Learning to love ourselves

… love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 22:39

 

When Jesus said this to the Pharisees as part of his response to their question about the greatest commandment, Jesus assumed that the Pharisees, and us as readers of Matthew’s gospel, love ourselves.

The focus of Jesus’ command is to love our neighbor. This takes many forms. It’s not an option. It’s the second-most important command Jesus gave us, behind loving God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind.

Loving myself

But how can we love our neighbor if we don’t love ourselves?

Am I the only person who asks this question?

I know my sins and shortcomings far better than anyone else does. And I’m sure God knows about sins I commit that I’m not even aware of.

I know God forgives me. I really do.

But can I forgive myself?

That’s hard.

As a result, over time, I’ve learned to bury my feelings deep in my heart. I can’t remember the last time I cried.

A friend asks me frequently who the Detroit Lions’ next opponent is, since he knows I lived most of my adult life in Michigan (I’m in Ohio now). I’m in a family-based NFL pool so I pick the winners and point spread of each game. Still, I often don’t remember who the Lions are playing.

Very little in life registers with me. Nothing penetrates my deep inner being. I feel like I’m just going through the motions.

How can I love my neighbor when I have no feelings for myself?

Several good friends recently attended a weekend men’s retreat based on a book by John Eldredge, “Wild at Heart.” I didn’t attend the retreat, but I’ve read the book.

When they told our Wednesday men’s group at church how the retreat went down, they emphasized two themes that I relate to very well, themes that Eldredge knows affect men deeply.

The father wound

All men have a wound in our hearts. For most of us, that wound comes from our father.

Mine did.

I never doubted my dad’s love for my sister and me. He was (and still is – he’s 84) the strong, silent type. He’s opening up more now, but as a child I didn’t receive hugs, praise, verbal encouragement or emotional support. There are reasons for this; his own childhood was not that way either.

I didn’t realize all this until I became an adult. Indeed, I’m still figuring this out.

I decided I wanted to break the cycle, to give our sons what I didn’t have.

All three of our sons are adults now, living on their own and doing well.

However, none of them are married. More than that, none of them have ever had a significant girlfriend, to my knowledge.

And that’s OK. There’s benefits to being single.

But I passed the father wound to my sons. I know I did.

Will the cycle ever end?

It can.

By the grace of God, and only by the grace of God, it can.

The poser

The second Eldredge theme proves why I bury my feelings. Like many men, I put my best face forward in public. If you ask me how I’m doing, I’ll say, “Fine” or “doing well” or something like that – even if I’m not.

I’m posing. I’m not being real with you.

Do you want a “real” answer when you ask me that question? I could give you an earful if I really wanted to.

I can talk superficially just fine. I’ll tell you about my job, a volunteer role or two I have, how our new house is coming along or the yardwork I’m doing – stuff like that.

Ask me how my soul is, and I most likely won’t give you a “real” answer. I have wounds in there, things I don’t like about myself. Things I’d rather hide.

Our Wednesday men’s group this fall is going through a video series on overcoming addictions, especially sexual addictions – because those in particular are so prevalent.

I’m not surprised that sexual harassment and worse is the issue of the day in the news. Pornography is huge. So are other sexual sins. The male species is exposed to it at a very early age – preteens for most boys. Did you know that?

It’s all over the internet, and boys have access to it (unless the parents have blocked it).

We men are posers, remember. We hide things. We’re very good at it.

But these sins have a way of showing up at very inopportune times.

I’m not saying every man is a sex addict. The temptation is there for every man (and boy), but we don’t have to give in to that temptation.

In fact, by the grace of God, and only by the grace of God, we can turn down that temptation – or overcome it if we’ve entered in to it.

We hide other things, too. Things we think. Money we spend. Things we do in private, when we’re sure no one is watching. (Do we ever want to get caught?)

The solution

I’d like to say I’ve figured out how to overcome the father wound and the poser mindset. I haven’t.

The speakers in the video series say there’s no quick fixes for this kind of stuff. It takes time, perhaps years. It takes accountability with other men who are willing to listen as we break down those poser walls and get real.

We know what we’re doing is wrong. We can’t stop by willpower. It just doesn’t work that way.

This is why it’s so hard to like ourselves. We hurt inside when we fail.

Sharing my feelings with someone else when I’ve literally never done that before doesn’t happen by chance. That too will take time.

In the meantime, don’t be so quick to judge me. Not all of us men are evil. Many of us want to get it right. We really do. Perhaps we just don’t know how.

Is that a sin?

Be patient with us, please. Encourage. Ask questions. Listen.

We probably won’t respond right away. Trust doesn’t come naturally.

Be patient.

We just might get there someday.

This is one way to love our neighbor. We listen to his story. We share ours.

Our real stories.

We become brothers.

Advertisements

We aren’t so different, after all

Is being different than everyone else the end game of life?

A stranger to our culture might conclude that, looking at the way we write, talk, protest and treat each other.

As a child, I thought different thoughts than most of my peers did – at least I thought so.

I’ve never been one to follow the crowd. I’ll do something because I believe it’s the right thing to do, not because anyone tells me it’s the right thing to do.

This develops my discerning spirit, helps me determine right from wrong.

Have we taken that too far?

Or not far enough?

“I’m always right”

How do we determine right from wrong? Do we consider outside sources and discern for ourselves, or do we look only inside of ourselves and say, “I’m always right”?

I see evidence of “I’m always right” every day, in little things and big things.

We recently bought a house on a corner lot with a four-way stop. It’s in a neighborhood, but there’s enough traffic to warrant the stop signs. The other day, I saw a car pass my driveway and stop at the intersection. A fast-moving pickup also traveled by my driveway – then roared past the law-abiding sedan and blew through the intersection and the stop sign.

Seriously? Who does that driver think he is? There’s children in our neighborhood. People walk their dogs all the time. People like me pull out of driveways. Those stop signs have a purpose.

The pickup driver didn’t care. Following reasonable, well-established laws meant nothing to him.

Carry that thought to its ultimate conclusion, and we get killers who shoot people at country music concerts and during Sunday morning church services.

I’m serious.

Children and society

We live in a culture where right and wrong don’t exist. Or, they exist only as I see them.

We talk all the time about being different, about celebrating our differences.

To what end? Do we use that as an excuse to justify ourselves?

A local columnist worries about this as she and her husband are raising their children:

Born into a world where they may not be accepted for who they are, but yet as parents, we tell them over and over again to be themselves. That it’s OK to be different, as long as they believe in themselves.

But how do we really know they will be OK?

We don’t.

Essentially, our children are born into a society far different from what we know …

So, it’s OK for children to be different, but we worry for them because society is different.

Why?

Is allowing our children to believe in themselves enough?

I think there’s a bigger picture.

