John H Armstrong

Happy Thanksgiving 2009

Thanksgiving Day clearly has its roots in the idea of a fall harvest festival. It was traditionally, and still is, a time to give thanks for both the harvest and for life in general. In the United States it still remains the most unencumbered of all our special holidays. Little commercialization has tainted it and most of us look forward to it, unless we have painful memories of family or loss that we associate with the day. The day had religious association in American history but much of this has now been lost to secular forces of change. Still in all it retains a charm and a simplicity that most Christians can and do appreciate.

Most of us associate this day with the fall celebration of thanksgiving at Plymouth in 1621. The connection of this event with our modern celebration is as much myth as fact but the link remains in most of our minds.

Alexander Hamilton proclaimed that “No citizen of the United States should refrain from turkey on Thanksgiving Day” but it wasn’t until decades later that turkey became a staple of Thanksgiving celebrations. The national holiday was established by President Lincoln in 1863, at a time when the nation was badly torn asunder by war.

For the Christian each day should be a time for thanksgiving but this national holiday is a welcome time for our family and friends. Here positive memories and spiritual realities can take on special meaning for each of us. Here we can enjoy food, friendship and gratitude as God’s people. May you have such a blessed day with your family, or some family, as you give thanks for all the manifold blessings you enjoy this year. Enjoy the good food, give thanks to God and celebrate his goodness to you with great joy!

Looking for Lincoln

PBS does some of the finest documentary presentations in contemporary television. To celebrate the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln PBS did a two-hour special (now available on DVD) titled: Looking for Lincoln. It features Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Gates travels around the country from Gettysburg to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He stops in Springfield and rural Indiana. He interviews friends and foes of Lincoln, including a group of Southern Civil War supporters who see Lincoln as a terrorist. From Lincoln re-enactors at a unique convention to relic hunters and collectors he shows the impact of our sixteenth president on our national identity, past and present.

Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are featured as well. Both interact with Lincoln's legacy and what it must have been like to live in the White House in those darkest days in our nation's lowest point. Clinton is particularly impressive in his grasp of Lincoln's religious nature and the impact of his faith on his presidency. As always President Clinton reveals an inquisitive and intellectual side that makes him such interesting person in an interview context. Bush is less engaging but none the less worth hearing on Lincoln. He takes the viewer into the Lincoln bedroom and reminds us that this was the war room during his presidency.

Pulitzer Prize winner Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of the best-seller on Lincoln, A Team of Rivals, provides some very important commentary and challenges Gates, at one point in particular, when he wonders about the Lincoln legacy. Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer, who I have the privilege of knowing through my membership in the Abraham Lincoln Forum, is brilliant.

The Lincoln legend is just that, legend. But the real Lincoln was a man of his times. His feelings, perspectives and legacy are all examined in a generally helpful way on this program. I encourage anyone of middle school age or above to see Looking for Lincoln. It is well done.

Eight Years Ago

Who among us can forget this day eight years ago? It was a lovely late summer/early fall day across much of the nation. We were going about our daily routines and then we began to get bits and pieces of news. Many of us went from our computer to the television and sat almost transfixed for the rest of the day. It seemed like everything came to a halt. The only comparable day in my lifetime was the November day in 1963 when I heard that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, Texas. The days which followed were sobering. We reflected on life and freedom and asked, "Who would want to kill innocent Americans by flying passenger planes into buildings?"

We were deeply moved by the suffering and the loss. We were also deeply moved by the acts of courage that led many to die in the process of trying to rescue others. We were even deeply moved by the actions of the president, even though it did not take long for the old ways to return. It seemed, at least for a few days, we were all Americans and this is what really mattered. Even churches had a spike in attendance, though this too declined within a few weeks.

Looking back, from the perspective of eight years I ask myself some questions about this historic date.

