A Loss of Representative Democracy

There is nothing in this world that Americans are more proud of than representative democracy. It is, to be sure, something for which we are to be justly proud. True enough, it has not been perfect. At times some country here and there has moved ahead of us in some innovation; but on the whole America has believed that if it sticks by representative democracy, benefits will come. America has not looked for benefits to be given by some far off potentate or political strongman. Instead Americans have looked to ourselves and our neighbors to protect our life, our liberty, and our property. Americans are curious people because we will take the long road ’round to get what is desired rather than take a short cut through authoritarianism. We make sure as many people are on board and we do it. It is just what you would expect from a country of merchants and machinists, farmers and factory workers. The beating heart of America’s political machine is worker and producer and not the aristocrat or technocrat.

Yet, there has been a worrying trend lately that has preyed on America’s fears rather than her strengths or loves or even history. On one hand there are status quo technocrats who wish to make America look like a European country. While I do admit to loving Europe, the first thing I did when I got home from a visit there was to kiss the ground. I think most Americans are like me. I don’t have much fear about a globalist agenda taking place. Yet, the worst kind of disease is the one that finds a small fear, blows it out of proportion, and then imports its far more insidious infection through the back door. I fear, there are some who are attempting just that. I will stick with just one example, because it is an example that is played out in other areas in our government.

Ajit Pai is a lawyer and a lobbyist. He attempts to wrap himself in the mantel of a tech guy and a Republican, but he is no more either one of those things than I am. While I can only be said to have hurt a few computers and broken things I don’t understand, Pai appears to be doing this on a grander scale with the entire internet. And while my political persuasion is that of a staunch moderate and independent who votes for common sense laws that don’t morally compromise my country, Pai appears to vote for the corporations who will promise him the most comfort.

Comfort is a dangerous siren’s song. People have tried to sing the song to Americans before. People tried to sing it to us in the Revolution when we wanted representative democracy. People tried to sing it to us for the institution of slavery. People tried to sing it to us that we should only import goods and not attempt industry or manufacturing ourselves. People have tried to sing it to us to not meddle with Nazi affairs in Europe. The history of evil is written to the tune of comfort. The same is true of people and corporations as it is of nations and people. The unthinking easy way is better than the disciplined hard way, these people say. Do not look at the failed history of this tune, pay no attention to the wreckage, just trust us and everything will be okay.

Ajit Pai has been sung this song. Maybe he believes it or maybe he doesn’t. The easy thing is just to allow a centralized authority, the telecommunication monopolies, control the American internet, and therefore the world’s internet. The American people, through Republicans and Democrats, have stood up for the need to have an industry that serves their needs. Imperfectly, we have made a place for businesses to come in and lay down cables. While other countries have blazed ahead in internet speeds, Americans have felt comfortable to allow companies to shoulder this responsibility because of our unique vision for the free market. Sadly, somewhere along the line our bequeathment of the right to construct a free-market internet was used against us. The servants and beneficiaries of America’s benevolence have become overlords and masters who, because their usurped authority has not been challenged, have turned against the people who gave them what they have. The even fashion themselves innovators and benign providers of a common good, but wish to undemocratically wrest the control of that good from the American people and other corporations.

In the face of this threat, the American people have written and begged Ajit Pai and others to please not do this thing. We have asked and demanded that the government cease dolling out “most-favored business” rulings to corporations. The telecommunications companies have no more right to the internet than anyone else in this country. They had a government contract to lay down the cable, like a road crew. In fact they were given more leeway than a road crew and more input too, often times blatantly failing to adhere to their contracts and bypassing “unprofitable” Americans. They also could control speeds. It is hard to justify giving more control to an industry that has shown itself to be mostly above board, it is unconscionable to do so with an industry that has willfully and blatantly ignored its contracts. Giving power to any entity and away from the people, then lying about doing so, is un-American.

The current FCC is being governed by such an un-American ethos. The director and those like him have sought not to be public servants but to be lawyers who seek to find an excuse to allow their client (in this case the telecommunications companies) to extract more from Americans. The American people have written to the FCC and are left unheard. Legal briefs have actually been filed, but justice appears to not be on the agenda. When the people and justice are ignored, Americans should be concerned.