Society has changed because we as individuals have changed.

Some change is necessary, of course. Respect for all people which, I regret to say, is a relatively new phenomenon – and still isn’t acted upon the way it should be.

What makes us similar?

But are we so different that we can’t get along with each other?

What if, instead, we began celebrating what connects us? What makes us similar?

I’m not as different from you as we both think we are.

I’m not a huge Shakespeare fan, but this quote from Shylock in The Merchant of Venice came to mind here:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0033130/quotes

We aren’t as different as we think we are.

If we want to change society, we need to change the way we think about ourselves.

If I focus only on my differences with you, why should I want to be your friend? What is there that draws us together? I’m going to push you away.

But if I look for things in common with you, now I can relate to you. We have things to talk about, to do together.

Same two people, but opposite mindsets.

There’s a song playing on Christian radio these days that I wonder about:

I don’t wanna hear anymore, teach me to listen
I don’t wanna see anymore, give me a vision
That you could move this heart, to be set apart
I don’t need to recognize, the man in the mirror
And I don’t wanna trade Your plan, for something familiar
I can’t waste a day, I can’t stay the same

I wanna be different
I wanna be changed
‘Til all of me is gone
And all that remains
Is a fire so bright
The whole world can see
That there’s something different
So come and be different
In me

Different by Micah Tyler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_poj31mWg8
I get it. I’m not unique when I said as a child that I want to be different. Writers and musicians want this too.

Where do we draw the line?

Celebrating togetherness

Where is “different” a good thing, and when should we celebrate our oneness?

Our society is divided now, severely so. No one is happy about this. Far too many people have drawn a line in the sand. In anger. In judgment. With fire in our eyes.

Just as I’m not a huge Shakespeare fan, I’m not a poet, either. But still, here’s a poem that speaks the solution far better than I can:

Most of what I really need
To know about how to live
And what to do and how to be
I learned in kindergarten.
Wisdom was not at the top
Of the graduate school mountain,
But there in the sand pile at Sunday school.

These are the things I learned:

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don’t hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life –
Learn some and think some
And draw and paint and sing and dance
And play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out into the world,
Watch out for traffic,
Hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder.

All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum

https://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/842.html

Fulghum nailed it. We need to return to kindergarten.

Every single one of us.

America would be a much better place if we truly did that.

500 years of truth continue on

Martin Luther got it right.

Luther, a German monk born in 1483, discovered that his church was teaching heresies, according to the Bible. His passion for Biblical truth became so strong, he eventually, nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg. He did that 500 years ago this week.

(It was not an act of vandalism; propositions for discussion or debate were commonly posted on the church door. The title of Luther’s document? “Disputation for Clarification of the Power of Indulgences.”)

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-was-martin-luther

Luther came to adopt two of Augustine’s beliefs: that the Bible, not the church, was ultimately authoritative; and that salvation is by God’s grace alone, not by good works.

On a visit to Rome, Luther was troubled by the extravagance and corruption of the Pope and clergy. He began specifically to question the sale of indulgences, purported to absolve sinners. Believing the sale of indulgences to be corrupt, Luther posted his 95 Theses to invite scholarly debate on the subject.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Martin-Luther.html

Here’s an overview of his theses.

Repentance

  1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Matthew 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
  2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
  3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
  4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Luther started his scholarly debate with four theses on repentance. Luther saw repentance as a complete lifestyle change, with inner and outward responses to God.

Guilt

  1. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

God, not the pope, has the authority to remit (cancel) guilt.

Fear and love

  1. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
  2. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
  3. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.

Purgatory, in accordance with Catholic teaching, is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults (a sin that is not regarded as depriving the soul of divine grace), or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Remission of sins

  1. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.
  2. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

Again, Luther challenged the authority of the pope on the forgiveness of sins.

Indulgences

  1. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
  2. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
  3. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an indulgence is “the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. A properly disposed member of the Christian faithful can obtain an indulgence under prescribed conditions through the help of the Church … An indulgence is partial if it removes part of the temporal punishment due to sin, or plenary if it removes all punishment.” …

https://www.gotquestions.org/plenary-indulgences.html

God alone determines salvation, Luther proclaimed. Salvation cannot be bought with any amount of money.

Penalties for sin

  1. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
  2. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

Luther claimed the Bible urges repentant Christians to “pay penalties for his sins.” Indulgences did the opposite: They reduced or eliminated penalties for sin – or, even worse, caused people to hate repentance altogether.

The Bible and indulgences

  1. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
  2. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
  3. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

Luther clearly favored the Bible over the preaching of indulgences.

  1. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
  2. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Matthew 20:16).
  3. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

While the Biblical gospel appears “odious” to mankind and indulgences are “naturally” acceptable, Luther knew that the reverse is true in God’s eyes.

  1. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
  2. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

Venial (minor) sin does not cause “eternal punishment” but does cause “temporal punishment.” … The Roman Catholic Church sees venial sins as creating a debt to God’s justice that must be atoned for in a way that is distinct from Christ’s atonement for eternal punishment. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that because of the unity of the Body of Christ (the Communion of the Saints, including living believers, believers in heaven, Roman Catholic saints in heaven, Christ, Mary, and the imperfect believers in purgatory), it is possible for the merit generated by the good works, prayers, almsgiving, sufferings, etc., of one or more of these members of the Body to be applied to the temporal debt of another.

https://www.gotquestions.org/plenary-indulgences.html

Luther declared that indulgences had no power to do anything.

Following Christ

  1. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.
  2. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

Luther closed his side of the debate with two theses on the authority of Jesus Christ, who alone offers salvation, according to the Bible.

Protestant Reformation

Luther’s 95 Theses began a movement that created new churches.

At the heart of the Protestant Reformation lay four basic questions: How is a person saved? Where does religious authority lie? What is the church? What is the essence of Christian living?

In answering these questions, Protestant Reformers developed what would be known as the “Five Solas” (sola being the Latin word for “alone”).

1 – Sola Scriptura, “Scripture Alone.” The Bible alone is the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice.

2 – Sola Gratia, “Salvation by Grace Alone.” Salvation is proof of God’s undeserved favor; we are rescued from God’s wrath by His grace alone, not by any work we do.

3 – Sola Fide, “Salvation by Faith Alone.” We are justified by faith in Christ alone, not by the works of the Law.

4 – Solus Christus, “In Christ Alone.” Salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone; no one and nothing else can save.

