Freedom that Begets Sacrifice

During my daily blog reading this afternoon, I came across a fascinating guest post on Powerline by Professor Paul Rahe, of Hillsdale College. A professor of history and Western heritage, Professor Rahe makes frequent appearances on Powerline, especially in the context of the apparent leftward lurch by our government. His essays are fascinating reading, and today's is no different.

The traditional story of Thanksgiving revolves around the legend of that first feast, with the Pilgrims, Samoset and Squanto, and the Plymouth colony. The history of the colony is often told in religious terms, illustrated by a communal spirit in which all colonists shared virtually everything - no private property, common fields, and equal shares of all the food. Indeed, given their deeply religious roots, it was very much an attempt to structure a community in accordance with the understood model of the early church.

What is less discussed are the struggles this budding American community faced in trying to order its society that way. Apparently, quarrels would frequenty arise among them due to the inequities of labor compared to the forced equity of its benefits, which actually tended to make them less industrious. As Professor Rahe notes:

William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony, reports that, at that time, he and his advisers considered "how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery." And "after much debate of things," he then adds, they chose to abandon communal property, deciding
that "they should set corn every man for his own particular" and assign "to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end."

The results, he tells us, were gratifying in the extreme, "for it made all hands very industrious" and "much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Even "the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

Moreover, he observes, "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times . . . that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing." In practice, America's first socialist experiment "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

I have often struggled with the structure of the early church, and our failure to adequately model it in today's church. It is often suggested, even today, that a socialist community would better model what a Christian community is to be. Yet I cannot help wondering about the inherent conflict with that, given that the Lord has chosen to give to each according to His will - each person has different gifts, talents and calling, yes for the benefit of the whole, but not necessarily in equal parts. Is it yet another example of human failing, however, that rejects forced charity? To share of one's blessings willingly is a greater blessing than being told that your labor is to be for the benefit of someone else, without the freedom to give it willingly. It is a puzzle to me, because while socialism claims equity of benefit for all, clearly all do not contribute to such endeavors. It demands and forces charity and sacrifice from some, which is no charity at all - no gift freely given, no compassion, no love. The center of any such community is government, taking the place of the church, in the communal model. Man is still fallen, and the inevitable outcome is resentment and discontent. Again, to Professor Rahe (emphasis mine):

The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one's own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.

But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man's labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.

Go read the whole thing. Again, I remain somewhat conflicted. Secular, socialist government does not breed contentment in its populace. It runs counter to every understanding I have about the spirit of America. But when I consider the church, and the commitment of believers one to another, I am reminded that God's ways often don't make sense to man. In the end, government is not the church, and it cannot and should not replace the church. How should we order our lives, our society?

In the context lies the answer. Freedom that begets sacrifice, mercy and grace.

Thanksgiving

Being by nature an over-stressed, rarely content, glass-is-half-empty kind of guy, taking time-out to count my blessings is something that happens all too infrequently. It is not that I am unthankful, quite the contrary. But I admit it does take a little more effort to stop long enough to appreciate the joys in my life, such as:

• My wife, without whom I cannot survive. She is my best friend, my partner in life and parenthood, and truly the better part of me.
• My oldest son, who amazes me every day with his insatiable desire for knowledge, his genuine and sensitive heart, and his maturity in handling unfortunate circumstances.
• My youngest son, whose delight of life finds joy in so many ways, his infectious smile, his creative imagination and enthusiasm.
• My family, who though far away are never far from my thoughts. And for my in-laws, who ease the loneliness I feel at times being so far away from my own.
• My brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who fill roles as both family and closest friends.
• The prosperity I enjoy but never take for granted - good employment, a comfortable home, and the means to do for others.
• The opportunity to live free in a country that remains a beacon on a hill.
• The men and women throughout America's history who have fought and sacrificed much to keep us free.
• Our Father in Heaven, who by His grace allows me to stand, who has blessed me in so many countless ways, but challenges me to move forward in faith, and not remain stagnant. For His unrelenting patience, and for His healing touch.

Yes, I am thankful, and this Thanksgiving, I will contemplate these wonderful blessings and enjoy my family, my friends, and my life.

 

What History Teaches

I caught myself this morning thinking of a teacher I had in high school. Betty Reed taught World History and American History, primarily to 10th and 11th graders. Bar none, Mrs. Reed was my favorite teacher, although it didn't start out that way. Over the last 20 years, I've often thought of her, in part because our relationship was at times, shall we say, volatile. But mostly, I remember the transformation in my thinking and awareness that occurred the day she let down her guard and allowed me to see her classroom and students from a teacher's perspective. That moment of transparency would eventually lead to a reorientation of my approach to history, and to thinking in general.

