Handguns and Slingshots

 

I finally got a gun.

 Every so often I’ll think about getting a handgun for home defense and target practice, even rush hour traffic. This year I said yes. Mostly I waver about spending the money and time required to hit the range and practice. Ammo isn’t exactly cheap and then there are the range fees. I don’t know how much range fees are but I’ll soon find out. This is a new world in a sense. Gun culture is very strong here in Oklahoma; most people I know own at least one gun. Some only have a hunting rifle but it’s still a proud family heirloom passed from father to son. Others are a little, lets say "enthusiastic" about collecting. I knew a few in the Army like this. It's also a culture thing to some degree. Those who live in the country and use rifles, shotguns and all types of handguns are just more comfortable around them.  

I joke about buying a gun because I’m sick and tired of slow drivers in the left lane. But there are some people I worry about with road rage and daily slights. Some take offense very easy and threaten violence with guns. There was a road rage incident about a year ago in town. I don’t know the details but traffic was the catalyst. One person lost their life because the other had a gun. I don’t imagine I’d get that upset but who knows?

If I had to trace my reluctance to buy one it might start there. Also, I wasn’t raised in a gun family. Both my parents were against having one in the house because of accidents. Accidental deaths attributed to firearms are probably everyone’s worse fear, but also not a common occurrence. Does it happen? Of course. Are the numbers as high as kids accidentally drowning in swimming pools? Not even close. A gun is a weapon and as such should be treated like one—especially with 5 brothers. We managed to knock out my brother’s top 2 teeth with a slingshot and a rock. My grandfather brought home these very genteel looking slingshots from Israel. You know, go to a foreign land and get the kiddos a souvenir. My grandfather is a wonderful man but didn’t raise boys. He probably thought we would put them in a box with a nice label on it, LOL. "From the Holy Land" Ah yes, what might have been.

 Naturally with the kind of authentic slingshot that David used to kill the Philistine there’s only one thing to do--recreate the event with leaving no small detail to chance. Anything else would be unacceptable, a dereliction of duty.

Phillip insisted on being David, the plucky hero. Justin had to be the giant Goliath, even back then there were jobs Americans didn’t want. He protested but someone had to do it. I was "directing" the play so that only left him. Besides we gave him a garbage can lid to use for a shield, what could go wrong? We had already practiced whipping rocks at an actual barn door and missed every time. Every heard the phrase "You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn?" Well we couldn't. Anyone could see the danger was just infinitesimal. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to use the old school slingshot with the pouch and ropes? It’s tough to be accurate. But our Goliath had a shield, just like the real big guy from 1 Samuel. True to the story it took Phil one rock. Just like David he wound up and fired at the mouthy brat. I wondered years later if Phil just pretended to miss the barn all those times and secretly hustle Justin into accepting the role. He bided his time and released, carefully and with malice.

Justin for his part played it like a champ. He always was a good actor. He dropped to his knees screaming as blood spurted from his mouth. His little bloodied hand grasping a tooth, an unwelcome reminder of his 3rd child status. What a performance though, genius!

 It was then our recreation started to look like a bad idea. I rushed inside to get my mom and do something with this screaming kid. I can’t be sure of the exact moment when both parents thought having a gun in the house was a bad idea. That one probably ranks high though.

I like to think I’m a little safer now. Armed, but not dangerous.

The Prepared Soul

 

I remember a great scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Indy fights with a Turkish man named Kazim, from a secret order designed to keep the Holy Grail safely in place. The fictional order is called the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword. They’re Christian Orthodox and look to me like cross between 1920s gangsters and your local Shriners' official. It’s an appropriate reference given their cult like dedication to preserving the relic.

Jones and Kazim are on a wooden boat and about to be chopped into bits by the propeller from a larger vessel. Dr. Jones threatens to kill Kazim unless he tells him where his missing father is. He refuses to answer and Jones reminds him “we’ll both die”. Kazim responds “My soul is prepared, how is your’s?”