5 – Soli Deo Gloria, “For the Glory of God Alone.” Salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God for His glory alone.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant-Reformation.html

The 95 Theses

  1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
  2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
  3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
  4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
  5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
  6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
  7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
  8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
  9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
  10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
  11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).
  12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
  13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
  14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
  15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
  16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
  17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
  18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
  19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
  20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.
  21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
  22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
  23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
  24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
  25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.
  26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
  27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
  28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
  29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
  30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
  31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
  32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
  33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
  34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
  35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
  36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.
  37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
  38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.
  39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
  40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
  41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
  42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
  43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
  44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
  45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.
  46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
  47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
  48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
  49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
  50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
  51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
  52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
  53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
  54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
  55. It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
  56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.
  57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
  58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
  59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
  60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
  61. For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
  62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
  63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).
  64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
  65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
  66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
  67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
  68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
  69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
  70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
  71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.
  72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
  73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
  74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
  75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
  76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
  77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
  78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written. (1 Co 12[:28])
  79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
  80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
  81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
  82. Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?” The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
  83. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
  84. Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, beca use of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”
  85. Again, “Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?”
  86. Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”
  87. Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?”
  88. Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”
  89. “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”
  90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
  91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
  92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)
  93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
  94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.
  95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

 

 

Silent majority taking charge at the ballot box

It’s nearly unanimous: Donald Trump is a horrible president.

He lies, his personality is abrasive (to put it mildly), he offends other world leaders and members of his own party alike, and he never has anything nice to say about the media.

So say the media. And social media. And plenty of other people.

The editor emeritus of our local newspaper, in a recent Sunday column, wrote that all of the columnists the paper features on its opinion pages, except one, do not support Trump. Even several conservative columnists the newspaper features do not support our current president.

The anti-establishment president

Our political and media leaders are missing the point.

Trump was elected as an anti-establishment president. Democrats hate him, and many Republicans barely tolerate him.

When Trump was nominated in a very crowded GOP primary field, I figured he’d be one of the first candidates eliminated because he was so brash. He offended everyone. He talked before he thought. He had no political experience. His most famous quote was: “Your fired!”

Not exactly the mentality of a team player.

And yet, the other candidates dropped out, and he remained. All the way to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where he was officially nominated as the party’s candidate for the highest office in the land.

Rejecting the status quo

Why?

Republicans, like Democrats, supported the candidate they thought could garner the most votes. Even if he was brash, abrasive and not a model Republican.

Again, why?

As I told a friend shortly before the election a year ago, Trump struck a nerve that runs deeper in this country than anyone realized.

We still don’t realize it.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a good reputation these days, and haven’t for awhile. Congress appears incapable of action. This was true under former President Barack Obama as well as currently under Trump.

Business as usual just wasn’t working. Congress’ ineptness was the main reason Trump was nominated, then elected. If the two-party system was working well, the GOP would have nominated an insider who would further GOP values and causes, to run against the Democratic candidate who would further that party’s values and causes.

But it wasn’t.

So, we got Trump.

GOP a step ahead

If Trump had to run for re-election this year, would he win?

I think he would. And we all would be just as shocked as we were last year.

I saw a blurb in our local paper last week, buried on page A6, with this headline: “Trump’s small donors fuel GOP fundraising.”

Three paragraphs followed. Here they are:

 

The Republican National Committee raised more than $100 million in the first nine months of 2017, marking the first time it has raised that much, that fast, in a non-presidential election year.

The record-breaking fundraising can be largely attributed to a flurry of small-dollar donors responding to fundraising appeals by the first Republican president in eight years, Donald Trump, according to a new report to be released later this week.

The numbers give Republicans a large cash advantage over Democrats as they look to retain control of both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections next year.

 

If Democrats think they’ll reclaim one or both chambers of Congress next year as a backlash to Trump, they will be in for a big surprise. Trump, abrasiveness and all, has a larger following than anyone on either side is willing to acknowledge. His supporters largely remain silent on social media (although not entirely).

Loudest voice not winning

I’ve discovered that many of my left-leaning friends are thoughtful and engaging people, offering detailed arguments on why Trump should be opposed, at least, or impeached, at most. Many of my right-leaning friends, when they talk politics at all, offer one-liners and short paragraphs in support of a specific Trump policy or the general direction of the GOP.

In a debate, I’d predict the left would defeat the right. Liberals are better at communicating their values than conservatives are.

Trump’s supporters are writing a new definition for “silent majority.” Instead of arguing in public, they’re showing up at the ballot box.

According to the page A6 blurb in the newspaper, Republicans are already gearing up for next year’s midterm elections – in a big way.

The rest of us are missing the point.

Both parties need to change, since the status quo in Washington, D.C., is pleasing no one.

The Republicans realized this first, and nominated an unconventional candidate. The Democrats have yet to figure this out.

Preparing for 2018

In the editor emeritus’ column, he quotes a liberal columnist, Leonard Pitts Jr.:

“Pretty much nobody – outside of his base of voters and people who attend rallies in Alabama – pretty much nobody is saying (‘Great job, Mr. President.’). And I think that’s what people need to understand.”

While very few people are publicly saying, “Great job, Mr. President” – Pitts is right about that – his “base of voters” is larger than Pitts knows. And they are small donors, lots of them, willing to put some money where their votes are, if not where their mouths are.

Is anybody listening to them?

Does anybody care what those small donors think, value or do with their lives? Are they truly supporting Trump, or are they only opposing the longstanding GOP-Democratic stalemate?

Do most Americans really want an expensive border wall with Mexico, for example, or is there a deeper issue in play? And can anyone articulate what that issue might be?

I’ve seen articles saying that many of our children aren’t allowed to walk to school, even if it’s nearby, because their parents are afraid of abductors. This is the message of our country today: Trust no one. Not even people in our neighborhood.

Why was Trump elected? Because we as Americans think and act like him.

Yes, we do. We are just as angry and self-centered as he is.

Trump is not a team player. Neither are we.

We reap what we sow.

We must understand this before any meaningful change will take place.

The longer we deny this, the more ingrained Trump becomes.

Just watch. Next year’s midterm elections will prove me right.

Equal but different

Once a week, I drive into Cleveland to mentor a fourth-grader at lunchtime. His family situation is difficult and he has issues with a classmate or two. We talk about how to deal with these things.

He has some wonderful gifts and talents, and I encourage him whenever I can.

On another front, I drive for my work, often in city traffic. I frequently let drivers merge in front of me who are waiting to exit a grocery store parking lot or the local McDonald’s.

On yet another side, there are six of us at the “office” where I work – five women and me. The staff nurse is a woman, the boss’ boss is a woman, the boss’ boss’ boss is a woman …

And I get along with all of them just fine. I take directions well, and try to be as supportive and encouraging of an employee as I can.

I also have a social media presence, where it’s easy to hide my introvertedness and encouraging spirit to join the fray like so many people do.

A social media discussion

Quite a few of my closest friends avoid social media for this reason. It’s so negative. That’s all they see.

But social media, like any form of technology, is a tool. It’s inanimate. It’s what we make it. Pornography abounds here, but so do uplifting sites and pages with specific interests that I follow.