For many, history is labeled as one of the most boring subjects of all time. And I agree, for when history is reduced to dry facts and dates set apart from the context of the philosophies and perspectives of those who experienced those events, history can indeed seem a little dull. Mrs. Reed, however, understood that from the beginning. Constrained to a point by the curriculum, her approach to breaking through the barrier of glazed-over eyes erected by semi-comatose students was to introduce the absurd and hypothetical into the dialog. She would be discussing some topic, and then out of the blue, she would offer a patently ridiculous and indefensible supposition and declare it as fact. Never one to let an argument go by, I would often tackle her conjecture head on. I remember one day, she introduced what I believed to be an absolute whopper - that the devastating wars of human civilization would not have occurred if society was matriarchal. If I remember correctly, we were discussing Cleopatra and Egypt's eventual absorption into the Roman Empire (which is interesting in itself, given the Ptolemaic dynasty's Hellenistic roots, but I digress), when Mrs. Reed loudly declared that if a woman had ruled the Roman Empire, it never would have fallen, because a woman would have governed better. For a few stunned moments, no one responded. A few were looking around, wondering if they had heard her correctly. Of course, I dove into the breach - basically dismissing her argument and challenging her to back it up. I wish I could remember the particulars, because that one was quite energized. Always spirited, these "debates" - which included one or two other students in the room - almost always ended up with Mrs. Reed claiming the last word, if not the victory. At the time, I can't say that I really liked her, and my attitude during these discussions was hardly friendly. I got into trouble fairly frequently, because I would often cross the line. Most notably was the episode that led to the moment of transparency I alluded to earlier.

We were finishing up a Friday test, using those good old Scantron forms. Mrs. Reed called for the forms to be turned in. However, I wasn't finished, and belligerently, I decided I was going to finish my test. I completed the test, and went up to her desk to turn it in. She glared at me, and stated that I was getting a zero, because she had called for papers 2 minutes before, and they were already on their way to the office to get scanned and graded. Fuming, I waited until she turned her attention to another student, and then I proceeded to walk out of the room and straight to the office, where I slipped my Scantron form into the stack with the rest. Before I could get out of the office, Mrs. Reed stormed up to me telling me I could just stay in the office and not to bother coming back to the class that day. The vice principal was trying to hide his amusement - because I certainly was not a typical troublemaker. That stunt landed me a month's worth of detention, of which I only served 3 days. Not that I didn't deserve it - I was willing to accept the full consequences of my action, and really wasn't bothered with the detention. When I screw up, and make a poor choice, I'm generally willing to pay the price.

I served 3 full days of after-school detention, beginning on a Monday. Mrs. Reed added to the punishment by making me sit at the desk next to hers in class. But I had reverted back to giving her the proper respect, and frankly I wasn't even upset anymore. In class that Thursday, Mrs. Reed assigned the class to read a chapter for the rest of period. I finished early. Noticing that I had finished, Mrs. Reed and I began to talk. She said,

"Look out there. They are sleeping through the most important part of their lives. Now is their opportunity, and instead of taking it, they are letting it slip all away. If they don't start to learn how to think now, it will be almost impossible for them to succeed later. I try and I try to break through, and a few of you are smart enough to challenge yourselves and defend your positions. But the rest simply don't put forth the mental effort. I'm grateful for the few, and I love to see the light come on when students start to truly think for themselves, but I truly grieve over the rest."

It was at that moment that I understood that her method of sparking dialog through outlandish statements was akin to using a defibrillator on a dying patient. She was literally trying to shock her students minds awake, to bring life to a sadly dormant muscle. We talked for a while longer, and for the first time, I began to think about others in a completely different way. And then she waived the remainder of my detention. Our relationship changed for the better after that.

We each observe the world in which we live through our own set of preconceived notions and filters. We take positions of matters of both little and great importance. We should welcome challenges to our ways of thinking, if only to ensure that we are able to better articulate a defense of our views. We would do well not to isolate a single historical event outside the context of all the influencing factors of society and civilization, but neither should we impose our notions of those factors absent a proper understanding of its underlying cultural characteristics. Understanding causes and effects within a human population is not a simple exercise, but it is not entirely impossible either. Being able to rationally evaluate actions and their possible consequences is a fundamental, but learned skill that all of us should endeavor to improve upon. Emotion plays a role, but it shouldn't be the primary factor. Our decisions may not always be right, but if they are thoughtful, there's a better chance they will be.