 The line has always stuck with me. He doesn’t say “I’m ready” or “My soul is ready” he says “prepared”. The word fits too. It implies a lengthy, committed process to becoming a specific person. You say “ready” when you play hide and seek as kids. You take a few seconds to select a spot and cross your fingers, hoping they’ll walk right past your cover. But when you prepare for anything in life, you organize and select and plan. Readiness is a state of mind but preparation is deliberate.

The Heavenly Father doesn’t make our place ready, He prepares it. “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, so that where I am you may be also.” (John 14:3) CSB

When Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps prepares for competition he arranges his diet, exercise routine, sleep schedule and practices years in advance. I saw a special on him after the Beijing Olympics (maybe 60 Minutes?). His dedication to excellence is impressive but it doesn’t come naturally. You get the feeling by listening to him that he doesn’t want to work this hard. His forced preparation is the difference though. He even sleeps in a hyperbaric chamber to speed up recovery. Elite athletes do the extra work, day in and day out. From the mental toughness to the diet and exercise, being an Olympic athlete is a lifestyle of preparation.  

Kazim doesn’t hesitate when facing certain death. Instead he bravely throws the pressure back to Jones. When faced with unyielding dedication to cause, what’s a man to do? Indiana Jones hustles the man off the boat roughly and onto a passing one before the vessel is completely destroyed. After the close call on the boat, Kazim explains his purpose and dedication to cause. There is a lesson there for Christians today. Commitment flows from preparation. He is a disciple (essentially) whose life is committed to protecting something 'sacred' and larger than himself.

The thing itself, the grail, is only an inanimate object. It’s an artifact of a time that holds no significance other than its relation to Christ.

If you study history from the Resurrection through the late Roman Empire you learn how artifacts became currency. It’s really idolatry of sorts and churches participated too. Certainly fakes existed, ‘holy’ objects thought to offer the owner of the piece a measure of security in the magic relic. The seller of a cup or chair, supposedly owned by Saint Peter, need not describe its powers. Just being near the ‘sacred’ piece was thought to be enough. The Donovan character in the movie represents one of these collectors, believing that some mystical powers inhibit the grail. He chooses . . . ahem, poorly.

Given all the known relic chasing from the Middle Ages, Kazim and his order are out of place in the 1930s. His preparation of the soul stands in stark relief to the surrounding culture seeking treasure and losing their own.  But where the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword protects relics we seek relationship.

As believers in Christ we prepare for struggle in life, but knowing that our Savior lives makes our commitment hopeful. We don’t protect the past, we prepare for the future. Ours is not an exclusive order it’s an expansive family dedicated to sharing knowledge of the King.

And so it should be for the church and Christians-the commitment to spreading the gospel. Our souls prepared, for we know what awaits.    

Court Jesters

 

Right after my last blog post the Supreme Court shot Texas down.

I argued that the court would likely take a look and make those wayward states (Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) pay. Of course that didn’t happen. It’s why I try not to make specific predictions. The court’s refusal to even hear it made me realize what I already knew about lower courts, they don’t want anything to do with deciding elections. The Supreme Court wrote that Texas didn’t show a “cognizable interest” in how other states run their affairs. Which I guess means “Mind you own business and let cities get back to running scams and defrauding the rubes in the rest of the state”. Or at least that’s my reading of it. There was an issue of standing as well, Texas didn't have any.

 I was pretty upset about yet another setback for bringing this case to court and making these states pay for bypassing their own rules. But it’s probably better if election matters are handled in congress and not the courts. Conservatives don’t like ‘activist’ judges and if Americans keep pushing all matters of legislation to the courts we lose. We lose, because the race to put partisans in place at every bench opening will look like fantasy football-get wins or get lost. After a few decades they won’t bother interpreting the law, they’ll just figure out which side is the ‘home’ team and vote likewise.

Cynics might argue we’ve been there for years (I wonder myself). But it could get much worse without attempts to curtail the number of issues they rule on. At least in theory the Roberts court is more conservative in that way. When they aren’t though (Obamacare/ Obergefell) it seems SCOTUS manages all sorts of language to justify their ruling. Justice Roberts famously helped the Obama team by calling the penalty for not carrying insurance a tax. Penalties were illegal, taxes were not. It turned an illegal law into a legal one with a flourish that only a pompous judge can manage.