1. How could we have been so blind to the potential of such a terrorist attack on the United States? We had already been attacked outside the U.S. and the Twin Towers were attacked in 1993. Yet we took an out of sight out of mind attitude. 9/11 changed all that. The world shrunk and Americans entered the 21st century in a way they never imagined before 9/11.

2. Where did all our collective piety and prayer go to? Are we a religious people who turn to God in crisis but forget him almost as quickly? It surely seems so.

3. What happened to our commitment to fight radical Islamic terrorism? Did the war in Iraq divert our attention or focus it? What about Afghanistan? Is the fact that we have been eight years without an internal attack in the homeland a sign that the "war on terror" has actually made us safer?

4. Is it only a matter of time before we are attacked once again? Will the next attack be much more dramatic and more likely to kill many more people that 9/11? How shall we prepare and will this make any difference at all?

I have opinions and I am sure you do too. I am quite sure that some of my opinions are wrong, though I am not sure which ones. I will change them if I see that they are wrong. I know that I do not have access to the information that the president and our military have so in the end all I have is an opinion based on what others tell me.

What I am sure of is that 9/11 changed us. How long lasting the change is I am unsure. I do not look to such terrible events to awaken us as a nation. 9/11 proves, so far, that such events do not lead us to make massive corporate changes in our lifestyle. We will go on as we are unless God awakens his people to be the church in the midst of a Western nation that continues to pursue hedonism and consumerism as its greatest goals in life. 

Living Through the Twentieth Century

A Century of Living (HBO Films, 2002) is an absolutely amazing documentary. My television provider gave me free HBO for one year so I came across a replay of this sixty minute feature a few weeks ago and recorded it. If you ever get the opportunity watch it. (You can rent if from Netfilx or even find it in some free loan libraries.)

Seventeen men and women, all born in 1900 or before, share their poignant and life-affirming thoughts about the 20th century. Mixing indelible black-and-white film and photographic images with the words of a cross-section of men and women, the film spans key epochs and trends of the last 100 years, underscoring the fact that while the quality of our lives has changed so much over the past 100 years, the essence of our spirit has remained, essentially, the same.

This documentary allowed me to “meet” people who actually lived through the Great Depression and who celebrated the end of World War I. While we talk about the N1H1 flu I wonder if any of us realizes that not too long ago people died from an influenza epidemic in large numbers. Here you will see and hear people talk about Charles Lindbergh and the invention of the automobile as well as share their personal stories of landmarks like marriage, family, dating and loss. The entire portrait is a compelling account of an unforgettable century.

Produced by Jean Abounader (the 1986 HBO film "Down and Out in America," winner of the Documentary Features Oscar) and directed by Abounader and Imre Horvath, this exclusive HBO documentary special is one of the most moving pieces of twentieth century history I have ever seen on film. I felt like I sat at the feet of a great generation and learned just how much some things have changed and some have not. I would show this to my children and grandchildren if you can find it.

The Dark World of Michael Savage

Of all the conservative talk show hosts on radio the most bizarre of them all has to be Michael Savage. I admit I have listened to him just enough to realize how disturbed and nutty he actually is. What is even more amazing is how well his books have sold. There clearly is a deep angst in many conservatives who feed on the anger and dark world of this man.

Kelefa Sanneh, writing a recent piece on Savage in the New Yorker magazine, says he lives in a "dark, apocalyptic world." The talk show host, who has an audience of  8 million listeners, says, "Twenty-one hours a day I live in misery. Three hours a day I'm happy." Having listened to a little of this man while in my car I found this to be exactly what I would have expected. Callers who try to converse with Savage have little chance to say anything of substance. He attacks people, interrupts them and bullies them, and in general is simply aggressive beyond description. His ideas often sound like some of the most radical expressions of hatred imaginable.