Secretly, without our noticing what happened, America shifted from a country that was concerned about doing its best to a country that looked to be part of a club. The current administration, which elevated Pai to his current position, has done this systematically. While pursuing actions which hurt average Americans and to which average Americans have naturally pushed back, it wraps itself in a mantle of defending against the insidious threat of globalism. Yet, it only succeeds by warning Americans who question its authority, that they will be out of their club. This is the perfect example of using fear to take away the, dare I say, rights of Americans. Refusing to listen or acknowledge that this a wildly unpopular move, an appointed official is pushing through a law that does not have the support of the people. When confronted, the administration uses the playbook of authoritarians and dictators, they denounce those speaking for the people as un-American and unpatriotic. If the people are no longer able to hold those who transgress laws accountable, do we still have justice? If the people are no longer allowed to have a say on our laws, do we still have a representative democracy?

There will always be cranks who will never give a person an honest shake. But the average American used to be able to admit that they could tell the difference. Dictators take control when they notice that people in their country are more concerned with belonging to an in-crowd than standing by justice and having a say in how their lives are run. Too often of late, we have elected a civil servant with the understanding that our group will put the screws on that other group. We become so loyal to our group that we excuse them from being public servants and looking out for our well being. Those in power see this, they see where they can make a future for themselves, and the give appointments to people who will further their career more than perform their duty.

 We must be honest with ourselves about what is happening. Ajit Pai is a non-elected official who wields power over the greatest invention of the past few years. He, and his associates, wish to turn it into their own fiefdom. It will throttle innovation, skim money from people, and further limit freedom in America. This is not a win for the free market, but rather a loss for it. And more than that, it shows that Americans are willing to put up with a loss of representative democracy so long as their clan is in power. The message it sends is chilling for all of us in this country who were brought up to love liberty.

Left Behind in the Debate of the Mass Shootings

It seems odd that anyone would have to actually write something about mass shootings. Why is this even a discussion? It should go without saying: “Don’t kill a couple dozen or more fellow human beings with military grade weaponry.” or “Please refrain creating a micro-genocide because you’re feeling undervalued as a person.” For some the answer is to arm everyone and turn America back into a wild west, while a growing number of others seem to want current gun laws enforced and new gun laws enacted. 

Now, I do genuinely believe in greater gun control. Some may chalk this up to the fact that I don’t much care for firearms myself. “If I only loved it like the members of the NRA love it,” the argument goes, “I’d never utter such a stupid response.” I love a great many things and appreciate their restrictions. I’d love being able to drive my car well over 100 mph, but I also realize that study after study shows that higher fatalities occur after a certain point on certain roads. I am willing to get a photo ID to demonstrate that I can operate a vehicle in the United States and am willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with that.

It is true that the information we have about gun violence is not perfect, but anyone objective observer will tell you that this is because those who actually monitor gun violence are not permitted to really compile the main data. The NRA clearly doesn’t want this data to be parsed out as they are the “K Street” arm of the gun manufacturers. Many people are leaving the NRA for the same reason they are leaving a great many other organizations that represent the industry at the expense of the members.

Still, many non-Republican news outlets concede that though gun restrictions do help a bit and clearly common sense laws should be enforced; they are not a panacea. This is not an either/or issue. There is a gradient and America has told itself a story so much that it is now far out of line with common sense.

Indeed we should be honest, gun restrictions will only take a person so far. The most recent shooting shows that while the person did pass a background check to buy a firearm; though any sensible person would see it was a bad bet to sell to a person who had shown a history of domestic violence, cruelty to animals, and a “discharge for bad behavior” by a branch of the armed services a gun.

But I want to talk about the deeper issue. The Republican talking point has been that it is a mental health issue. Clearly this is just a talking point, because they have stonewalled against actually doing anything that would address that issue. So let’s just say this is where we stand after this mass shooting. The Democrats are not beholden to the NRA and so are willing to listen to their base about firearm restrictions. It is a noble goal, but won’t fix the whole issue. The Republicans owe too many people too many things and so are afraid to actually even review gun fatalities or propose any legislation that would address mental health concerns. A bit may change, but giving an inch today is seen as being weak; so in the meantime, this is what we have.