Social media is a wonderful place to connect long-distance with friends and former co-workers. But it’s easy for those of you who don’t know me well or haven’t seen me in awhile to misunderstand who I am or where I’m coming from. We hide behind the technology very well.

Social media often is controversial. I pick my battles carefully there.

I picked one last week that sparked an enlightening discussion.

BSA

The Boy Scouts of America announced that for the first time in their century-old history, they would begin accepting girls. On a friend’s post about that, I offered this comment:

Boys are no longer allowed to become young men. That’s what we’ve lost. We are raising a unisex nation, where boys and girls are not only “equal,” they are no longer different – despite their obvious differences. And we wonder why our nation has lost its way. This is the main reason right here.

I’ve seen articles saying the Boy Scouts’ decision to accept girls was a business decision, and not to make a social statement. But they made a social statement.

Different

I brought up a concept I wish this country understood. I first encountered this in college in the late 1970s, and it’s even more prevalent today:

Different doesn’t mean inferior. Or superior.

This is obvious to me, but not to many Americans.

I’m so sorry about the Harvey Weinstein saga and the resulting #MeToo hashtag, which is showing that sexual harassment in all its forms is far more prevalent than we thought it was. In no way am I defending this.

But by saying that different doesn’t mean inferior or superior, I’m branded as a power-hungry white American male who just wants to keep women in their place – a lesser place than where men are, apparently.

Power grab?

In the social media discussion I raised the concepts of love and respect, which several women in the thread rejected as a power grab. Men say they give love and want respect, but only to remain in authority.

I wrote that by love I mean Biblical love, not love as America understands it. The woman whom I had the best discussion with on this topic said she’s not a “believer” and doesn’t know about Biblical love. I said it’s worth exploring, and left it at that.

I felt the discussion was good and helpful, at least to me.

Others chimed in and saw me as the typical white American male who doesn’t understand the struggles of women. I can’t deny I am a white American male.

Does that automatically make me power hungry?

I know many men who do not fit that profile, and we raise sons who love and respect the women (and men – and animals, for that matter) in their lives as well.
But as I said on another thread, the men who truly are power hungry get all the headlines. They rape, they commit other crimes against humanity, they talk and live as ego-driven alphas …

I cannot defend them, nor should I. At times I am ashamed to be a white American male. Far too many of us abuse our positions of authority and leadership. It’s no wonder women are fighting back.

‘Lifestyle evangelism’

But not all of us guys are power-hungry egomaniacs.

How can I convince you of that?

By my lifestyle.

I don’t have to mentor an inner-city fourth-grader. I don’t have to let traffic merge in front of me. I don’t have to donate blood, which I’ve done for more than three decades and which benefits people I will never know.

I don’t do such things for your compliments. I’m not interested in a full trophy case. I don’t need the corner office or the big salary or the job title. If a woman attains those things, I’ll celebrate her accomplishments and do what I can to help her continue to grow professionally. I’ve had a number of female supervisors over the years, and nearly all of them did – and do – their jobs well. It’s not hard for me to respect a woman in authority, or as a peer.

Teammates

Equal but different? Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

On a football team, there are 11 players on offense, but only one is the quarterback. If the “big uglies,” the offensive linemen, don’t do their jobs, the quarterback can’t do his either. They need each other. Their jobs are very different. They have different skill sets and do different things.

But everyone on the offense, all 11 players, has the same goal: to score a touchdown. Each of them has to do his part well for that to happen.

Men understand this. We all dream of being the star quarterback, but in real life, we know better.

A power grab? No. Men and women are teammates in this game called life. Numerous books have been written on the differences between men and women. This is not rocket science.

We – men and women – ignore this to our own peril.

We’re partners in every sense of that word.

Psalm 51 and today’s news

Have mercy on me, O God,

according to your steadfast love;

according to your abundant mercy

blot out my transgressions.

‘Take Off Your Dress’: How Men In Hollywood, From Steven Seagal to Harvey Weinstein, Treated Women for Decades

https://www.yahoo.com/news/off-dress-men-hollywood-steven-202021745.html

 

 

Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,

and cleanse me from my sin.

Chicago Reaches 500th Death By Firearm In 2017

http://www.oann.com/chicago-reaches-500th-deaths-by-firearms-in-2017/

 

 

For I know my transgressions,

and my sin is ever before me.

The media today: Jemele Hill and the perils of social-media commentary

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/the-media-today-jemele-hill-and-the-perils-of-social-media-commentary.php

 

 

Against you, you alone, have I sinned,

and done what is evil in your sight,

so that you are justified in your sentence

and blameless when you pass judgment.

This Dark Legacy of Harvey Weinstein Is Far From Over

https://www.creators.com/read/connie-schultz/10/17/this-dark-legacy-of-harvey-weinstein-is-far-from-over

 

 

Indeed, I was born guilty,

a sinner when my mother conceived me.

Feds turn up heat in recruiting scandal with Oklahoma State subpoena

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/feds-turn-heat-recruiting-scandal-oklahoma-state-subpoena-183650183.html

 

 

You desire truth in the inward being;

therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.

The Boy Scouts have lost their purpose

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9970/

 

 

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;

wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Trump threatens to abandon Puerto Rico recovery effort

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/12/trump-warns-puerto-rico-we-cannot-keep-fema-the-military-the-first-responders-forever/?utm_term=.0218395a0bfe

 

 

Let me hear joy and gladness,

let the bones that you have crushed rejoice.

‘Offensive’ cowboys and Indians pub crawl cancelled after public outrage

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/10/offensive_cowboys_and_indians.html#incart_river_home

 

 

Hide your face from my sins,

and blot out all my iniquities.

Trump Just Dealt A DEATH PUNCH To The NFL

https://libertywriters.com/2017/10/trump-just-dealt-death-punch-nfl-seconds-ago/

 

 

Create in me a clean heart, O God,

and put a new and right spirit within me.

Kate Beckinsale Alleges Harvey Weinstein Sexually Harassed Her as a Teenager

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kate-beckinsale-alleges-harvey-weinstein-141038401.html

 

 

Do not cast me away from your presence,

and do not take your holy spirit from me.

Former Republican member of congress: ‘Trump is unhinged. We are waiting to get tax bill through before impeachment’

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-republican-member-congress-apos-093300061.html

 

 

Restore to me the joy of your salvation,

and sustain in me a willing spirit.

NFL attendance is down, but it’s not just because of the protest

https://andrewheller.com/nfl-attendance-is-down-but-its-not-just-because-of-the-protest/

 

 

Then I will teach transgressors your ways,

and sinners will return to you.