 During the Obergefell v Hodges (the same-sex marriage one) opinion Justice Kennedy stated “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” Express their identity? What nonsense. Identity is not a legal term. It’s barely a concrete one. I didn’t even mention the more poetic stuff where he talks about “devotion” and “commitment”. This is not the language of an opinion or a dissent. Yet with a 5-4 majority vote the Supreme Court changed the plain meaning of the Constitution to pretend it always had same-sex unions in mind.

So spare me the argument that Texas doesn’t have standing. Anyone who the court wants to have standing can have it with some legal bullshit phrasing. But just the same, I get why they passed on it. I just wish they were consistent. If you think this court is bad try to imagine one with 6 Democrat appointed judges.

It reflects the larger problem of disenfranchisement. If big cities like Philadelphia and Detroit and Atlanta will use their party machines to manufacture votes for the Dem candidate then what’s to be done? Republicans won’t also cheat just to even the score, not on a party scale anyway. If these states get away with this we are in for a new day of lawlessness and corruption. What do you tell those who think their vote doesn’t count because it will get overwhelmed by ballots in trunks of cars that show up at 4:00 in the morning? If enough people believe the system is corrupted and that no legal recourse exists, where to from here?

We aren’t there yet. Believe it or not the Trump administration still has a few cards but no aces. I don’t think this election gets fixed in the courts and that’s probably a good thing. We might get a situation where governors refuse to certify electors, or congress refuses to accept the votes of electors. Or some states’ electors abstain from voting. This is why you don’t quit though. I’ve heard others say the longer the process goes the more it favors Trump. We have to pray too, that a lot of this fraud will be exposed to the point where the legacy media can’t ignore it.  

 

SCOTUS or Bust

 

I watched Steven Crowder yesterday. 

He had the Texas Attorney General Paxton on to explain the case that 18 states have signed on to. It’s not a terribly complex idea. Your state ruined my vote. I’m sure the legalese we will be subjected to will eventually confuse the hell out of me. But that’s the deal with legislation anyway, it seems designed to turn ordinary people off by using words we no one really uses. Like the Amicus (friend of the court) brief a lot of the states signed on to. Paxton said it just means those states can offer support, but that they aren’t a 'party' in the case. But Texas wants them to be an official party so why the discrepancy? Maybe it's less messy and the states in question can always become a party in the future.

 In a nutshell the case goes like this. Texas argues that because other states( Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia) didn’t follow their own rules on election laws, it affected the national votes of the citizens of Texas. This is how it was explained by Paxton and in a number of summaries I’ve read or listened to. The solution to the mess of fraudulent voting machines, mail in ballots and not separating ‘past deadline’ from ‘under deadline’ might be this--ignore it and show how they abused their own process instead. 

As we’ve seen in all 4 states the testimonies from poll workers almost makes the problem worse. It adds another layer to investigate.  Proving fraud in a neat legal way seems insurmountable.

Federal judges threw out the cases from Trump’s team and Sidney Powell’s team because they didn’t want to open Pandora’s box. Well… that and they’re partisan hacks. Or they’re decent judges who lack the will to really get messy with this. In either case, fraud is easy to prove. Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis already have a full slate of regular people on willing to go under oath and swear to the brazen maleficence. The Texas case doesn’t try to prove fraud even though plenty exists. It only shows how illegalities from governors and judges to change election laws without going through the proper channels, affected the national votes of Texans.

If the Supreme Court takes the case it’s a win right? I don’t pretend to be a legal expert (or even someone with a casual interest) but this seems like a winner. The logic is clean, your illegalities affected my vote. The same way that adding a little bleach to drinking water destroys it. The question for me is how does SCOTUS rule? If Texas is awarded a win, what happens to the votes or electors from the states that ignored their election rules? Are the votes of the citizens thrown out? Do they get a redo? I can’t see them awarding those votes to Trump. If the ballots can’t be sufficiently verified does the state forfeit all its electoral votes? SCOTUS under Roberts mostly takes a limited role in deciding big picture cases. The obvious non-example is the Obamacare mandate clause that he rewrote as a tax. Thanks for nothing Bob!

