A Blanket Won’t Cover It

I have an aversion to blanket statements especially when they appear on Facebook and someone suggests that I “agree and share.”  A blanket statement is a statement covering an unlimited amount of people “across the board.”  It assumes the statement is true and all-embracing  for everything or everyone covered by the “blanket.”  A “generalization” is a “blanket statement.”  Both are all embracing.  A generalization is a sweeping statement (not allowing for exceptions) which fail to acknowledge other factors, ideas, or circumstances.  Examples of a generalization or blanket statement might include the following:  All apples are red, All buildings are square, Men never ask for directions, or All Christians are good people. 

When people urge me to agree and share that I  “Support the military” or that I “Support Law Enforcement” they are asking me to embrace ALL there is about the military and ALL there is about law enforcement.  They are covering the whole of the military and the whole of law enforcement with their blanket statement.  Such statements place me in a quandary.  

When I am asked to support our troops or our military I cannot help but think of Mei Lai.  I cannot help but think of Abu Grabe or Guantanamo.  I cannot help but think of the “some” and normally they are the “few” who make the blanket statement an unacceptable one.  The same is true of the blanket statement Support Law Enforcement and of course, I do—BUT….  I cannot help but think of March 7, 1965—Bloody Sunday—when law enforcement meted out an unnecessary violence on those unarmed and wholly innocent men, women and children crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge.  I cannot help but think of the law enforcement officers now taking children from their parents at our borders, or the police in a nearby city using their power for unlawful harm upon the people they were paid to protect.  

Every basket of apples is bound to have a few rotten ones.  Please do not ask me to lie and assert that all the apples in every basket are good.  I know better and you do too.  Blanket statements and generalizations are nebulous and there are better ways to make our point without sacrificing our mental integrity.

Ask, Seek, Knock

Cicero said of Socrates that he brought philosophy down from heaven into the cities and homes of men.  Socrates’ followers did just the opposite. Socrates’ student and disciple, Plato,  founded a school (the Academy), a place where men could go to develop to the full whatever capacity they had of seeking and finding the truth.  The aim of the school was to give the city of Athens a new life, providing the city with wise and good political leaders.  The eager young Academicians who attended the school, pursuing the higher truth, strictly avoided getting tainted by the tears, pains, sufferings, joys and loves of the ordinary Athenian people.  Theirs was a higher goal. They were seeking truth and in that seeking they avoided the truth and knowledge of how ordinary people lived! The students sought a political education but were withdrawn from practical politics.  They lived a retired life absorbed in studies which had no remote connection with anything political.  Seeking knowledge, hungering for the truth, aiming for the highest, these students of the Academy, according to Plato himself, did not even know their way around the city, where the market-place was, or what new law had recently passed in the Assembly, and they had not the slightest idea what people were talking about.  

The Academy (the followers of Socrates) stopped following Socrates. Socrates sought “knowledge of the highest,” but the place where he looked for it was in the gymnasium where he would sit down and talk to a couple of fellows resting from their exercise, or on a street corner where someone stopped to pass the time of day with him, or at a dinner party where men drank good wine and talked freely.  

Socrates, like Jesus,  never considered establishing an institution (an Academy, a university, a church,  or a theological seminary) to spread the truth they had discovered.  Both men knew that the truth they knew could not be expressed in statements and taught to others.  The truth they knew could only be found by a person seeking it himself (herself).  Perhaps this is why Socrates never wrote down a word and Jesus wrote only once, with his finger in the dust.  

There is in every person, Socrates believed,  a spark of good, of the divine (which John’s Gospel centuries later called “The true light which lighteth every man”) which could be kindled into a flame.  It was the object of Socrates’ work to kindle the spark.  This was Plato’s aim, too.  It was the object of Jesus’ work to kindle the spark.  This was Paul’s aim, too.  Did the Academy, the university, the church, the theological seminary smother the spark?  Of course not, but such institutions have often forgotten that Socrates’ and Jesus’ truth is not something expressed in statements (creeds, dogmas, etc.) and taught. Socrates’ truth is something one must seek in order to find—such knowledge cannot be given by Academy, university or book.  Jesus’ truth is something one must seek for him/herself in order to find—such knowledge cannot be given by Church, university, seminary or book.

The LIbrary of Ephesus

The Issue of Epistemology

How do we know what to believe?   Why do we believe what we do?  How can we be sure that what we believe is right.  How can we be sure that what we know is true.  With all the talk of fake news these days—and the fake news that is actually out there—“knowing”  and “what to believe” is becoming more and more of a problem.  It is an issue of epistemology—the theory of knowledge which asks the questions:  What does it mean to say we know something, and how do we know that we know?   Mark Twain does a good job of putting that in simple terms when it comes to our religious and political beliefs:  “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, who’s opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

Much of what I know and what I believe I’ve gotten secondhand from the usual authorities:  teachers, professors, friends and books. Just the other day I wrote that I cut my biblical teeth on William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible.  How else can we become informed.  The media (TV,  books, newspapers, magazines) provide us information—but it isn’t firsthand knowledge—it is knowledge or information that comes from somebody who says they know what they are talking about, or reporting on what they see. (We know that two people looking at the same event see it differently—so that poses a problem:  How do we know which eye-witness to believe?)  We accept the wisdom of the authority view, we accept the word of the authority, then we sort out, examine the stuff they have given us in our heads.  We take all the evidence into consideration and come up with what we are going to accept, believe, and know.  Is it still secondhand after such a process?  Perhaps, but at least we have examined it, thought it through, and come to our own conclusion.