Mike Pence leaves game after 49ers players kneel during national anthem

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/10/08/mike-pence-leaves-game-protest-kneeling-national-anthem/744267001/

 

 

Deliver me from bloodshed, O God,

O God of my salvation,

and my tongue will sing aloud of your deliverance.

Donald Trump’s Passion for Cruelty

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42157-donald-trump-s-passion-for-cruelty

 

 

O Lord, open my lips,

and my mouth will declare your praise.

Will politicians provide clarity on Issue 2? Probably not.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2017/10/will_politicians_provide_clari.html#incart_river_home

 

 

For you have no delight in sacrifice;

if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.

Open Your Eyes Father Martin

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/open-eyes-father-martin#.Wd-zSwJP4c5.facebook

 

 

The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit;

a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

The Flagrant Sexual Hypocrisy of Conservative Men

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/sunday/conservative-men-abortion-hypocrisy.html

 

 

Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;

rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,

The case for Donald Trump’s border wall is crumbling

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/09/border-wall-no-childs-play-editorials-debates/730959001/

 

 

then you will delight in right sacrifices,

in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;

then bulls will be offered on your altar.

Emmanuel Ogbah returns to Houston after supporting hurricane relief effort in hometown

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-5/Emmanuel-Ogbah-returns-to-Houston-after-supporting-hurricane-relief-effort-in-hometown/9b38d8fb-1a19-4136-ba7c-7cb4f7ac5ecc?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral

 

Paddock’s possible motive: loneliness

Stephen Paddock was married previously and currently had a girlfriend. He bought 33 guns in the past year, USA Today says. He was a real estate developer, but his full-time job was gambling. He was wealthy.

Paddock had no apparent ties to any terrorist groups, no political animosity or religious zealotry that might set him off.

So, what made him kill 59 people and injure more than 500 others in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history?

Understanding why

There’s one nugget in there that many people have overlooked, but that may provide an important clue.

As a gambler, according to The Associated Press, “his game of choice was video poker, a relatively solitary pursuit with no dealer and no humans to play against. And while neighbors described Paddock as friendly, he wasn’t close to them.”

Police still have no answers to Paddock’s motive. Joseph Lombardo, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department sheriff who has become the face of the investigation, questioned whether anyone would ever truly understand why the shooter did what he did, Yahoo reported.

Even his girlfriend apparently saw no warning signs of the mass shooting.

Perhaps that’s the way Paddock wanted it.

No clues. No warning. No history of hatred or violence.

The sheriff is likely correct. We never will fully understand why.

Loneliness

But it began in his head. His heart left him long ago.

He was a loner.

Even though he had relationships, he kept secrets.

Las Vegas Shooting

Many men keep secrets. We’re good at that. Especially those of us who struggle mightily to share our thoughts and feelings with someone else, even a spouse or close friend. Some of us never figure that out.

I understand loneliness very well.

It’s hard to describe or explain. Loners by definition do not share their deepest thoughts, desires or fears with anyone. When we feel injured or wronged, we internalize our feelings, twisting the pain over and over in our brains, most likely increasing the hurt and convincing ourselves that the person who wronged us had motives that he or she most likely didn’t.

In other words, we make the problem bigger than it really is. But that becomes our reality.

Crossing the line

What pain did Paddock suffer that affected his brain and/or damaged his heart so severely that he buried it?

It may not have been one thing. Perhaps little things just added up over the years, until he crossed a line.

Most loners don’t kill people. We react to internal pain differently than that. I’m sure we hurt the people closest to us by not opening up to them, not sharing our feelings and seeking help or at least a different perspective.

Paddock apparently had anger issues. I saw reports that he berated his girlfriend in public numerous times. Perhaps he was a control freak.

Perhaps he just didn’t know how to relate to a woman.

I wonder how prevalent that is in American society. Probably more so than any of us would care to admit.

Paddock didn’t care about people. He didn’t understand the human soul. If he did, he wouldn’t have destroyed so many.

The answer

How do we overcome loneliness? Can we discover that it’s enjoyable to be around other people?

Many of you won’t understand that question. You do enjoy the company of others. Affection and joy come naturally to you.

I envy you.

Some of us prefer to be alone. Even if we are in a long-term relationship, alone time is valuable to us. That’s not a slight against our significant others; it’s not their fault. Even though that hurts them. Deeply.

So, what’s the answer?

Communication.

Talking about our feelings, wishes and desires.

I know that.

But that doesn’t mean I do it.

It’s not natural. I daresay more men, especially, than we think understand this.

No precedent

I’m 57 years old. I’ve never in my life had an “accountability partner,” someone I can share my deepest secrets with.

Opening my deep heart with a man I trust would cross a line.

This line is worth crossing. Indeed, it’s necessary for inner peace and healing.

I should intentionally step out in faith and do it.

Trust does not come easy, however, when we’ve never done it.

So we continue to hurt ourselves, and we hurt those closest to us.

What was Paddock’s dark secret? Was it the gambling? If so, why did it turn lethal?

Or was it something else, something he never told anyone?

Did he keep a journal? I’m sure the authorities will find it if he did. That’s a place to write our deepest thoughts, yet keep them hidden.

We can’t hide our thoughts and feelings forever. I think we all know that.

Motive

manalay bay

We rent a hotel room, as Paddock did, for a myriad of reasons. Motive isn’t always as obvious as it seems.

My wife and I rented a room in Glendale, Colo., recently. The motel clerk did not know why, nor did she care – as long as we gave her our credit card to pay for it. We were there to visit our son who lives there, certainly a legitimate reason to rent a motel room.

Paddock spent thousands of dollars a day at the casino tied to the hotel where he rented a room last weekend. Over the years he gambled so much at that casino, they gave him the room for free. He was there to gamble, the hotel staff thought, I’m sure. Or, perhaps to see the country music festival, since he requested a room overlooking the venue.

We now know he had a different motive. Even his girlfriend was unaware.

Motive.

Why do we do the things we do? Why do we think the thoughts we think?

We cannot hide

Some of us prefer to keep those answers to ourselves.

But we will get found out.

Even if I hide my thoughts from you, the living God knows everything about me. I cannot hide from Him. That’s why you cannot judge me, but He can. You don’t know my motives. God does.

We may never know Paddock’s true motive. But God does.

Justice will come.

For you and me as well.

Ultimately, we cannot hide. We will get exposed.

Sooner or later.

Sooner is better. Let’s talk.

Hamilton’s influence permeates our nation to this day

Last in a series on Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. Previously, we discussed these topics:

  • central government vs. states’ rights:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/hamilton-early-lessons-still-apply/

  • religion:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/hamilton-on-religion-belief-in-god-as-moral-authority/

  • politics:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/politics-continuing-what-hamilton-and-his-peers-started/

  • slavery, the judiciary:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/slavery-and-the-judiciary-hamiltons-far-reaching-views/

  • populism, journalism:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/the-pendulum-swings-a-little-left-and-a-little-right-returning-to-the-center-each-time/

  • military, Congress, personality:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/hamilton-a-strong-military-run-by-civilians/

 

Hamilton left a rich and varied legacy. As one of the most influential Founding Fathers, his thoughts and decisions continue to affect life in the United States to this day.