Yet, behind all of this is a bigger issue that never makes the rounds: this is a moral issue. Christians believe that while you cannot legislate morality, the law can curb bad behavior. We have spoken to the curbing bad behavior and making sure people who egregiously violate the bad behavior are held accountable; but this is just plugging the dam.

Right now there is a constant stream of discussion on just who this shooter is. He is a villain. Yet, celebrity is often times just being honored in a society which has no clear definition morality. I often wonder just what would happen if police departments kept all this information to themselves? What would happen if we didn’t gawk and stare at the warped individual who decided to “go out in a blaze of glory”? What if our opprobrium were truly genuine and we denounced these people in no uncertain terms? This is not hushing things up or sweeping things under the table. Go through your television shows and see how many “reality television shows” are just scripted “people behaving like animals.” Think of the excuses we make for that singer or political commentator or thespian we happen to enjoy. Until violence ceases to be glorified in our culture, we are going to continue to have mass shootings. We can limit them by better mental health or better documentation about firearms purchases; but only when these people have some sort of non-celebrity-oriented moral code will we see any real change as a society.

To date, the institutions in our society aren’t really doing much to address this issue. Violence sells, morality is difficult, telling people they have issues is uncomfortable. Yet, until our society does the hard thing of embracing a morality that does not honor death and ignoring “fame for fame’s sake,” it is obvious that these things will happen over and again. Shame the violent and shun those who practice wholesale evil. Finally, realize that the same evil they have done could be done by you. We have all missed the mark; and there is always the danger we could look to emulate those who have given into the darkness.

Just who are the Lutherans?