Before Michael Savage, now 67 years old, became an author and popular radio host he wrote about alternative medicine. He still will not wear head phones when he is in the studio for his fear of going deaf. He talks about losing his sight every day. The man seems totally paranoid when you get into his comments about life. He actually operates from what he calls "hidden locations" for fear of his life. Perhaps the reason for this is the deep loathing he has created among extremists on the left. Living in San Francisco, as he does a good deal of the time, would tend to make such a guy fearful I suppose. After all, this is the same man who said all liberals were psychopaths. He ought to know.

Is Extremism on the Rise in America?

Politics in America has tended to move toward a deeper expression of extremism over the last few decades. Opinions differ about what started this negative trend. Some think it began with the Watergate mess. Others think it became even worse during the Clinton era, especially when conservative ministers tried to discredit Clinton with a number of lies. This culminated in the impeachment trial. Still others think this only got worse in the wake of 9/11 and the bitter opposition that grew in response to George W. Bush. Now it seems to have reached an even higher level of intensity with the bitter reaction of many conservatives to President Obama.

The presidency of Ronald Reagan may have been the only time, and perhaps the four years of the President George H. W. Bush right after him, when we have not had fierce extremism in the popular culture since the 1960s. Could Reagan's humor, and his upbeat spirit, have helped him overcome some of this? But even then extreme liberals despised Ronald Reagan and tried to find various ways to discredit him morally.

What astounds me is the level to which all of this has descended in recent years. Talk radio and 24/7 television has not helped. Indeed, it may have promoted more of this than ever. One whole movement of extreme conservative voices exists in what are called "the birthers." Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs have actually given credence to this movement. These people believe that Obama is not a legitimate president because he was not born on U. S. soil, which means he is not a legitimate U. S. citizen. This movement strikes me as not only extreme but as very dangerous. If we can undermine the whole electoral process, much as extremists did on the left after the Supreme Court decided that Bush won Florida in 2000, then we can undermine the whole legitimacy of our government. Extremists are always willing to discredit and destroy in the name of their agenda and goals.

The extreme right now employs not-so-subtle forms of race baiting. Glenn Beck recently proclaimed that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people." Democrats seek to paint the Republicans as "right-wing, Southern bigots" who oppose minorities, women, gays and immigrants. But during the previous eight years the shoe was often on the other foot. I believe President Obama campaigned successfully precisely because he was able to put some distance between his campaign and the fringe left. He was able to defuse Republican attacks that painted him as the most liberal and extreme of all possible Democrats. Republicans have used this approach ever since Vietnam, saying all Democrats will not protect the nation militarily. Democrats have used the same approach always saying that Republicans will destroy Social Security, to use one common campaign standard.

But we must understand that political extremism is a bipartisan problem. 28% of Republicans, in a recent poll, said they did not believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S. But another poll, taken in 2007, revealed that 35% of Democrats believed President Bush actually knew in advance that 9/11 was going to happen. Both extremes are bad but the second is, to my mind, even nuttier than the first. Neither party can completely disavow this extreme nonsense. The "fanatical fringe" is alive and well. The question is just how large are these extremist movements? And how much influence does this really have in the mainstream?

We know some things about the fanatical fringes. On the right they segregate themselves with like-minded ideologues on the Web, listen to certain talk radio hosts and watch Fox News. On the left they love Michael Moore and Air America and MSNBC. The more people on both sides stoke their views with extreme ideas the more they tend to segregate themselves from people they disagree with. One blogger, David Paul Kuhn, says that "from this mutual incomprehension, outlandish conspiracy theories are born." I totally agree.

The two parties have been drawn into a policy of loyalty to their agenda, which is really a desire to keep or regain their political power. Few seem willing to find a way of compromise that will work for the greater good of the nation. The present health care debate underscores this very point. Both sides are accusing the other of nefarious and ugly conspiracies and lying. I do not know about you but this health care bill runs to over 1,000 pages. I haven't read it but then you probably haven't either. But the problem here is that no one in Washington seems to have read it either. Everyone should be asking questions rather than endorsing either side in a battle that is so clearly drawn along the lines that we have become used to in this country.