Make a good idea great

Hamilton was not the master builder of the Constitution: the laurels surely go to James Madison. He was, however, its foremost interpreter … (p. 355)

 

A prolific writer throughout his life, Hamilton’s most famous work is also probably his best: The Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 essays published in 1788 that promoted the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Hamilton wrote most of the essays and edited the rest, overseeing the entire project.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/

 

In similar fashion, Hamilton did not create America’s market economy so much as foster the cultural and legal setting in which it flourished. (p. 345)

 

Like Benjamin Franklin, Hamilton saw America as the place for entrepreneurs and business success. “He believed that government ought to promote self-fulfillment, self-improvement and self-reliance.” (p. 345)

But a capitalist society requires laws that enforce contracts, respect private property, arbitrate legal disputes, and offer patents and other protections to promote invention. This was Hamilton’s genius, establishing a society to accomplish these goals.

“Hamilton had a storehouse of information that nobody else could match.” (p. 346)

Banking

Hamilton finely interwove his bank and public-debt plans, making it difficult to undo one and not the other. (p. 349)

hamilton book

His banking and public debt programs were so detailed, that once Congress approved them, it became impossible to undo them. Before they were accepted, Hamilton had to overcome fierce objections from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams, who saw banks as little more than a way for rich people to exploit the poor. They favored an agrarian society based on farming and bartering prevalent in the South, as opposed to the urban lifestyles that required money to buy things in stores that were increasing in the North. “Jefferson and Adams detested people who earned a living shuffling financial paper …” (p. 346)

Hamilton, as our first treasury secretary, saw the need for a central bank and a uniform currency among all the states to “expand the money supply, extend credit to government and business, collect revenues, make debt payments, handle foreign exchange and provide a depository for government funds.” (p. 347)

He also saw the need for private banks and credit as part of the public money system, based on models in several European countries, which he researched extensively. “It was in the nature of Hamilton’s achievement as treasury secretary that each of his programs was designed to mesh with the others to form a single interlocking whole. His central bank was no exception.” (p. 349)

Foreign policy

… (Hamilton and President George Washingtron) had established forever the principle of executive-branch leadership in foreign policy. (p. 499)

 

This came about with the Jay Treaty, an unpopular agreement approved by the Senate in 1795 to avert war between the United States and Great Britain that gave Britain far too many advantages, opponents claimed. It did, however, prevent war and promote U.S. neutrality overseas. Hamilton was a behind-the-scenes negotiator for the treaty.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/jay-treaty

Coast Guard

(Hamilton) asked Congress in April 1790 to commission a fleet of single-masted vessels called revenue cutters that would patrol offshore waters and intercept contraband. By early August, Washington had signed a bill setting up this service, later known as the Coast Guard. (p. 340)

 

Earlier, Hamilton defended the new country by promoting an offshore fleet to protect U.S. commerce. But he feared overbearing ship captains, so he provided detailed instructions urging “firmness tempered with restraint …

“So masterly was Hamilton’s directive about boarding foreign vessels that it was still being applied during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.” (p 340)

Leader, not politician

Hamilton wanted to lead the electorate and provide expert opinion instead of consulting popular opinion. … Hamilton … regularly violated what became the first commandment of American politics: thou shalt always be optimistic when addressing the electorate. (p. 627)

 

As we’ve mentioned before, Hamilton was not the consummate politician. He offered his opinion, sometimes regardless of the consequences or who might be listening. “Alexander Hamilton triumphed as a doer and thinker, not as a leader of the average voter. He was simply too unashamedly brainy to appeal to the masses.” (p. 627)

He never even considered seeking the office of the President of the United States. He served as George Washington’s treasury secretary, a role where his primary passions of financing, banking, money and establishing a new government could flourish.

His death

… he achieved in death what had so often eluded him in life: an emotional outpouring of sympathy from all strata of New York society. (p. 710)

 

Because his public policies often were controversial, Hamilton had many enemies, including Jefferson and Madison at the time of his death. He defended his honor whenever he felt it was violated, even if it made his friends and family squirm.

One such dispute ended in a duel that cost Hamilton his life. Fifteen years of political clashes by Hamilton and Aaron Burr culminated in a duel on July 11, 1804, in New Jersey. Earlier that year Burr ran for governor of New York and lost the election, partly due to Hamilton’s ardent opposition. That was the last straw for Burr, who challenged Hamilton to a duel – not an unusual practice at the time as a way to protect a man’s honor. Hamilton felt he had to accept the duel challenge to protect his own honor.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/hamilton/essays/understanding-burr-hamilton-duel

 

… death at forty-nine … The average life expectancy was then about fifty-five, so the dying Hamilton did not seem as young to his contemporaries as he does today, but many obituaries portrayed him as cut down by a bullet in his prime. (p. 713)

 

The first eight U.S. presidents lived an average of nearly 80 years. Even though Hamilton’s political career was waning at his death, he still had plenty of life and enthusiasm in him. Had he lived a longer life, “with his prolific pen and literary gifts, Hamilton would certainly have left voluminous and convincing memoirs.” (p. 713)

His wife

Eliza Hamilton was committed to one holy quest above all others: to rescue her husband’s historical reputation from the gross slanders that had tarnished it. (p. 2)

 

Eliza, Alexander’s wife, outlived her husband by 50 years and died in 1854 at age 97. Born in Albany, N.Y., to a wealthy landowner, she shunned the public spotlight throughout her husband’s life. She was co-founder and deputy director of the first private orphanage in New York City. Eliza had a strong Christian faith that never wavered.

“For many years after the duel, Jefferson, Adams and other political enemies had taken full advantage of their eloquence and longevity to spread defamatory anecdotes about Hamilton … Eliza enlisted as many as 30 assistants to sift through his tall stacks of papers.” (p. 2)

At his mother’s urging, their fourth son, John Church Hamilton, did publish a biography of his father – but not until after Eliza’s death.

Lasting impact

“Well, has justice been done? Few figures in American history have aroused such visceral love or loathing as Alexander Hamilton … He has tended to lack the glittering multi-volumed biographies that have burnished the fame of other founders … In all probability, Alexander Hamilton is the foremost political figure in American history who never attained the presidency, yet he probably had a much deeper and more lasting impact than many who did.” (p. 3-4)

The musical “Hamilton,” with music, lyrics and book by Lin-Manuel Miranda, is attempting to change that. Still popular more than two years after it debuted, the musical has brought to life Hamilton’s life and accomplishments, done with modern language and actors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/theater/review-hamilton-young-rebels-changing-history-and-theater.html?mcubz=0

Alexander Hamilton is worth the time to research. Read the book. See the show. You’ll learn plenty about how this country began, and why we are the way we are today.