For many of us, it has been the best of times and the worst of times to be a Lutheran. In the fall of this year, we will be celebrating the 500th anniversary of Reformation Day. This is the day, when Luther supposedly nailed the 95 theses to the doors of the Wittenberg Church, thus precipitating a chain reaction that would inevitably lead to the Protestant movement. Lutherans usually don’t get any attention, and for the most part we like it like that. We aren’t like our swashbuckling friends: the Calvinists, or our “center of the universe” buddies: the Roman Catholics, or even our “can’t we all just get along” colleagues in the Methodist Church. Lutherans like to just get the job done. Most of them have a good grasp on handiwork (my dad and I are exceptions that rule), prefer to show compassion not in sermons or bombastic good works but in casseroles, and don’t mind being the largest Protestant Denomination you’ve probably never met anyone attending.
Yet, this has a limit. For one thing, when Lutherans do enter a fray; they usually dominate it. Lutherans started everything from pietism and the Welhausen Hypothesis. It isn’t just Christianity where we shine, Lutherans have been at the cutting edge of philosophy, public policy, and even rocket science. The simple fact is that the grunt work of advancing humanity has been done, in large part, by Lutherans doing there thing. Of course there is a difference between acknowledging that a group of people just likes getting the work done and not getting the limelight for it, and misrepresenting that group and why they do what they do. Yet, that is exactly what we are seeing this year. When this happens, well, one should expect that Lutherans are going to have to do what we do best: explain reality.
You see most people don’t know what Lutherans actually believe and so rather than ask a Lutheran, they just sort of project onto them their own theologies and beliefs. At the Wesleyan seminary I attended, my Lutheranism was compartmentalized as being either Wesleyan or Calvinist. Trying to explain to people that we had been at the theology game longer (and better) than these two only registered blank stares and further pigeonholing into the Calvinist/Wesleyan dichotomy.
Yet, as bad as Wesleyans can be, no one misses the point more than Evangelicals … I mean what we think of as American Evangelicals. The original Evangelical name was, you guessed it, Lutheran. Whether it is Eric Metaxas’ substandard biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or an animated video of “Protestants” starting with Luther, but not containing any other Lutherans besides him; the so-called Calvinists in America seem to believe that after Luther, the Calvinists came along as if Luther were some half-formed proto-Calvinist and the current Calvinists are the next step in the Evangelical Evolution. (There’s something you won’t read everyday.)
This was especially galling when reading Christianity Today. Now, I have to be honest, I really like most of what Christianity Today does. I subscribe and share and generally get a lot of out it. I know they were trying to be nice and show, in their own way, how much they appreciate Luther. But subconsciously they really miss the mark. In fact, I think subconsciously, they are kind of afraid of Lutherans. Just think if Lutherans ever rose up and got it in their head to take back the name we had taken on back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the Evangelicals in America would have to find another name (Fundamentalists anyone?). So there is a, subconscious, mind you, desire to pretend that nothing ever happened in Lutheranism after Martin Luther. This is done in three ways. Either the person is ignored (see Philip Jacob Spener, Martin Chemnitz, Gerhard Forde, or just about any other Lutheran) or that person’s character is destroyed (see Philip Melancthon) or the person is coopted (Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the perfect example of this). This is a very simplistic (and dare I say, Calvinistic) way of doing theology because it allows one to streamline their beliefs and not deal with the nuances.
But nuances are where Lutherans excel. While at seminary, I was struggling with the notion of “free will.” It was a Calvinist who got me to cross certain hurtles and see what the Lutheran position was. Another time I had a Baptist preacher introduce me to the books of a Presbyterian minister who was fond of citing Lutheran thinkers. Lutherans are not the dominant members of this culture and thus are forced to take nuanced positions on every issue or risk selling out to some other belief system.
This is made far more difficult when one takes into account just how hard it is to find things of a Lutheran viewpoint. Catholics and Methodists and Calvinists churn out so many works by authors in their point of view, that it can be difficult to find a Lutheran book. Last night, I was reading an article in Christianity Today where a Bible Scholar from TEDS (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) was listing his favorite books from the past year. He listed a book on Luther that had recently been released by R.C. Sproul and Stephen Nichols. The book features many authors explaining Luther’s life and contributions. Yet only one of those authors was Lutheran. Now we can argue back and forth about the audience and intended theology of the book, but my problem is this. The book is published by a group called “Reformation Trust” and yet seems to box out an entire group of reformers. It is as if someone stole my identity and told me I should be grateful for the publicity they were giving me.
Yet this is not just limited to Calvinists and Catholics, but extends into the secular culture. The magazine “The Economist” is usually pretty good at its news, until it starts talking about religious news. At which point it exhibits the worst characteristics of its Englishness. In an article they attempt to psychoanalyze all of their disdain for Germany by tracing it back to Luther. Any Lutheran with a passing knowledge of the Reformation and Lutheran theology could pick it apart in no time. From their insistence that Luther believed we should have sort of Wesleyan notion of sanctification and how this led to austerity in German churches (it didn’t) and central European outlook (that was John Calvin’s influence through the Kingdom of Prussia) to the notion that Luther’s views led to servility to the state to stating that his racism led to naziism* (anti-semitism was round long before Luther). Missing from the piece were civic documents given by Luther, the kernel of the separation church and state found in his works on the two kingdoms, and references to the Book of Concord. I suppose we can just chalk this up to typical English xenophobia though.
So what is a Lutheran supposed to do? Well, I hope to kick off series of pieces about what Lutherans believe (or at least what this Lutheran believes). I welcome my Lutheran friends to contact me if they have any ideas. I will try and keep these things short and sweet. But I believe there is no better time for Lutherans to declare their Lutheran difference. America has become polarized and most people have moved decisively into certain camps, but perhaps this is the invitation that Lutherans need. There is a job that needs to get done, and after looking around, I guess we are the ones who are going to have to get it done. Again.

*A standard story repeated enough to be considered true. Luther’s anti-semitism could be found all over Europe so the question is whether it is a chicken or the egg? Did Luther’s anti-semitism infect Germany or did German anti-semitism infect Luther. While the answer is far more complex than that, it is obvious that Luther’s citations were used by Nazis. All Lutherans, regardless about how you feel about Luther, should apologize and work (as German leaders have since) in manifesting contrition through right action towards all Jewish people.