I am indebted to Mrs. Reed for giving me a new perspective, and encouraging me to observe and to a degree embrace (or at least acknowledge) a bigger picture. In her own way, she jolted me out of my narrow world view and awakened in me a certain desire to educate. I too find joy when eyes light up with understanding, and grieve for those whose eyes remain dark of their own choosing. History teaches me that life is wonderfully complex, and that the stories and events that shape our lives are marvelously connected. It is not merely who, what, where and when, but most importantly, a true understanding asks the question "why" - and then seeks the answer. It is that mystery, that combination, which makes history so interesting to me. I certainly don't fathom it all now, but I do look forward to that day when all will be made clear. In the meantime, I will continue to learn, and perhaps, grow.

A Better Future

The post below represents a few thoughts I put down on paper back in 2003, during the first year of war in Iraq. These thoughts still apply today, as we remember our veterans (emphasis mine).

“A current of … ambivalence raced across Baghdad along with jubilation and surprise. Relief was tied up with trepidation, joy with anxiety. What next, many seemed to ask. Faleh Hassan, 51, a little weary, hoped the future would be better than the past. ‘I want to feel that I'm a human being, I want to feel that I'm free and that no one can take it away,’ he said. ‘I want to work, so that my family has enough to live. I want to live like everyone else in this world who lives in peace.’"

As reported by Anthony Shadid, Washington Post - Foreign Service on Thursday, April 10, 2003

Eloquent words from a man tasting for the first time that which so many of us take for granted. What Faleh Hassan is learning is what so many of us have forgotten – that freedom is a privilege to be treasured, an opportunity to become more than we are today, and that it comes with a cost.

Some of our country’s finest men and women died so that Faleh Hassan and others could throw down the shackles of tyranny and oppression. Freedom from oppression comes with a price. The freedom that you and I know today came at a similar cost, time and again, over the last 230 years. But far too many of us have forgotten, and too few of us care. The reach for a better future must be grounded in a remembrance of the past. If we remember the price that was paid, the living fire of freedom will be preserved and bring the light of hope to others.

It is not too late to remember what we have forgotten. Acknowledge the cost, and once again embrace the hope that the future will be better than the past.

To our noble veterans, thank you.

Remembering History

There is an old but familiar adage that says "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Frequently, it is used to remind society of its great failings in the face of evil intent, such as that perpetrated by the Nazis during the Holocaust and WWII. The history of human civilization is but a repeating cycle of war, conquest, peace, drift, oppression, tyranny, revolution, war and back to conquest. Technology changes, but the patterns remain the same. Prior to the advent of Western democracy, wars fought between nations were primarily in the interest of material and imperial conquest. Afterward, the concept "liberation" took hold as the Allied nations beat back this conquest ideology. The long-held American belief of self-determination prevented us from absorbing Europe as American territories. Granted, America maintains a military presence that dates back to WWII, and some indeed may look upon the reconstruction efforts of that era - as well as today's Iraq - as imperialistic. I think that is a mistaken viewpoint driven by propaganda, but I can see the perspective.

The Cold War, however, was something new in the sense that the battle was fought by proxy in lands apart from the primary ideological combatants. The stakes were high - to maintain spheres of influence that could stand firm against the waves of communist and socialist ideologies that began to emerge in every corner of the world. It really is quite amazing that we have yet to experience a full-scale nuclear conflict. Perhaps because even above ideology, there remains a core instinct for self-preservation.

Who were the victors of the Cold War? Who were its gallant champions? Truman, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and of course, Reagan. The fall of the Berlin Wall, 20 years ago yesterday, remains a vivid image in my mind. It was merely an outward, yet important feature that all but marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War, as Soviet communism began to accelerate its collapse upon itself. In a war of disparate ideologies: liberty and communism, there was a clear and undisputable victor. It is an achievement worthy of celebration and joy - and it was, for those who remember watching the blocks fall into the night as German celebrants danced on top of the crumbling structure that for so long served as the physical manifestation of the Iron Curtain. America, that beacon on a hill (as Reagan used to call her), stood tall, alone and proud - not as a conqueror, but as an inspiration to all those seeking self-determination and liberty.

Yes, it is said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Yet what can be said about those who forget, not through complacency or neglect, but rather by deliberate omission or rejection? After a monumental struggle spanning over 40 years, fought by two generations of Americans, this moment deserves more than a few minutes of platitudes by tape delay.