Hamilton: A strong military, run by civilians

One in a series on Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. So far, we have discussed these topics:

  • central government vs. states’ rights:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/hamilton-early-lessons-still-apply/

  • religion:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/hamilton-on-religion-belief-in-god-as-moral-authority/

  • politics:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/politics-continuing-what-hamilton-and-his-peers-started/

  • slavery, the judiciary:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/slavery-and-the-judiciary-hamiltons-far-reaching-views/

  • populism, journalism:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/the-pendulum-swings-a-little-left-and-a-little-right-returning-to-the-center-each-time/

The military

With unerring foresight, (George) Washington perceived the importance of enshrining the principle that military power should be subordinated to civilian control. (p. 178)

 

Chernow made this statement in a section on financing the military during the Revolution. Hamilton wanted Congress to fund the entire war debt – specifically, officers’ pay. Many military leaders had missed paychecks, as much as six years owed, in some cases, (p. 176) and Hamilton feared mass desertions. He wrote a letter to Washington, the military leader, urging him to use the officers’ anger to push Congress to pay up.

The federal government had little taxing authority at the time. States were paying the bills, often unevenly or not at all, if they didn’t buy in to the federal vision.

Washington did not wish to push that button yet. He wouldn’t support allowing military decisions to control Congress. The elected civilians in Congress controlled the still-forming country’s purse strings, and Washington didn’t want to change that.

While military spending today captures the lion’s share of the federal budget, the civilian president and the elected Congress still set the military’s priorities and pay for whatever they feel is warranted. While military leaders offer crucial insights into national and international situations, civilians still call the shots. Literally.

We can thank George Washington for preserving this system.

 

When it came to law enforcement, Hamilton believed that an overwhelming show of force often obviated the need to employ it: “Whenever the government appears in arms, it ought to appear like a Hercules and inspire respect by the display of strength.” (p. 471)

… the show of force orchestrated by the federal government had made its use unnecessary, just as Hamilton had predicted. (p. 477)

 

Throughout his life, Hamilton defended a strong central government, including the authority to collect taxes and fund a national army and navy.

hamilton book

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 proved this out. In its effort to raise money, the federal government approved a liquor tax that proved extremely unpopular – yet it was lucrative. “Shortly after the whiskey tax was passed, federal collectors were shunned, tarred, feathered, blindfolded and whipped.” (p. 468) The worst offenders lived in western Pennsylvania.

Hamilton eventually convinced then-President Washington to deploy federal troops in massive numbers to put down the rebellion, fearing that open rejection of the tax could destroy the new federal government.

It worked. “The military expedition met little overt resistance in the mutinous regions.” (p. 476)

(While the show of force worked militarily, it likely hurt Washington’s Federalist Party politically. Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800 pledged to repeal the whiskey tax. “So it may be said, with undoubted truth, that the whiskey drinkers made Mr. Jefferson the President of the United States.” p. 478)

Congress

In (Hamilton’s) view, representative bodies did not need to mirror exactly those they represented; men of substance, wisdom and experience could care for the common good. If they came more often from the wealthier, better-educated portion of the community, so be it. (p. 265)

 

Hamilton declared that the vices of the rich “are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state than those of the indigent …” (p. 265) He saw the Senate “as a check on fickle popular will …”

Hamilton’s main argument was to support a central government, with states’ rights subservient to them. This discussion took place in an earlier post.

 

“Congress met and adjourned from day to day without doing anything, the parties being too much out of temper to do business together.” (p. 326)

 

Even as far back as 1790, congressmen had trouble working together. This quote was attributed to Thomas Jefferson over the issue of where to locate the national capital. Eventually it was built in Washington, D.C., in the South, with Philadelphia as the temporary home while the Capitol was being built.

At the time New York City was our nation’s capital. “Should the capital be near the population or the geographic center of America? New York was scarcely equidistant from the northern and southern tips of the country …” (p. 326)

Hamilton’s other main issue at this time was federal assumption of states’ debts, which he saw as the most effective way to join the states together into a permanent union. It passed the House, barely, in July 1790, thanks to a back-room deal among Hamilton, Jefferson and James Madison.

Despite their differences, Congressmen eventually did act, and will continue to do so.

Personality

For all his charisma, Alexander Hamilton was essentially an intellectual loner who took perverse pride in standing against the crowd. (p. 251)

 

He was a thinker and a doer, a man with a big-picture vision of the future of the United States that few others saw so clearly. This is likely why he never became president, or even ran for the presidency; he did not care about populism, doing only what he felt was the right thing to do.

In fact, he often opposed populist thinking in support of a centralized federal government, in which a small group of elected representatives would make the decisions that the country needed to survive.

 

A man of irreproachable integrity, Hamilton severed all outside sources of income while in office, something that neither Washington nor Jefferson nor Madison dared to do. (p. 287)

 

Even as Hamilton’s family grew – he and his wife continued to have children while he was treasury secretary – he would not accept any income other than the paltry sum offered by a poor, struggling federal government.

When he finally resigned his federal post, he had debts to pay off. Returning to his private law practice, he took cases that helped pay the bills – but even still, he was most passionate about cases that established Constitutional law, even though many of the people he defended in those cases couldn’t afford to pay him much.

 

But if Jefferson was a man of fanatical principles, he had principles all the same – which Hamilton could forgive. (Aaron) Burr’s abiding sin was a total lack of principles, which Hamilton could not forgive. (p. 422)

 

Hamilton had strong feelings and viewpoints. His political opponents did as well. If they could defend themselves, Hamilton, could respect that, to a point.

Hamilton may have overstated his case against Burr, who eventually killed him in a duel.

In 1791, Burr defeated Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law, for a seat in the U.S. Senate. This marked the onset of an ongoing rivalry between Burr and Hamilton. After six years in the Senate, Burr lost re-election to Schuyler. Bitter about the loss, Burr blamed Hamilton for ruining his reputation and turning voters against him.

In 1800, Burr ran for the U.S. presidency with Jefferson. Because they each received the same number of electoral votes, members of the House of Representatives were left to determine the winner. When the House met to discuss the election, Burr’s rival, Hamilton, vocalized his support for Jefferson and his disapproval of Burr. In the end, Jefferson secured the presidency and Burr became vice president. Burr was incensed, believing that Hamilton had manipulated the vote in Jefferson’s favor.