I run into the influence of this extremism regularly. I had a talk a few days ago with a man who was quite liberal. He got very angry even though I didn't promote any particular idea seriously. He face grew flush, his veins popped and he completely lost it. He made it know that he hated George Bush. He believed that Bush is the worst man to ever hold office in America. At the same time I run into Christians every week who hate President Obama so deeply that they seem to think this is their primary reason for getting up every morning. They will do anything, including lie and use anger in unrighteous ways, to let everyone know just how much they hate this man.

Ironically, both Bush and Obama are professing Christians. Their testimony to God's grace is known and can be read by all fair minded people. I, for one, accept them both at face value and judge their political views one-by-one. I fear this approach is now seen as weak and lacking in integrity by a large, growing number of Americans. This is why I think extremism is on the rise. I also believe that it is harming the mission and witness of the church very profoundly.

The Promise of America's Cities

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a significant leader of great interest to many Americans. It was rumored, in the last election cycle, that he might run as an independent candidate for president. I still think he may run such a campaign in the future. I listen to Michael Bloomberg whenever he talks about our cities and their future. He plainly understands the infrastructure of big cities and how they can thrive in a modern context. Bloomberg recently shared some great insights, in Business Week (August 24), into what makes a recessionary economy a time of real opportunity for true growth.

The mayor started a new technology company in an earlier recession and then ended up incredibly wealthy in the process. People told him that he was crazy to invest big money in a start-up during a bad economy. He proved them wrong. Later he was told that he was crazy to run for the mayoral office. He says, "Human achievement is built on the optimistic notion that what is not possible today can be possible tomorrow. America has never had a short supply of optimists, which may be the best of all reasons to be hopeful." Bloomberg is an optimist if he is anything at all! I think we can stand to hear a few optimists right now.

Bloomberg is also bullish on big cities. He says safer streets in New York have attracted entrepreneurial and ambitious people, especially young people. These young adults have transformed once-blighted neighborhoods. While manufacturing has moved overseas Mayor Bloomberg notes that design continues to grow in America. This is a sector of our economy that relies on ideas and he believes there are some great ideas in our biggest cities. (Not all big cities for sure, but most of them.) While financial services have declined in the present global recession, innovative and high-tech industry is growing. Technology, says Mayor Bloomberg, is stretching the bounds of entrepreneurialism. He says, "If you can dream it, you can build it, and the U. S. has always been a nation of dreamers, even in the toughest times."

Bloomberg believes that the current recession will give rise to a new wave of entrepreneurs. He also believes, and I hope someone is listening, that the challenge for local, state and national governments is to find ways to encourage and attract this vast potential. In New York City the mayor is opening business incubators, holding boot camps for entrepreneurs, organizing business-plan competitions and expanding the amount of early-stage seed capital designated for start-ups. He is also cutting taxes for small businesses.

Bloomberg believes the expansion of capital in countries like India and China will profit the U.S. He is most definitely not a protectionist. In fact, no one who is forward thinking about America's future is a protectionist. America's deep pool of talent and technological know-how will continue to make it a desirable place for investment opportunity if government plays the right role. He also believes Congress needs to fix our broken immigration system so that our society can truly be more open. Conservatives react against this thinking but I fear this reaction is very often rooted in a general ignorance of the issue or a latent racism that is not understood. Our world-class universities can attract the best and the brightest if we are open to the world. Government's role, besides creating a climate for all this to happen, is to invest in quality of life issues by committing money to mass transit, parks, schools, etc.

Bloomberg is not a conservative or a liberal, at least not in the normal ways these labels are used in the modern context. His social views are clearly more to the left, as are some of his views about other non-spending issues. But he is more of a fiscal conservative in the area of taxes and spending. All of this makes him both an interesting proponent of the future of our big cities as well as an interesting candidate for higher office. When Michael Bloomberg speaks a lot of talented and able people listen. It seems they do so for very good reason. I have no idea if I would vote for him but I will always be interested in what he has to say. He is an impressive mayor of the world's greatest big city.

