Happiness and joy: synonyms?

What’s the difference between happiness and joy?

That question crossed my mind recently, as I wonder how happy I am and whether I can do anything about it.

Happiness is a choice, many people believe. I’ve seen posts and books about that, and heard people say it.

I’m not sure I buy it.

Happiness, the way I see it, is the result of doing something that makes us happy.

We can choose to do something that makes us happy, but we can’t choose to be happy all by itself.

Maybe that’s splitting hairs.

According to a couple of official sources, it is splitting hairs.

Merriam-Webster defines “joy” this way:

 

1.a : the emotion evoked by well-being, success, or good fortune or by the prospect of possessing what one desires : delight

b : the expression or exhibition of such emotion : gaiety

2: a state of happiness or felicity : bliss

3: a source or cause of delight

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy

 

The dictionary calls joy an emotion, and basically a synonym for happiness. It also says the first known use of the word came in the 13th century.

Really? It’s in the Bible, written hundreds – if not thousands – of years before the 13th century.

So, I checked another source I go to sometimes, especially with questions about the Bible, gotquestions.org. In its discussion of “Is there a difference between joy and happiness?” are these statements:

 

 

It is common today to hear believers speak of a difference between joy and happiness. The teaching usually makes the following points: 1) Happiness is a feeling, but joy is not. 2) Happiness is fleeting, but joy is everlasting. 3) Happiness depends on circumstances or other people, but joy is a gift from God. 4) Happiness is worldly, but joy is divine. But there is no such distinction made in Scripture, and forcing a distinction between two words that are so obviously close in meaning is unnecessary …

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests we divorce joy from happiness. The two are equal.

Of course, there are different types of joy and happiness. There is a joy that comes from the world, such as “the fleeting pleasures of sin” spoken of in Hebrews 11:25. There is a joy that is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galations 5:22). There is a temporary happiness and an eternal happiness, but we can call both “happiness.” We don’t need to split hairs between the meaning of joy and happiness. We just need to decide where our joy comes from. Are we happy in the Lord, or are we content with the happiness the world affords?

https://www.gotquestions.org/joy-happiness.html

 

 

So, I guess I am splitting hairs.

I’ve had all four of those thoughts listed in the gotquestions.org explanation. If they aren’t true, then where do those ideas come from?

I do not consider myself a “happy” person. I laugh, but not very often, and never in the routines of life. I don’t get excited or enthusiastic. I can encourage others and hopefully make them feel good about themselves, but I have a hard time doing that for myself.

Emotions are fleeting. They come and go. Happiness follows that track.

If happiness and joy are so closely related, does that mean joy comes and goes, too?

 

James 1:2 says, “Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you encounter various trials.” Christians can be happy, even in the midst of difficulties, because we know “the testing of our faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (verses 3-4). As we persevere through trials, with God’s help, our faith strengthens and matures. By God’s grace we can be happy despite our circumstances.

 

Gotquestions.org includes this paragraph on joy while suffering. Can we really be happy in the midst of difficulties?

Perhaps this is what we Americans are missing today. Many of us do have difficulties. We certainly are angry about a lot of things. We get upset when things don’t go our way.

Even more than that, “good people” suffer, too. People get sick and/or sometimes die far too young. Or God calls home a leader who has influenced many people, and we wonder why, when other people whom we don’t respect as much continue living.

We think like that all the time, don’t we?

God sees the big picture. All of us will die at some point. That’s a guarantee. Very few of us know when death will claim us.

Sometimes, people suffer before they die. Why? I can’t answer that.

Can suffering people be happy? Can suffering people find joy?

I work with almost two dozen adults with developmental disabilities. None of them can live on their own or take care of themselves. All of them have physical and/or mental disabilities that prevent them from living a life that you and I can enjoy.

Yet, I see happiness in my workplace every day. They laugh. They have fun when doing activities they enjoy. When I communicate with a non-verbal individual and we understand each other, both of us feel a joy, a connection, that’s hard to explain.

When two people connect, there’s joy. Friendship deepens. When one person holds back from communicating (that’s usually me), joy does not come.

Perhaps that’s why happiness often eludes me. A great communicator, I’m not.

So, where does my joy come from? As a Christian, I should be “happy in the Lord” all the time. That doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to suffering or to the real issues facing our family, city, nation, world, etc. I should have a joy that helps me see the bigger picture, to help me get through those issues.

Can I be joyful without being happy?

Perhaps not.

Perhaps I do need to choose joy/happiness.

Advertisements

Sexual harassment, part 2: The standard

Many of you provided excellent, thought-provoking comments on the blog I wrote last week about sexual harassment. In today’s highly sex-charged environment, I asked for a definition that everyone can agree on.

Several of your comments hinted, and one said directly, that such a definition likely doesn’t exist. Harassment is a very personal issue. What hurts you might not hurt me, and vice versa.

So, coming up with a national standard likely won’t happen.