While there is nothing inherently wrong about the President's video comments below, the treatment of the anniversary as a footnote in history, lauding only a President whose limited forays into the Cold War were nearly disastrous, strikes me as terribly insufficient to the sacrifices and courage of countless Americans and freedom-loving people. And frankly, I'm turned off by yet another injection of his election into the narrative. Historic his election may be, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall. (h/t: Powerline)


I realize it is perhaps too much to expect of our President to honor Reagan, Thatcher and the late Pope. But the failure to reinforce the facts of history, to minimize the American exceptionalism that led directly to the dismantling of that wall, is simply to set this generation on a course for drift and oppression. If that be true, then tyranny - whatever form it may take - is soon to follow. In that day, will the light of liberty still shine from America?

Who are the extremists?

Back in the early part of the presidential campaign, candidate John Edwards (D) used to talk about two Americas, basically referring to the haves and the have nots. Our current President disavowed such talk, and asserted that if elected, he would be President of all Americans.

Apparently, he does think there are two Americas: populated with devotees and extremists. In yet another moment unbecoming of the Office (emphasis mine):

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

The "teabag, anti-government people" comment is a furious slur against the millions of Americans using their Constitutionally protected right to protest, speak and challenge their elected representatives on matters of policy. I won't go into the pros and cons of the Tea Party Movement here, but the fact is that these people are not, by any stretch, "anti-government." Rather, they hearken to the principles of government advocated and established by the Founders. It would be better to say they are "anti-"big"-government.

I find it greatly disturbing to know that such words may have issued from the mouth of our "post-partisan" President, whose oratory supposedly brings all humanity together in peace, vision and harmony. On the contrary, I'm starting to think that he really does have tremendously little respect for people. If not contempt.

And just who is he referring to with the word "extremists"? Anybody who disagrees with him? (h/t: The Corner)

Commander in Chief

I really have tried to be objective. I have tried to give the President the benefit of the doubt - as a person - despite the fact that I disagree with his priorities and approach relative to foreign and domestic policy.

But following the horrifying events at Ft. Hood this week, I watched his first public statement - when he finally got around to mentioning it - and came away questioning his sincerity. Today I learned that his schedule for the weekend has him in Camp David. He's the Commander in Chief. At least Constitutionally.

Contrast that with our former CiC:

Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, visited wounded soldiers and their families near the site of the worst mass shooting on an Army post in the United States.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood's military leaders and hospital staff for the "amazing care they are providing."

I'm sorry, but that is the action and compassion of a real Commander in Chief.

Almost Heaven ...

At this stage of life, I am far removed from the concept of retirement. But the photograph below looks to me nothing short of heaven. What I wouldn't give for that kind of serenity.

Photo Credit: Copyright 2008 by Cam H.

Good for Joe

As a long-suffering fan of the Chicago Cubs, my allegiances lie with the National League. I generally have no affinity for the American League, where they insist on playing the game with a designated hitter. Suffice it to say, I am not a Yankees fan, although I can easily admit that their dominance of the sport over the past 100 years is certainly worthy of respect. And in winning their 27th World Series championship last night, they got the job done with an ex-Cub at the helm.

I have long been a fan of Joe Girardi. Over a 15 year playing career that started with him behind the plate at Wrigley Field, Girardi was a steady force and a prototypical student of the game. He was not a dominating hitter, and he only made one All-Star team (2000, during his second stint with the Cubs). But he played the game with class, and thus far appears to be managing the game with class. He was a part of three Yankees championships as a player, and I'm glad to see him earn his 4th ring as their manager.

I'll never forget sitting down to watch the Cubs-Cardinals game one Saturday afternoon in 2002. I missed the pregame, but when I finally tuned in, the announcers were breaking the terrible news of the death of Darryl Kile. I was transfixed as Girardi, the Cubs player representative, took to a microphone at home plate to announce to the sold out crowd at Wrigley that the game was cancelled. I remember thinking at the time that the Cubs could not have had a better spokesperson at that moment in time - that having Girardi make the announcement (instead of a PA announcer) exhibited the right tenor for the moment. Girardi simply commanded that much respect from both players and fans.

Even last night, apparently Joe was in the right place at the right time to provide assistance to a motorist involved in an accident well after the game. Again, I'm not surprised, because that fits with the character he seems to have demonstrated time and again.

So, while I cannot cheer for yet another Yankees victory, I will say wholeheartedly, good for Joe. He's a class act, and I'm happy for him.