Otherwise they’ve taken a do no harm approach. I like the idea of kicking decisions back to the lower courts and supporting or rejecting cases based on technicalities. We might be in newish territory here. The last thing we want is a court that starts writing new laws or finding new language is old texts. Texas can’t be the first state to sue other states but with an election hanging in the balance the potential for a monumental decision is imminent. 

Of course they could always reject the whole thing and Trump could hope for better luck in the lower courts. So far though it’s been one defeat after another and I don’t see anyone but the Supreme Court sticking its neck out. Texas has nowhere else to go with their case. There is no lower court that adjudicates state to state disputes. It’s SCOTUS or bust.

Royal Pains: The Crown Season 4

 

I've been watching season 4 of the Crown on Netflix. I wanted to write about Thatcher because I think she is a more interesting person. She's an irritation in the show however and her droning voice makes me queasy. She is too wooden (in the show) and put off by most things related to the monarchy. I know she was tough in real life and made enemies. But her legacy is in cutting inflation and creating opportunities for home ownership. The economic boom came did happen after some slow years and union busting. I think this could have been shown more. Instead we get the sense that Thatcher doesn't care that people are out of work. She'd rather start a small war in the Falklands than have to help her own citizens.

The show is called The Crown though and so the royals get the most press.

Charles and Diana are already done by the late 80’s. They didn’t actually divorce until 1996 but it feels like a mess in the first year. If there is any truth to the characters in the story, and that’s asking a lot, neither come off very well. At first I thought they’d show Charles as a pompous, awkward ass and Diana as a put-upon mother just trying to survive. Thankfully it’s a lot more complicated than that. Charles is incredibly vain and insecure. He thinks of himself and his home, his happiness and his image in the Commonwealth above everything. Diana is also vain but slightly more sympathetic because of her young age and approachability. I don’t actually know if she was approachable but she pulls it off well in the Australia episode. The Australia-New Zealand trip was their first official visit as a couple. The excursion was apparently a smashing success for Diana, less so for Charles who just looks out-of-sorts and constantly moody.

 Diana refuses to put her newborn son up with a midwife and parade around the country waving at crowds and giving speeches. She insists on being with her baby in a secluded place. That endeared her to a lot of people because they understood the difficulty in leaving a baby for 6 weeks. She seemed like a loving, caring mother—not like a royal.

But she loves the adulation a little too much and her newfound celebrity turns her into the central character in her struggling marriage. That isn’t how it’s supposed to work. You don’t upstage a Windsor. It all goes south after their Australia trip but there is an overwhelming sense that these two just don’t work together. It’s more than age or status. They’re just different people with different interests and different goals. Charles wants his mistress (Camila Bowles) but can’t marry her because she is married to someone else. Even if he could, she wouldn’t leave her marriage easily and the Crown wouldn’t support it. But of course it does eventually happen and the Crown, reluctantly supports it.

Diana does some daft things to “prove” how much she loves Charles. She does a dance number at a local opera on his birthday. Charles is mortified. She then enlists a private orchestra and sings some musical numbers for him. He is mortified again.

These aren’t objects of affection for her man; they’re little bits of drama where she gets to play the star. But she acts hurt when he is understandably reviled at her lack of tact. That she didn’t her little performances for what they were proves how selfish she became, matching Charles in the adulation department. Especially when Charles has never expressed any interest in her singing, dancing or theater performances.

Diana was a young impressionable girl in the first episode who probably though marrying a royal was glamorous and exciting. But the dull ceremonial stuff eventually gets in the way and when you’re married to a lump like Charles, it’s splitsville for sure. I think this is likely what happened to her son Harry and his wife Meghan. She thought royalty meant parties with celebrities and fame. Instead it meant ceremonial duties and charities, putting the monarchy first at all costs. She was never cut out for it and I don’t think Harry is either.