Who are our authorities?  Fox News or CNN?  The New York Times or The New York Post?  Breitbart News or Politico?  Which one is “fake” for you?  How do you know?   Barclay, my authoritative person on scripture is labeled a “false prophet” by an authority of the religious right.  Barclay bases his knowledge on a multiplicity of sources—the authority on the “right” only on his interpretation of scripture.  Which authority knows?

Many of us are intellectually lazy and exhibit a blind willingness to follow the words and prescriptions of our “particular” authority figures, media, etc., who/which are blind followers of other authority figures of a particular “bent.”  That kind of belief and conviction (without examination) is not worth “a brass farthing” as far as Mark Twain is concerned.

Which waterfall is the "true" waterfall?

An Age of Unreason—McCarthyism

I was only 6 or 7 years old when the demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin began his reign of terror upon his fellow Republicans and upon thousands of innocent American citizens who were bullied, belittled and ruined by his character assassinations for which there was hardly  ever a shred of proof or evidence. Jon Meacham, in The Soul of America, reminds us of this man’s sudden rise to power, a power gained by capitalizing on the “fears” of communism.   It was an age of unreason. It was an era of conspiracy theories and the John Birch Society (even President Eisenhower was seen as an ally of communism). It was a period of fear. Senator McCarthy embellished the conspiracies, fed and nourished the fears, and actually encouraged the unreason by his lies and showmanship. His purpose,  he asserted,  was to rid the US government and society of communist infiltrators. Millions of Americans approved his tactics and supported his mean and cruel behavior.  A journalist wrote,  “There is no difference in kind between Hitlerism and McCarthyism, both being the same form of bacteriological warfare against the minds and souls of men.” Republicans, Democrats, presidents, and the American people allowed McCarthyism to happen and became complicit pawns in McCarthy’s sham.

Edward R. Murrow, the legendary broadcaster, after a program dealing with McCarthyism, said:  “We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.  We will not walk in fear, one of another.  We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men—not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were,  for the moment, unpopular.”  His final words were:  “The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin has caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies aboard and given considerable comfort to our enemies.  And whose fault is that?  Not really his.  He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right.  ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’”

How in the world, I wondered,  as I read again about McCarthy’s antics, did the American people put up with this stuff? How in the world, I wondered, did the presidents (Truman and Eisenhower) and the Congress tolerate and permit this con man to play his game and do such damage?  The best I can say is that it just had to have been an age of unreason.  If you do not know about McCarthy and his antics you might want to check him out.  You can find a fairly accurate account of McCarthyism online.  

My Mentor: William Barclay

William Barclay (1907-1978) is visiting with me this morning as he has done many, many times over the last 58 years!  I was 17 years old when we were first introduced.  My boyhood pastor, J. Kenneth Mart, introduced us when I wrote him about my sense of call to the  Christian ministry.  I was in the military at the time, stationed on the island of Crete.  Ken suggested I begin my education right then and there using William Barclay’s 17-volume Daily Study Bible Series.  I followed his recommendation, purchasing a volume or two at   a time until I had the complete set.  Through the years Barclay has been my constant companion and I have introduced him and his Daily Study Bible Series to many others along the way. 

Barclay was a Church of Scotland minister and Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.  He decided, as a professor, to dedicate his life “to making the best biblical scholarship available to the average reader.”  The result was the Daily Study Bible in which Barclay went verse by verse through his own translation (he was a Greek scholar) of the New Testament, listing and examining every possible interpretation, and providing all the relevant background in layman’s terms. The series is still available and if you want to know about the New Testament, I recommend you start with Barclay’s Daily Study Bible.  Barclay also wrote about 40 other books including The Mind of Jesus, Letters to the Seven Churches, and A Spiritual Autobiography.

Barclay described himself as a “liberal evangelical” and has often been criticized for some of his “modernism” by the “more religious than you are” folk.   Barclay was skeptical concerning the Trinity: for example “Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God.”  He wondered about the miracles of Jesus and the virgin birth.  He was a pacifist:  “war is mass murder.”  He believed in universal salvation:  “I am a convinced universalist.  I believe that in the end all men (people) will be gathered into the love of God.” He wrote, “We believe in evolution, the slow climb upwards of man from the level of the beasts.  Jesus is the end and climax of the evolutionary process because in Him men met God.  The danger of the Christian faith is that we set up Jesus as a kind of secondary God.  The Bible never, as it were, makes a second God of Jesus.  Rather, it stresses the utter dependence of Jesus on God.”  