Nearing the end of his term as vice president, Burr ran for the governorship of New York, but lost. Again, he blamed Hamilton for besmirching him as a candidate, and, eager to defend his honor, challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton accepted, and the face-off took place on the morning of July 11, 1804; it ended when Burr shot Hamilton to death.

The public was outraged. Burr fled New York and New Jersey but eventually returned to Washington, D.C, where he completed his term safe from prosecution. The indictments in the case never reached trial.

In 1807, Burr was brought to trial on charges of conspiracy and high misdemeanor, for leading a military charge against Spanish territory and for trying to separate territories from the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall acquitted Burr on the treason charge and eventually revoked his misdemeanor indictment, but the conspiracy scandal left Burr’s political career in ruins.

https://www.biography.com/people/aaron-burr-9232241

 

The pendulum swings, a little left and a little right, returning to the center each time

One in a series on Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. So far, we have discussed these topics:

  • central government vs. states’ rights:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/hamilton-early-lessons-still-apply/

  • religion:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/hamilton-on-religion-belief-in-god-as-moral-authority/

  • politics:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/politics-continuing-what-hamilton-and-his-peers-started/

  • slavery, the judiciary:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/slavery-and-the-judiciary-hamiltons-far-reaching-views/

Populism

The 1800 elections revealed, for the first time, the powerful centrist pull of American politics – the electorate’s tendency to rein in anything perceived as extreme. (p. 626)

 

In that 1800 election, the first Republican, Thomas Jefferson, was elected president after George Washington and John Adams as members of the Federalist party had set the early course for the new United States. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans took 65 seats to 41 for the Federalists.

“The people had registered their dismay with a long litany of unpopular Federalist actions: the Jay Treaty, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the truculent policy toward France, the vast army being formed under Hamilton and the taxes levied to support it.” (p. 626)

Isn’t this what happened a year ago as well?

  • A large number of the electorate believed that social policies had swung too far left, thanks in large part to U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
  • The Congressional stalemate over budget, economic and social issues convinced large segments of the public that Republicans and Democrats were incapable of making decisions and therefore leading the country.
  • Donald Trump, as a political outsider, offered a contrasting alternative.

While his tweets and staff firings and resignations have signaled disorganization in his administration, his strong support of the military and more conservative social agenda have connected with many. Is Trump pulling us too far in that direction? Upcoming elections will tell.

Trump’s presidency proves that we can’t go too far left, or too far right, as a nation and get away with it. The pendulum eventually returns to center, or close to it.

 

… Jefferson proved a more moderate president than either he or Hamilton cared to admit. The Virginian no longer had the luxury of being in opposition and could not denounce every assertion of executive power as a rank betrayal of the Revolution. (p. 646)

 

I wonder if Trump eventually will understand this principle. It’s easy to point fingers when you’re not in charge, as Republicans did for the previous eight years and as Democrats are doing now. It’s harder to do that when controversial decisions land on your desk. We’ll see how many of Trump’s policies moderate as his presidency develops.

 

(Hamilton) saw the chaos in France as a frightening portent of what could happen in America if the safeguards of order were stripped away by the love of liberty. (p. 434)

hamilton mug

The French Revolution in the 1790s divided the political parties in this country. Hamilton’s Federalist party denounced the Revolution as violent and deadly, while Jefferson’s Republicans supported the opposition in France, even if it was violent, because they felt that French leaders were oppressive.

Hamilton could not turn a blind eye to the bloodthirsty nature of the French Revolution, which included the guillotine death of Louis XVI, a supporter of the American Revolution. Republicans said that if he was an “enemy of human nature,” then his death was justified. (p. 433)

“For Hamilton, the utopian revolutionaries in France had emphasized liberty to the exclusion of order, morality, religion and property rights.” (p. 434)

I see this happening in our country today. Statues of long-ago Confederate leaders are being smashed or removed. Perhaps they should be, because the Confederates supported slavery. We fought a Civil War over that issue. We don’t need to fight it again.

Do we?

 

Revenge had always frightened (Hamilton), and class envy and mob violence had long been his bugaboos. (p. 195)

 

And yet …

 

“I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” he told (James) Madison loftily from Paris, “and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” … the more hopeful and complacent Jefferson thought that periodic excesses would correct themselves. (p. 225)

 

Jefferson and Hamilton, then, while political opponents who did not get along with each other, seemed more alike than either was willing to admit. Neither supported “periodic excesses.” They trusted the pendulum swing to keep the young nation on track. As we should today.

Journalism

Hamilton wrote volumes upon volumes of letters, treatises and pamphlets, often writing late into the night after hectic days running his family, his law practice and/or the country as treasury secretary. Indeed, sometimes he couldn’t stop himself. He incriminated himself and others with several of his pamphlets that made his supporters – and his wife, certainly – cringe. He felt he had to defend his personal honor at all costs.

 

To understand Hamilton’s productivity, it is important to note that virtually all of his important work was journalism, prompted by topical issues and written in the midst of controversy. He never wrote as a solitary philosopher for the ages. … he plumbed the timeless principles behind contemporary events. (p. 250)

 

Even though he never visited Europe, Hamilton researched the continent extensively, learning everything he could about its economies, politics, judiciaries, governments, social structures, taxes, trade policies, and so many other issues. As he wrote The Federalist Papers and numerous other documents, he culled his research to seek the best of Europe for us, documenting his research thoroughly.

Hamilton wrote many newspaper articles, most of them anonymously because that’s the way it was done back then, defending his viewpoints and criticizing his opponents.

Late in his life, Hamilton defended a Federalist newspaper editor charged with libel by President Jefferson. “The standard had been that plaintiffs in libel cases needed to prove only that statements made against them were defamatory, not that they were false.” (p. 668)

In a six-hour speech in February 1804 before the New York Supreme Court, Hamilton defended a free press. Only a free press could check abuses of executive power, Hamilton asserted.

 

By spotlighting the issue of intent, Hamilton identified the criteria for libel that still hold sway in America today: that the writing in question must be false, defamatory and malicious. (p. 669)

 

Hamilton did not argue that truth should be conclusive, only that it should be admissible; if a journalist slandered his target accurately but maliciously, then he was still guilty of libel. He noted that the Sedition Act, “branded indeed with epithets the most odious,” contained one redeeming feature: it allowed the alleged libeler to plead both truth and intent before a jury. (p. 669)

Earlier, Hamilton instigated a libel suit against New York’s leading Republican newspaper, The Argus, which wrote that Hamilton had tried to buy another Republican paper for $6,000 – and that he accumulated such funds “from British secret service money.”

Falling back on common law, the court did not allow Hamilton to testify as to the truth or falsity of charges leveled against him – a situation that may have firmed his resolve to establish this principle in American libel law. The newspaper’s editor was convicted, fined $100 and incarcerated for four months. (p. 576)