Go in Peace

There is a tension in Christianity between on the one hand, living a holy life that abstains from sin, and on the other, participating in systems that seem necessary but give us pause. Being a part of our communities in ways that call into question the ideals of Christ. One's career is a common area this challenge surfaces.

On that topic, this passage caught my attention today.

In 2 Kings 5 the commander of the army of one of Israel's enemies, Namman, had a problem, leprosy--a disease that would surely kill him, and which alienated him from his community.

And yet, he hears about the power of God, from of all people, a young Israelite girl that had been carried away into slavery, likely by his army. Desperate, he dared to approach the people he abused, and asked for help.

The King of Israel was distraught, certain that his failure to heal Namman's disease would be a pretext for war. But then a lowly prophet stepped in.

Like all of us, Namman, an enemy of God, experienced the grace of God.

And then this is what caught my attention:

"But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

“Go in peace,” Elisha said."

Reflections on the Affordable Care Act

The problems with Obamacare are well documented.  And they are real.  People have a right to be upset with the roll-out of the ACA.  But the fundamental premise that all Americans should have access to healthcare is being addressed, and it reflects a value for life and justice and generosity.

This article in the New York Times details some of the promises and ongoing problems of the ACA.

In some cases, those most vociferous on the problems are those that have done everything they can to derail it.  They are like a neighborhood bully who, having just rammed a stick through the spokes of a little boys bike says, "see I told you you would crash."

And then there are those who say, "we aren't opposed to access, we are just opposed to this approach."  But were were these people for the 20 or 30 years that this problem developed?  Obamacare addresses problems that were well documented and not being addressed.  Those problems could have been addressed in some other way in the years prior to Obama being elected.  If churches and non-profits should be at the forefront of this effort, why weren't they? Or why wasn't their effort adequate?  Why wasn't their enough of them?  Or did they do the best they could and the inadequacy of the effort prior to Obamacare just illustrates the limits of this approach?  (I'm not judging the efforts of those who were involved in non-profit healthcare prior to the ACA, I'm talking about the systemics of it.)

Finally there are criticisms of cost.  Several things are happening here.  First, American's are being asked to pay the real cost of their healthcare. (Or something closer to that number.)  In some cases, people were getting more than they were paying for.  Second, people are getting an insurance contract that is fundementally better than it was for many in the past.  The situation is similar to regulations on automobiles.  In some parts of the world, you can get a new car for substantially less than you can here in the States, but the workmanship, safety and efficiency all suffer.  You take your life in your hands driving these cars.   In the same way, people who use to have low-cost insurance plans, more than likely did not realize the extent of the exclusions and limitations on those plans.  In some cases they were paying for an insurance contract that was not worth the paper it was written on.  Having said this, this is one area I could see agreeing with conservatives.  Maybe American's should be free to buy bad insurance contracts.  I could see offering a super low-cost insurance contract that came with the equivalent of a Surgeon General's warning.  "Warning!  This contract does not comply with the requirements of the ACA and contains significant limitations, including..."

Having said all this, the problems at present are real.  Good intentions are not enough.  President Obama and his deputies need to deliver on the promises they made because those promises reflect a concern for life, and justice, and generosity.

Why a Government Shutdown is Reasonable

A government shutdown is not reasonable from a policy or good governance standpoint.  But it is reasonable if we consider what we know of human behavior during toxic conflict.  

In the context of war, it is “reasonable” for one human to kill another, and for that to happen on a mass scale.  It becomes reasonable when the stakes are high enough, when the good of the group outweighs the good of any given individual that may die.  (Let’s not dissect that premise.  Just stick with me.)  While Congress is not engaged in armed conflict—I don’t want to disrespect those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom—we need to understand the conflict in Washington as being on that spectrum.  Congress should no longer be understood as a group of people who are sent there to govern.  They are sent there to engage in rhetorical and legislative violence for their constituents.  Think otherwise?  Members of the House play to a small base.  “I am going there to fight for you” is a common refrain on the campaign trail, consequently we should not be surprised then when they do just that.

From the singular view of one side or the other, when a person is engaged in conflict, all manner of things that would not otherwise be reasonable, are.  On the hockey rink, if the game turns dirty, we expect that otherwise well-mannered boys will engage in cheap shots and brawling.  “I may not have started it, but I sure as hell will finish it” is a common thought process.  When two people who have shared their most intimate secrets divorce, it gets ugly, and in the context of that divorce, one can expect certain types of vindictive and counter-productive behavior.  Things will be stolen or broken, and the ugliest things said.  Considered from the standpoint of the individual consumed by conflict, these things are reasonable.

If we escalate any given conflict beyond Congress’ current level of toxicity, to armed conflict, undesirable behavior is not just acceptable, it becomes admirable.  Soldiers and generals are respected for what they do.  When you fight for God and country, anything goes.  And so it is in Congress.  The sides are sent there not to represent or seek the collective good, but to fight for their constituents.  Red State vs Blue State, or more accurately, Red County vs Blue County. If we are to believe the rhetoric of those that are very conservative or very liberal, all that is good and true is at stake.  In the context of access to affordable healthcare, it is nothing less than life and death according to both sides.