A former human resources executive reminded me that all companies have a code of conduct handbook that defines sexual harassment, among many other issues, for that company. If an employee crosses that line, termination often is the result. The details don’t have to be made public.

Perhaps Hollywood needs a code of conduct handbook. Federal (and state and local) political bodies, as well.

Perhaps the bottom line is common sense. If something would hurt me, don’t do it. If I even think it might hurt you, don’t do it. If I cross the line by mistake and you say so, I must apologize immediately.

That’s why Garrison Keillor’s situation bothers me. He did that, and still got fired when a lawyer got involved. Perhaps there is more to his story than we know. Perhaps not. We may never know.

Keillor didn’t fight the accusation, so perhaps neither should I.

Searching for the standard

I still wonder:

Is there a standard that we can follow?

Since each us has our own standard, and they aren’t identical, any “true” standard would have to be bigger than ourselves.

This is one reason I submit myself to God’s ways. The one who created us knows what’s best for us, how we should use our bodies and get along with each other.

Since we’ve managed to screw all that up royally these days by ourselves, it’s worth seeking a way out of our mess.

News flash: Neither Republicans, President Trump nor Democrats have the answer. Each may have a part of the answer, but each also misses the mark.

Hollywood is part of the problem, not the solution.

We like to blame “the media” for all kinds of things, without knowing what the media really is.

“The media” used to mean newspapers, radio news and TV newscasts. It’s broadened to include entertainment we see on TV, in magazines and in other places. Newspapers have far less “fake news” in them than other media do. (Disclaimer: I worked in the newspaper industry for nearly 30 years.)

Design, build for productivity

Without getting too theological, God knows us better than we know ourselves, because He created us. When we design and build things, the designer and builder get to decide how those products are used. If we use a product in a way it wasn’t intended, it breaks, or it doesn’t work at all.

It’s the same with us humans. We have limitations. We like to push limits, but sometimes we go too far.

Sexual harassment is a perfect example of this.

So, we need to go back to why our Creator made us in the first place, and what our purpose is.

We were created to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26) So, we were created to take care of the earth and everything in it.

We also were created to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it …” (Genesis 1:28)

“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) This includes us as humans, too. We were created good – actually, “very good.”

How the product fails

So, what happened?

We as humans decided we wanted to control our own lives. Our Creator wasn’t good enough for us any more.

God said: fine. But consequences go along with that, just like there are when we use a product in a way it wasn’t intended to be used.

There wasn’t any written law from Adam to Moses, but there still were consequences for doing things incorrectly. “Right” and “wrong” are written in our hearts. Laws just explain what we already know.

When Moses came along, we got the Ten Commandments – a controversial document then, and a controversial document today – along with a host of other laws and rules of conduct.

You shall not make for yourself an idol.

Honor your father and mother.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not covet … your neighbor’s wife … (Exodus 20:4, 12, 14, 17)

When Jesus Christ arrived, he expanded on those themes. For example: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5: 27)

Here’s another one: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you … Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5: 43-44, 48)

There’s our standard. If every one of us followed these “laws,” sexual harassment would become a thing of the past.

Perfect love

Love is not what I think, or what I want. That’s what harassment is all about, isn’t it?

True love is what you want.

The truest love is what God wants, which benefits you and me both more than any love we have for each other can possibly do.

Our standard is perfection. Nothing less.

Jesus knows how impossible that is for us to do. That’s what his life, death and resurrection addressed.

All we have to do is accept Jesus into our hearts and minds, then live for Him the best we can. We still are sinners; we’ll still get it wrong, including on the harassment issue. If you think Christians live happily ever after, well, we don’t and we do. On this earth we do not. In the next life, yes, we will.

As Christians, our hearts should be in the right place; we should live differently than everyone else does, because our motivation is different – to serve others before ourselves. In this sinful, messed up world, we should stand out as shining lights of the way life is supposed to be lived.

Far too many of us claim to be Christians when we really aren’t. We try to justify our sinful desires, rather than try to change to be more like God.

The religious leaders of His day, not the tax collectors and sinners, crucified Jesus. The church people. Those who knew the Scriptures inside and out. Those who should have known better.

If Jesus were to walk in the flesh across the United States today, I’m convinced His message would be exactly the same. And we – the church people – would crucify Him again.

Not all church people would crucify Him, but many would.

Why? Because we reject His standard and prefer our own inferior, sin-infested standards.

Is the church a shining light of God’s pure love? If it is, all of us should want to be a part of it.

That’s the standard.

Someday, we’ll get there.

Sexual harassment: Let’s define it

Harvey Weinstein. Roy Moore. Al Franken. Charlie Rose. Matt Lauer. Garrison Keillor. And so many more, some known and many who have yet to apologize.

All have been accused of sexual harassment or worse.

This crime knows no boundaries. Democrats and Republicans. Rich people. Plenty of rich, powerful people. Hollywood types. Media moguls.

