In media res

This bit is from a conversation elsewhere, but I just can't write this much and not give it a longer cyber-life:

My Contribution to a Conversation with Michiganders:

In looking at this list, I realize that I am the lone SEC man among Big 10 participants, but I am absolutely comfortable with that.

As disciples, we must agree that Jesus and the OT prophets placed a special emphasis on the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the victimized and the weak. Jesus declared it clearly on the Mount. In Isaiah 1, the prophet says stop doing wrong, learn to do right, then defines his terms: seek justice, encourage the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless, defend the case of the widow. Our responsibility as Christ-followers is unequivocally to help the poor and weak, even at our own expense and discomfort.

As Americans, we inherit a system designed to pit human tendencies against each other for the greater, stable good. Hamilton and the Federalists rightly said that government must exist to restrain human passions, and we thus have checks and balances, separations of power, an adversarial justice system, a two party political system and a capitalist economy. Note, however, that every turn of our system and economy requires self-interest, strict property rights, competition, “rugged individualism,” and adversarial opposition. Our system requires it to function properly.

Hear me when I say that I prefer no other system and believe that for civil governments and social compacts, this is the only way to fly. Let us not deceive ourselves, however, by thinking that these American tenets are in harmony with the gospel and Kingdom. Jesus clearly and forcefully taught self-sacrifice for the greater good, diminishment of individualism for community and disgorgement of individual wealth for the benefit of those in poverty. We are in tension as Christians. Sure, America may have been founded primarily by and for Christians, but American values, however necessary to civil society, are counter-cultural to the kingdom.

Perhaps I’m “blaming America first.” So be it. We can do great good with out wealth and power and our economy, and we should. We should also recognize it for what it is.

The choice between church-function and state-function is a false dichotomy. It’s not an either-or proposition. Why should we not want to harness every tool, means and institution to its most effective use to achieve the scriptural imperative of justice?

The church has failed, continues to fail and must be transformed. Sure, we white, middle-class, evangelical Protestants have some bright spots, but our comfortable suburban live belie our commitment to the principles. We absolutely must repent of our failure to our poor and weak neighbors. We collectively ride by the beaten man on the road and leave him to another Samaritan. Until our charity matches our debt service, we will be in bad shape. Also, in our republican democracy, the government, the state, is a reflection of the people, so if the church gets serious, the government will follow suit.

Even so, why should we not make good use of the state to transform the fate of the poor among us. Having lived through Katrina in Mississippi and being well familiar with the poorest corner of our rich land, I have witnessed the scope of a problem only within the practical capacity of a government. The church may salve poverty and its attendant problems, but smart government and a compassionate economy could virtually eradicate them on our shores. Then we would turn the rest of the world. Government may be inefficient, but it has the practical means to accomplish these goals.

The great problem with modern conservatives (not libertarians) is that they condemn government involvement in the economy, in business, in taxation, in health care and in programs to address poverty. Then, with a seeming blindness to the dissonance, demand government involvement in personal, sexual and moral behavior. Historically and practically, this is exactly backwards. Government is good at the economy and social structures. Government is very bad at sexual and moral behavior. The church, on the other hand, is perfectly well equipped to minister to relationships and morality but is not well equipped - these days - to tackle civil underpinnings.

I end up being a liberal but as a result of Christian pragmatism. We have problems to solve and a Kingdom to manifest. Let us use every tool in our arsenal, but let us use them with wisdom and appreciation for their practical limitations.

You want fewer abortions? Legal prohibition is only a very small and limited means of saving lives. Instead, try to create a sanctuary where terrified girls can rest in the love and community of a graceful kingdom. Also, try delivering the poor and desperate from such straights that they cannot comprehend raising another child. (Abortion rates fell during the Clinton administration - not the Bushes - because the economic outlook improved for poor people. You want fewer abortions? Make parenthood easier on poor people.) You want to “defend the institution of marriage”? Gay people are not the enemy. Divorce, selfishness, vain power and control and unrealistic expectations are the real problems and squarely within the province of the heterosexual church.

The problem and the solutions are too complex for our contemporary political parties, but they are necessary. The church should use politics and government to tend to the work Jesus gave us in advance to do: caring for orphans and widows, impoverishing ourselves for the sake of the poor and encouraging the oppressed (including yet-to-be born kids) and proceeding with stewardship and wisdom.

Mala In Se

When I was in private practice, I defended a car wreck case in which the plaintiffs accused my client and its young employee of injuring them when the young employee's van collided with the rear of the plaintiffs' car at an intersection. The primary injury they claimed was the passenger's shattered left humerus at her shoulder. They claimed that the collision caused her to somehow break her left arm. Usually cases of being rear-ended are bad news for the driver who did the rear-ending, but something bumped me about her injury. How did she hurt her left arm when hit from behind but not hurt anything else? When I inquired in discovery and at her deposition, she and the driver said that she had hit the dashboard, the windshield, the console, the seat or the window when the wreck occurred, depending on the time of day. At the end of the day, they dismissed the case after the judge threatened to report them to the grand jury for fraud, because they initiated the wreck on the very day that another company had denied their claim for the very same injury.

I will never have enough information to opine confidently about this spy's murder by radioactive poison, but I will always be lawyer enough to be bumped by motive. Most stories focus on who killed this ex-KGB man. This story ponders from where the poison may have come.

Here is my question: why use this weapon to do it? Nations all over the world control this precious commodity because it is exceedingly rare and exceedingly useful and exceedingly dangerous. It left a trail of radioactive evidence all over Europe. It has very few sources, so the investigative leads spring from a few, very definite places. It had affected more people than the target. It was guaranteed to draw disproportionate attention. This weapon makes an assignation much more complicated than necessary if killing is the only goal.

Was it murder after all, or was the spy still spying?
Was it a message about security and to whom and from whom?
Was it a signal that the "nukes are out" and ready for use?
Was it a bomb assembly gone awry?

Feel free to speculate wildly. It'll be a good book someday.

Hilarity

Tonight, our 5 month old girl started laughing, out-loud belly laughs, at our 2 year old. K, the little one, is a quiet, reserved girl who doles out laughter with discretion. Big Sister is a ball of energy who laughs and cries with impunity. They were across the bed from each other and started laughing from unprompted delight. They fed off each other and accelerated toward the sweet exhaustation of hilarity.

When Jesus lamented over Jerusalem, weeping for the lost in the city, I do not believe that He was crying for their lost souls, because He was fixing to do something about that. I think he was weeping because they were missing the beauty He intended for them. He was weeping because they misunderstood the nature of the Kingdom. He lamented because His children were miserable in their vain pursuits. He wept because they disgraced themselves with selfish preoccupation and the pursuit of power. They distorted the truth of a loving God who would call them all to the mountain, wipe the tears of all people, remove their disgrace and who would host them at His table.

If God intended us to take some meaning from the metaphor of a Father, then he rejoices when we make each other laugh. If I witnessed any truth tonight as my daughters celebrated each other and communicated only as sisters do, then I felt how God must feel when His kids delight in each other. Nothing funny happened to start K & B's laughter except their own joy for each other. They were just happy to be together, and they drew their Parents into that joy.

I bet Jesus cracks up when we love each other.