There is great scene in the last episode where Prince Philip (Charles father) corners Diana at the Christmas party. The marriage is a shambles and everyone in the family knows it. He recounts his history with the queen and how difficult it was to take a lower position to her. His ego took a hit and they nearly separated a few times. Of course his extramarital affairs contributed quite a lot to it. But they figured out how to manage so the monarchy could survive and the queen maintained her role as central figure. He is really telling Diana that the maintenance of the Crown is the only thing that matters and she needs to realize it. In other words, you have your position, fame and connections because of it. He’s hoping that Charles and Diana can come to an arrangement and carry on, grow up a bit. Instinctively they know that royal divorces make the family look bad and might frustrate attempts from the public to keep supporting them.

With any of these true life stories you have to wonder how much is “true” and how much is fiction. The large events are certainly true, in both the lives of the royal family and the prime minister. But it’s impossible to tell a person’s life in movie form over the course of a season. It’s unfair by definition. So criticism of characters, stories and personalities are baked in with shows like this.

 I think it’s the best thing on Netflix right now.

King David's Heart of Desperation

 

Psalm 103

King David’s desperation for God is seen throughout the Psalms. We can learn from his complete reliance on the scripture for truth about Who God is and why our relationship grows in dependence on Him.

“Bless the Lord Oh my soul, and forget not all His benefits; Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases, Who redeems your life from destruction, Who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies” (verse 2-4)

 It goes on because David relies solely on God as His strength. He doesn’t have a lot of people around him teaching him how to hear from God. There are certainly some like Nathan who correct him during his affair and subsequent murder, but nothing close to a group of intercessors exist. It’s why so often he calls God his “rock”, “shelter” and “strong tower”. These are words of dependence and consistency. Any ruler will carry a heavy burden of pressure and responsibility-doubly so when that ruler turns to heaven for answers.

 The Psalms are full of the king begging for justice from his oppressors, safety in storms, comfort from betrayal. We are fortunate today to have such rich teaching in the Word that we’ve probably lost a little of the David-esque dependence on the heavenly Father.

No question I’d rather have a rich tradition of worship and teaching and support. It fills the gap for those outside the faith. The simple gospel is a bridge to life and freedom. But we do rely on the external “benefits” of God's goodness to the point of weakness. We’ve forgotten how to hear from the Heavenly Father in a one on one relationship. We aren’t desperate the way the psalmist is. We aren’t needy for God’s immediate protection.

 I recently had the Corona virus and had to take a few weeks off. I spent a lot of that time in prayer for healing. But I won’t pretend I was desperate in the way that a dying man is desperate. I was a lot sicker than I imagined I’d be too. But even then I knew that I’d recover. The statistics for nearly everyone are around 98% or better to live, higher for the young.

I put my faith in the extreme unlikelihood that I’d need to go to the hospital or even need a ventilator. I’m not saying we need to be dying of a terrible illness to be desperate for God. Modern medicine is a gift. But few of us are in a position of deep reliance on God the way that David was. He lived there. He went to his Father for everything. It’s why he could list the benefits the way we list our family members and their kids. It was a source of strength and pride because he fought for it. He saw God’s mercy in his trials.  

“As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us. As a father pities his children, so the Lord pities those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust. (verse 12-14)

We don’t fear the Lord and so aren’t dependent on Him for strength, comfort, justice, healing. The fear of the Lord is a profound reverence and not a “fear” in the way a young child is afraid of the dark. It’s a core understanding that a just creator designed the world around us with boundaries. We are created in His image. That image comes with a built in recognition of who and what we are. Our software (if you will) contains code from our designer, Whose imprint is recognized by all living creatures. Our purpose is to reflect the design of our creator in what we accomplish and how we behave. If we ignore the design or try to replace it we tell lies to the next generation. We throw off restraint so much easier when we ignore what nature screams at us about Creation. 

We put up with the destructive notion that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Just flip a switch, change the code. A wicked attempt to undermine God’s creation has hardly been conceived. It’s a direct threat to our kids and it needs to be resisted with boldness, not genteel discussions and compromises. It’s one example in a culture of many.

We need to find our desperation again. We need to seek the Lord and reset the imbalance in our lives. Let’s become like King David and beg justice for the innocent, comfort for the broken and restoration for the lost.  

“For as the heavens are high above the earth so great is His mercy towards those who fear Him…”( verse 11)