Now you can understand why “the more religious than you are” folk are frustrated with my friend William.  One of these “know it all” folk writes that Barclay was a “false prophet” who had a defective view of the death of Christ, a defective view of the person and nature of Christ and that he was unscripturally tolerant of the belief and unbelief of others.  Oh, my!  Oh, my!  I cut my scriptural teeth for 58 years on Barclay’s Daily Study Bible.  He is, and will forever be, one of my most favorite visitors and one of my dearest friends, for he encouraged and helped me to love God with all my heart, with all my soul,  and with all my mind.

Dogmatism

Dogmatism has been defined as the “tendency to lay down principles (beliefs) as incontrovertibly true, without any consideration of sufficient evidence or the opinion of others.”  I’ve never wanted to be a dogmatic person.  A dogmatic person is authoritarian, inflexible, arrogant, rigid, narrow-minded, opinionated, bigoted and intolerant.  A dogmatic person  expresses his or her opinion or  belief as the only one.  Parents are often dogmatic with their children and the Christian church is noted for its dogmatism—laying down principles of behavior or beliefs as incontrovertibly true. A “dogma” is an “unchallengeable and unquestionably true” teaching, belief, conviction, ethic, or ideology laid down as authoritative (absolutely true) without adequate grounds.

Throughout history, and, it seems to me, even more so in our time, we have example after example of dogmatic beliefs in government, religion, science, ethics, and in our personal relationships.  Dogmatism essentially causes us to close our minds to other perspectives and opinions.  Irrational beliefs such as “the earth is flat” or “global warming is a hoax,” are dogmatic in nature. Such beliefs are inconsistent with empirical reality, they are illogical and persons who cling to them ignore any and all evidence that does not support their line of thinking. This rigidity in one’s thinking creates anger when alternative explanations or opinions are proffered, or when they see discrepancies between their opinion and reality. 

All of us are dogmatic in a sense.  It is important for us as human beings that we hold our particular and maybe even our peculiar opinions.  We have our own ideas, our own feelings, our own opinions and perspectives—it is part and parcel of what it means to be a person.  We call this our “subjective” side: our personal, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, biased, gut-based ideas.  We become dogmatic when we  present this subjective side of ourselves (without evidence to back it up) as being true for everyone or as the only reality.

We can never be fully human if we do not recognize another side of ourselves.  We may be subjective beings, but we are also objective and rational beings—we are meant to be thinking, rational people. Dogmatism prevents us from thinking outside our own boundaries, from using the mind we have been given, and  from seeking truth.  That’s why I don’t want to be a dogmatist.  I want to be fully human—subjective and objective, emotional and rational, and a seeker of truth no matter how evasive.

To Admit A Wrong

There is much ado, and in my opinion, rightly so, about the Trump Administration’s new policy of separating children from their immigrant parents as a means of deterring (according to Mr. Sessions) the flow of future immigrants.  It is a sad policy and its intent doesn’t seem very logical to me—and it certainly doesn’t represent our “better angels.”

In 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, made a similar boo-boo.  It was his greatest failure as president and a grave mistake.  He forced the internment of 117,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps for the duration of World War II.  It was “fear,” writes Jon Meacham, “run amok.”  The conditions in those concentration camps were despicable.  “It was a decision,” writes Meacham, “of a nation in panic, of a government that had lost its bearings, of a president who had chosen to forsake his duty to the spirit and to the letter of the Constitution.”  It was supported by the attorney general of California, supported by the majority of the Congress, and by the majority of the Supreme Court—and by a majority of American citizens. Majorities aren’t always right!

Four decades later, Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988—which authorized compensation for the detained families and an apology from the United States of America to the victims of that disaster.  It was far too late for compensation and for an apology.  “For here,” Reagan said as he signed the act, “we admit a wrong, here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.”  If you ever have opportunity, be sure to visit the Japanese American museum in San Jose, California.

We have created a myth around our American goodness and our American rightness. The myth is fallacious.  Nations are as fallible as people—and “a government of the people, by the people, for the people” cannot help but make mistakes and renege on promises of “equal justice under the law.” It took us 46 years to “admit a wrong” and to apologize to the victims of Roosevelt’s blunder.  

Are we again making decisions as a nation in fear, of a government that has lost its bearings, of a president who had chosen to forsake his duty to the spirit and to the letter of the Constitution?  Are we wrong again?  We were wrong when we closed our eyes to what was happening to the Jews in Hitler’s Germany.  We were wrong in the way we dealt with and still deal with Native Americans.  We were wrong when we ignored Jim Crow and ignored the numerous lynchings of African-Americans by whites in the early decades of the twentieth century.  We were wrong to prohibit women from voting. We have been wrong innumerable times.  Our health and future as a nation depends upon our confessing our “sin” rather than proclaiming ourselves a people “without sin.”