The American Way of Life?

The oft-used phrase "The American way of life" or "the American Way" is often heard in the oratory associated with July 4th in the United States. The term has its origins, interestingly enough, in the free enterprise system. It was used by Alf Landon in his 1936 campaign against Franklin D. Roosevelt. He had a slogan that was "Save the American Way of Life." This was aimed at FDR's radical new measures advanced in the New Deal. At the Chicago Tribune telephone operators answered the phone by saying: "Only ___ more days to Save the American Way of Life."

An American diplomat named Eric Johnson, who was also a film studio executive, said this phrase was a euphemism and that the word used should really be capitalism (1958). Richard Nixon, who was not a strong political conservative, used the ideas and words in a different way. Perhaps the most interesting development came in the 1980s when the television producer Norman Lear used the phrase in the title of a new liberal group, People for the American Way.

So what value is there in this kind of rhetoric when we hear it today? Likely very little. It is a political piece of oratory that no longer rings in the hearts of modern voters. If you believe the era of expansive government is a growing problem, and I do, then you need to find new language that will clearly communicate this problem. Even the terms capitalist and socialist, used so broadly in the most recent election, do not resonate with people deeply today. (I am not sure these are the options anyway since unfettered capitalism is not the best option for a just and compassionate society.) I think there is a great challenge here for genuine intellectual conservatives to find a more nuanced and effective way to argue that bigger government, with its massive entitlements and the tendency to bad management because of political patronage, is almost always a bad option for a just and truly good society.

President Obama Leads America into the New Global Context

While Iran is rocked by the biggest public protests since the revolution of 1979, President Obama is pursuing a policy called “wait and see.” His priority, as with most concerned world leaders, is to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear bomb. His method of choice is to negotiate directly with Iran’s leaders. Until he knows who these leaders will be he is biding his time.

While Senator McCain, and leading Republicans are calling the Iranian election a sham, President Obama displays his characteristically cool personality. He seemed to measure his words when he said this week that he was “deeply troubled” by the violence he had seen on television. He added that he could “not state definitively” what had happened in Iran since there were no international observers there to give him real information. And the president stressed that “it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be.” It is safe to say that this is a cautious policy that could easily fail if the Iranian government violently reacts against the protest movement.

The president’s critics suggest he is not supporting democracy but theocracy and a madman. A few years ago I would have been inclined to agree. I now want to give the president the benefit of the doubt and see what this “new” approach actually accomplishes for peace.

Consider the following. What if the president were to support the protest movement in Iran openly? The regime, and its radical Muslim backers, would be able to portray America as the tool of the Great Satan. Brian Katulis, an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a think-tank with close links to the White House, says the president will wait and see. His cool approach is to take steps that can not be used to inflame passions. There is something to be said for this kind of coolness so long as vigilance is not sacrificed. The debate over the proper balance will not be resolved in the short run but only as we see how this president actually responds to both crisis and challenge.

The Economist noted this week that “Obama is gambling that he can reshape global opinion. A first step is to persuade Muslims that America is not their enemy. In a speech in Cairo this month he quoted the Koran, praised Islamic culture and promised a ‘new beginning’ based on ‘mutual interest and mutual respect.’ In a speech to mark the Iranian new year back in March, he praised Iran’s ‘great civilization,’ saying he wants it ‘to take its rightful place in the community of nations.’ 

To conservatives this all seems like appeasement and nonsense. To moderates and liberals it seems wise and cautious. Many conservatives will argue that rogue states, and Muslim mullahs, can never be accepted at face value given the reality of sin and evil. In this view it is America, with its ideals and openness, against the world and the world is both dangerous and wrong. President Obama seems to believe America is a great nation but we should curtail our policy of recent efforts to shape the world by our values. I admit that I must agree with him, at least until I see how this approach will work out. I think the new global context requires a different approach to the world than what has traditionally been the American position. We must have a defense policy that is both carefully thought out and aimed at our own protection; cf. Romans 13:1–7. At the same time we must not seek to make nations conform to our view of the world and our self-interests.