I have a question, which I haven’t heard anyone – except for one close friend – ask.

What, exactly, is sexual harassment?

Don’t tell me it’s in the eye of the beholder. That’s a cop-out, and no answer at all.

We need a definition that all of us, and I mean all of us, can agree on.

In no way am I excusing true sexual harassment. If a man touches a woman’s private parts, for example, that’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws there are.

What about a hug? If I give a woman (who is not my wife) a one-armed side hug, I have been taught that that’s OK. If I give her a full-body two-armed hug, that is not OK.

What if a woman gives me a full-body hug, then charges me with sexual harassment?

See the dilemma?

That’s why we need a national standard for sexual harassment.

Women and CPR

I saw an article recently that said women are less likely to receive CPR than a man is if she is having a heart attack. I wonder if the harassment issue plays into that.

What if I, even accidentally, touch a woman in the wrong place while trying to save her life? I’ve had CPR training, and they teach us to unbutton the victim’s shirt to improve the chances for success.

Would that cross the line? If I do that and the woman dies, could her family file charges against me?

I’m serious.

In today’s atmosphere, her family might be successful.

Again, I’m not condoning abuse. What Dr. Larry Nassar did to numerous female U.S. gymnasts in the name of medicine is inexcusable. Throw the book at him. Make an example out of him so that, hopefully, no one ever does that again.

Where’s the line between those two extremes? As a man, how do I know when I cross it?

Again, don’t tell me that if I have to ask the question, I’m guilty. That’s a cop-out.

And you’d probably be right anyway, as I’ll show in a minute.

Temptations and Hollywood

Temptations are everywhere in our sex-saturated society. Of course, that’s no excuse. Not every man touches a woman inappropriately after seeing a sexually-explicit television ad or an R-rated movie.

I see a TV ad these days with men in underwear and the voice-over announcer says, “Don’t wear your dad’s underwear.” You can hardly watch a football game without a closeup of the cheerleaders, often looking up. Prime-time TV shows joke about sex like it’s no big deal, something that everyone does, whether they’re married or not.

If everyone does it, why are men being punished for doing less? Every TV actor and actress likes it, including the women, according to the script writers.

Right?

If sex is mainstream in front of a camera, what’s the big deal off-camera?

Of course, it’s a big deal. Hollywood is not real, even though real people are saying and doing very real things. But we know better, don’t we?

So, where’s the line?

Keillor vs. Lauer

Garrison Keillor’s situation troubles me. According to an article in today’s newspaper, he “apparently put his hand on a woman’s bare back when trying to console her.”

“She recoiled. I apologized,” Keillor told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in an email. “I sent her an email of apology later, and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it.
“We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

Minneapolis Public Radio terminated his contracts over that.

What did Keillor do wrong? He admitted his mistake immediately, and the woman accepted his apology.

That’s not good enough any more? What’s her purpose in hiring a lawyer?

To fire a popular radio figure, ruin his reputation and end his 40-year career?

The article doesn’t say anything about seeking monetary damages. Indeed, none of female victims in today’s high-profile cases are seeking financial damages.

If Matt Lauer used his position of influence to take advantage of women, his reputation should be ruined.

Garrison Keillor didn’t do that, apparently.

So, why do they suffer the same fate?

All men are guilty

If I touch a woman’s (covered) shoulder during a light moment, is that harassment? If I give a hug or pat on the back for emotional support or encouragement, is that harassment?

Don’t give me the “eye of the beholder” argument. You might change your mind later, as Keillor’s accuser did. If the standard changes, how can I possibly follow it?

Men are visual. We are wired that way. If you’re going to file a lawsuit against me for who I am, I stand no chance.

If you charge me with looking at you weird, I’m most likely guilty. Every male who ever lived, including me, has done this at some point. That doesn’t mean I’m going to act on that or that it’s even something I’m going to dwell on. That temptation often passes.

But for a second, I’m guilty.

That’s why we need a standard for sexual harassment. Where we seem to be headed, every man on Earth is guilty.

If you’re looking for a skeleton in my closet, you’ll probably find it. We men do our best to hide such things, but if you look expecting to find something, you will.

Here’s a thought. Each of us has good things in us, too. If you try to find the good in me, you might just draw that out instead.

Let’s define it

Again, I am not defending sexual harassment or abuse.

I’m just asking:

What is it?

Let’s come up with a definition we all can agree on.

Did Garrison Keillor cross that line?

If he did, then I daresay nearly all of us men are guilty.

What is the endgame here?

Respect?

Certainly, women need respect. To be honest, you haven’t had it in a long time. Look at our movies, TV shows and ads, magazines – and on and on. You’re portrayed as little more than sex objects across the landscape.

Why, women, do you put up with that stuff?

We should have had this discussion a long time ago.

Let’s define harassment.

Then, let’s follow that definition.

In every area of our lives.

Instead of hiring a lawyer, let’s think this through.

Then do something about it.

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.

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.