an evangelical. I am a mainstream Protestant.

 

 

 

Categories
In the News

Can We All Please Just Listen!

One of the weirder evenings of my life was September 26, 2008, when I joined some friends to watch the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. That doesn’t sound very weird. Getting together with friends for snacks, camaraderie, and watching an important political event sounds downright normal. The weirdness in this case arose from two facts of which I was not entirely aware before arriving at my host’s home. The first, which I’d had an inkling of but didn’t know for sure, is that I would be the only Democrat in a roomful of “enthusiastic” Republicans. The second took me completely by surprise: I was the only person in the house who went there for the purpose of listening to both candidates and drawing conclusions based on what I heard; you know, making an effort to be open minded. Silly me! I thought that’s why we were there.

I was about to find out I was in a minority of one. As soon as Barack Obama’s lips began to part, before any sound had emerged from his mouth, these people were shouting at the TV: “Idiot!!! That’s the stupidest, most ridiculous thing that’s ever been said in the history of the world!” (Or something that meant the same thing) The room was filled with scorn and derision in high decibels. When John McCain began to speak, they shouted their agreement, approval, and undying support. What their responses had in common is that they were based, in both cases, not on the words the man had just spoken but on their predetermined assessment of who the man was, and in this case on which one was the Republican and which one was the Democrat. The one person who formed a barrier between me and the TV screen was the loudest and most vocal of all, so my efforts to hear what the candidates were saying were mostly futile. My lame attempts at interjecting reason into a couple of their comments were not well received, so I just watched and looked forward to viewing the second debate in the lovely quietness of my own home.

Many times during the evening, I wanted to scream, “Can we all please just LIS-TEN?!” I didn’t. But that evening comes to mind often these days since it so perfectly exemplifies what passes for public conversation in our time. With very few exceptions, people today respond to the speaker, not to what the speaker says. The essential information is the speaker’s political party, where they fall on the conservative-liberal spectrum, their opinions and beliefs on key issues, possibly their religious affiliation, and their basic demographics. For the average listener, this information—or any portion of it—is enough to judge anything the speaker could possibly say, so there’s no need to actually hear it. This makes conversation pretty simple: I will pause while you say your words, and then I will give you the response which I already decided on as soon as I met you.

Think about it. It’s well known that millions of people in our country hate our current president. And for most people, this is not the usual disagreement over policy or disappointment that the candidate they voted for didn’t win or disapproval of the president’s general conduct. Those are some of the normal reasons for disliking a president, even strongly disliking; but the vitriol that has been spewed daily about President Obama is unprecedented. And those who do the spewing are undeterred by anything good that the president could possibly say. He has given moving tributes to fallen police officers, he has inspired us through many national tragedies, he has sung “Amazing Grace” at a televised funeral and given clear statement of his Christian faith, and the guy is a great comedian on happy occasions.

Yet nothing he says even pierces the thick shell of hatred surrounding his critics because they don’t hear a word of it. In every one of the examples I’ve listed, his haters have responded by calling him names (including the N word), declaring him a Muslim, labeling him a dismal failure (against all factual evidence), calling him the worst president ever, saying he was born in Kenya and is therefore unqualified to be president, and other things so vile I’ve chosen to dismiss them from my mind. How many people have really listened to what he has said, and how many don’t care what he says because they’ve already judged him?

One of the most baffling connections I’ve seen this campaign season, and that’s saying a lot, is the evangelical support of Donald Trump. An article that’s making the rounds this week is called “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.” The author is Wayne Grudem, an evangelical theologian, with a long list of credentials, including studies at Harvard University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and University of Cambridge; serving as a seminary professor of Christian ethics for 39 years; authoring a number of books, including a highly respected systematic theology; and acting as general editor of a study Bible. Impressive. But now he says this: “I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.” Hmmmm.

He continues:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

Flaws? Not disqualifying flaws? So Professor Grudem, what on earth would you say IS a “disqualifying flaw”?

But wait, there’s more:

On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made.

Careless statements? Magnified? When he called women “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals,” those were just careless statements? And they’d have been no big deal if those mean old reporters hadn’t gone and made a big fuss over them? A president, or someone running for the office, doesn’t have the luxury of making careless statements.

And to sum it all up, Grudem says:

Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).

You can read more of Professor Grudem’s “analysis” here: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

My point in this essay is that Barack Obama can sing “Amazing Grace” and get called a N*&&^^%, and Donald Trump can threaten to bomb the families of terrorists and insult numerous individuals and entire people groups and he just “lacks nuance” and is “flawed” but not fatally flawed. And those are the words of a leading evangelical whose life’s teaching has opposed everything Donald Trump stands for. Obviously Trump gets the pass here because he’s a Republican (the default party for evangelicals) and he’s not Hillary Clinton, not because his words are moral or make any sense. So Trump can go on saying whatever grinds his axes and proves his ignorance and still score the evangelical vote in November.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell cringe and go into damage control mode every time Trump opens his mouth yet refuse to withdraw their endorsements because he’s the Republican candidate and they’re Republicans, and that association counts more than what he says.

Even in personal conversations, the same truth applies. We paint whole categories with one brush stroke, and then we can’t hear what individuals say. Liberals are out to destroy the second amendment and confiscate everyone’s guns, they’re always playing the race card, they enable people to be lazy by handing out food stamps and welfare, they’re socialistic, they want to open our borders and jeopardize our national security, and they’re always wanting to enact policies God disapproves of. Conservatives are backward, racist, making war on women, God-flaunting, gun-toting, climate change-denying Neanderthals. And we too often respond to each other based solely on these stereotypes rather than on the actual words coming out of an individual’s mouth. I posted a joke awhile back on social media, and one of my conservative friends took it seriously. When I responded that it was meant to be humorous, my friend responded, “Lib humor.” Oh, so it might have been funny if a conservative said it, but today it’s not.

We can’t have rational, productive conversations about gun violence, abortion, public restrooms, LGBT concerns, or multiple other social issues because we’ve decided before the first word is spoken whether we agree or disagree with other speakers based on the category to which they belong. And even when we may agree with someone in another category, we find it difficult to cross lines because of group loyalty. Paul Ryan is a prime example in his love-hate relationship with the Republican presidential nominee. Voting against their own party’s nominee is hard for many people. People speak all the time about “both sides” of an issue. “All sides” would be more accurate because we all have individual opinions which don’t exactly match our category label, but the only way we’ll ever know that is to start listening to each other instead of assuming everyone in a particular category thinks exactly alike.

A counselor I once knew had a great exercise she used in couples counseling. The couple would take turns speaking and listening. The speaker would have to tell the listener something that person did which was offensive. Before the listener could respond to the charge, however, she or he had to first repeat what the speaker had said and continue repeating it whatever number of times it took for the speaker to say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I said.” The point was that you can’t respond to something if you didn’t hear it correctly; and hearing correctly requires active, attentive listening. If only we’d all start making that a habit in our daily conversations, we might find out a lot of people have important, interesting, intelligent things to say; and we might get somewhere in solving our country’s problems. It’s worth a try!