The president was also made acutely aware this week of the problems associated with North Korea. At a joint press conference with the president of South Korea the president confirmed the main thrust of a recent report and said the details are still being discussed with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. He added, “There’s been a pattern in the past where North Korea behaves in a belligerent fashion, and if it waits long enough [it] is then rewarded. We are going to break that pattern.” I pray that he does. It seems he is a critical realist about evil while at the same time he is trying to forge a new perspective on the world. Will it work? Not if militants strike the United States during his first term. The public would likely turn against him in a heartbeat if this happened.

What I ask myself is simple: “How do I promote peace in a world that is filled with evil?” Simple answers to this uncomplicated question are a dime a dozen. I am not suggesting the president has it right but he ought to be afforded the opportunity to work out a new approach. In the end the safety of the United States is important but as a Christian I want more. I want to see our international policy reflect a desire for peace, not peace at any price, but peace through strength, a stance that is less belligerent toward the modern world. If you say this is idealism then I answer that such idealism is what America is all about. We need more of this idealism, not less. May God give wisdom to those who lead us and may we all be given the patience to see how things develop in an already tense and troubled world. Peacemaking is still the goal, not the stance of compromise and cowardice.

The Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln came to understand the unusual nexus that exists between faith and civil society during his time as our 16th president. During his presidency, with the nation at war, Lincoln heard arguments from both sides that God was in support of the North or the South. He struck an entirely different note when he wrote a private document titled: “Meditation on the Divine Will." This amazing statement is well worth quoting in its entirety.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contests proceeds.

This type of thinking found its way into Lincoln’s second inaugural address in 1865, almost two-and-a-half years after he wrote the statement. Lincoln reveals a deep hesitancy to represent God’s purposes. He rejects a confident reading of events that typically characterizes the American jeremiad, a course he himself seems to have followed in the Emancipation Proclamation by linking this document with the battle at Antietam.

For Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, God’s purposes could not be reduced to partisan debates about politics. In the second inaugural Lincoln said: “The Almighty has his own purposes.” (What a wise approach! He acknowledged God's sovereignty but refused to see God as on the side of his political views and purposes.)

Evangelical historian Mark Noll has brilliantly noted that Lincoln “propounds a thick, complex view of God’s rule over the world and a morally nuanced picture of America’s destiny” (Cited by Murphy, 74). I believe we have missed the brilliance of Lincoln’s insights and promoted a particularly troubling brand of civil religion. This civil religion was used by Barack Obama to promote his view of America in the last election, the first Democrat to use this in a generation. It has been used much more prominently by the Republicans since the time of Lyndon Johnson. By not embracing Lincoln’s highly nuanced view our loss as Christians is immense. We have been taken in by the Republican party in many instances, just as Notherners were in the Civil War. We have also been taken in by the Democratic Party, much as Southerners were in the same Civil War. The parties have exchanged roles since the 19th century, at least in some ways, but the problem remains. We want to have a divine mascot on our side thus we link the Bible and God to our cause and beliefs in public.

I am currently writing a series on this issue; i.e., the role of civil religion in American life, its impact on the church and our view of the kingdom of God. I am considering how the use of the jeremiad is employed to seek a better American past while we call the country to repentance and national renewal. I have felt that this wrong use of history is at the root of American civil religion for more than 35 years. I still do. I find that it consistently takes Christians away from the real mission of Christ and his kingdom.

If you are not receiving the ACT 3 Weekly each Monday be sure to go to the Web site and sign up. It is free. You can also download it and listen or you can subscribe to it as a podcast. Back issues are archived on the home page, in both written and audio form. This is a major part of my regular writing about theology and the church.