Understood this way, a government shutdown is a reasonable thing to do.  That is not to say it will be good for the country in the short term, not economically or in several other respects.  But that is always the case during conflict.  Parties choose to cease cooperating, or are forced to from their perspective, and give up present gains to obtain a better future.  A nation that had devolved into armed civil war gives up a great deal, while at the same time, a neighboring country not involved in civil war prospers.  Does that make sense?  It does to the parties at the center of the conflict.  However bad armed civil war, or a government shutdown may be, so long as it is better than the status quo,  it is reasonable.

**************

Notes

Conflict resolution, solving problems like this and helping parties recover from their seemingly reasonable actions is one direction I could see my career going in. Part of the reason for this is that I am prone to escalate things.  I am part of the problem.  I was a basketball player.  I preferred to play clean.  I never fowled out.  But I did use my allotment of fowls strategically, particularly if I felt the other team had crossed a line.  An eye for an eye?  You bet!  Because I have engaged in retorical and limited physical violence, it is clear to me just how destructive it is.  I know the depth of my pride and my inability to turn the other cheek.  I don't like the version of myself that comes out when I am engaged in conflict.  Because I identify with people in conflict, I think I might be able to help them solve it, maybe.

Another thought.  The reason I write a piece like this is that I believe we have to understand any given conflict before we can solve it.  Comments like, "why are they doing that, it is not reasonable," suggest that people misunderstand the nature of Congresses relationship with each other, the White House, and the American people.  It is not a disagreement.  It is a conflict that he degenerated to the point of rhetorical violence.  The only reason it has not descended into physical violence is that we all find it better to go to work each day with people we disagree with than to fight.  That, and the American people are not as radical as their representatives.  But to hear Congress speak, armed conflict would be reasonable.

Picked up and drove,
A thousand miles south,
To Wisconsin.

A temperate land
where four seasons come and go.
Bluffs on a river.

But such good memories
of that first home state. Way up
north. The last frontier.

(1000 miles straight south, 3200 miles on the odometer.)

 

How I remember September 11, 2001.

Nothing special here.  Just posting how I remember the day. I posted this on someone else's blog in response to the question, how do you remember 9/11?  And thought I would put it on here as well.

Having worked the swing shift the night before, I was asleep in my dorm room on Offutt AFB. My girlfriend from NJ called, waking me up, and alerting me to what was happening. "I have to go to work" I said, after struggling to understand her, and then making sure everything was ok on her end.

Five minutes later a sergeant banged on my door to wake me up and give me a ride to the unit.

But there was nothing for us to do. We were an intelligence unit, but what did we know? It wasn't an Air Force Intell kind of thing. After standing around for a few hours, staring at the TV like every other American, our commander sent us home. (I doubt many would do that, but he was different.) Not just for the day, but for several days. "Go spend time with your families" he said, "we will be called on soon enough."  Unfortunately, he was right.

I was standing on the lawn in front of my dorm room when Air Force One touched down later that day.

It is funny the small things you remember though.

September 11th was a Tuesday. The reason that always comes back to me is because I distinctly remember having Monday Night Football on in the background at work the night before. And oddly, I remember the details of the game in a way one rarely remembers the details of an unimportant game that they don't really have a rooting interest in.

The Giants were playing Denver in the first game at the new Mile High stadium. The Giants were looking good, but then Ed McCafree, of the Broncos suffered a season ending injury. That motivated the Broncos and it was all Denver from there on out, but of course the win was bitter-sweet as they had just lost a key player for the season.

I suppose I remember it in part because it was one of the last news worthy things (even if just for entertainment purposes) that happened prior to 8:46am est the next day.

It seems odd, reflecting back now, to think of all the things that were of such importance that Monday night. And then were not.

Thoughts on Syria, foreign policy, and the use of force.

Some have suggested that our options on Syria are nothing, limited missile strikes, or all out war, and that none of these options are good, viable, or principled.  In contrast, I believe there is a fourth option that is both viable and principled: an extended air operation. The President could take a similar approach to the one taken in Libya and Kosovo, based on humanitarian principles. Rather than a limited missile strike, he could use an extended air operation, in conjunction with select rebels and special forces to have a more significant impact. I don't know that this is currently politically viable, but I do think it is what we should have done some time ago. I also appreciate that there are no guarantees on what would follow, so I don’t want to suggest that this would be a surefire effort, except in one respect. I believe it would almost certainly limit civilian deaths, even if additional people died via the bombing. In the long run, less people will die if the violence is ended through military action.

On the correlation between justice and the gospel

I was once asked if a concern for social justice is a distraction from the Gospel.  Far from being a distraction, justice, both in my personal interactions, and in the community (i.e. social justice) is a part of the good news or gospel of the coming reign of Christ.  And like the Kingdom of God, justice is for both the now and the future.

The gospel or good news of Christ is that the Kingdom of God has come.  We are each individually and collectively invited to participate in and submit to the reign of Christ.  We do this by confessing our sins, both those of an individual nature, and those that we participate in collectively.  We must also invite Christ to have the preeminence in our lives.  We ask him to enable us to live according to his values. In turn Christ's values demand that we order our lives and our communities in ways that are just.

(For more on the definition of justice see Tim Keller's article What is Biblical Justice, or this good conversation starter on justice from a friend working to stop sex trafficking.)

While my own identity is a moving target, I grew up as an evangelical, and continue to own many aspects of that identity in the broad sense of the word as defined here.  For evangelicals, there are three key principles that help support the connections between justice, the Kingdom of God, and the Gospel.