An Inkling of Political Wisdom from C. S. Lewis

In recent years, I have become increasingly frustrated with the narratives and rhetoric utilized by politicians in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Neither group appears to offer anything more than simplistic and shallow answers to many deep and far-reaching problems affecting our nation and our world. The permanent bureaucratic mess in Washington, D.C., has turned the American government from the role of the peoples' servant into what Margaret Thatcher termed "the Nanny State." Politicians are less interested in protecting our lives, liberty, and our right to pursue our own happiness. Instead, they are more interested in being self-appointed experts who tell us how to live our lives, tell us what is the limit of our liberty, and then give us whatever they think will make us happy (at least until the next election...).

In the late 1950's, C. S. Lewis wrote a political article entitled "Is Progress Possible?" Originally published in the British periodical The Observer, it has been reprinted in God in the Dock, a collection of over forty of Lewis' essays. In this particular essay, Lewis offers a salutary critique of a great deal of modern political thinking, and it is just as relevant today as it was over fifty years ago.

Especially since the 1970's, the Republicans have displayed their gruesome tendency to placate sincere and pious Christians in order to gain political power. Some of these people may be motivated with the best intentions, but it is difficult to hide the unintended results: the Christian Right has become just one more "special interest group" which narrowly focuses on single issues like abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools, and which (like all other special interest groups) is often willing to sell its soul in order to gain treats from government. To this group, Lewis sternly warns against any kind of theocratic approach to politics:

"I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord', it lies, and lies dangerously."

On the other hand, American Democrats have for the past eighty years displayed a shrewd fascination with continually expanding the powers of a bureaucratic Welfare State. Their idea is that every supposed ill of society must immediately be nationalized and bureaucratized if it is to be solved effectively, and anyone who disagrees with this approach is labeled as hateful and uncompassionate. This goes for everything from LBJ's "War on Poverty" to Obamacare. To this crowd, Lewis argues that putting such unquestioned faith in the Federal Government will inevitably lead to tyranny:

"The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good - anyway, to do something to us or make us something....We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your ownbusiness.' Our whole lives are their business."

Before casting their votes in this upcoming election, I urge everyone (especially Christians) to read "Is Progress Possible?" Citizens need to go into the voting booths armed with more than rhetoric, attack ads, and emotions. We need to vote based on a coherent philosophy of government, and the role that it ought to play in the lives of individuals. Particularly, Christians ought to examine whether their own political philosophy is truly based on government's legitimate functions, or is it yet another example of our own penchant to put unquestioning trust in the idol of government rather than in the God who created and redeemed us.

Screwtape Remixed

Hey readers (if any of you are left!).
After a two year hiatus, I decided to get back into the blogosphere!
Much has happened in my life since I last posted here:

• God called my incredible father, George J. Kahl, home to heaven. I was so blessed to be there with my whole family, and I had the added privilege of "serenading" my dad into God's presence. As I was playing Amazing Grace on the piano, and as my mom was holding his hand, he left us to join His Savior, Jesus Christ. You will be missed by many, Dad!



• I finished the process for Ordination to Word and Sacrament in the Evangelical Covenant Church. A long process, but full of many blessings as I have met many fantastic mentors and colleagues who have encouraged me on this journey.



• On July 31, 2011, my wife Cherith gave birth to our son, Cyrus Shepard Kahl. (Notice the initials...C. S.!) Cyrus has been such a blessing to my life, and I have come to understand the heart of Our Heavenly Father by being privileged to father Cyrus. He has brought us both so much joy. Perhaps in a future blog post, I'll share with you all the many influences behind his name!

So that brings us up to date, at least in the major things.
As for my initial post, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current state of American culture, specifically in light of the upcoming elections and the major confusion over economic, social, and religious issues. I often ask myself the question: What can be done? Involvement in politics at times seems so futile...especially when you consider that most of our problems do not stem from politics but from intellectual and spiritual reality.

Today I was on YouTube and found this incredible lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College and a major fan of the Inklings. His lecture is modelled on C. S. Lewis' classic The Screwtape Letters, but its content is updated for a 21st Century audience. Although he is speaking out of his own Roman Catholic background to an audience of like-minded Catholics, I think his basic points have a broad ecumenical relevance. The lecture is over 45 minutes, but well worth the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm08x8YiuXk

C. S. Lewis on President Obama and the Congressional Democrats:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Blessed Are the "Peace-talkers?"

President Barack Obama has been rewarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, the deadline for nominations for the prize was February 1, less than two weeks after Obama took the Oath of Office. Before becoming President, Obama's major accomplishments were serving as a "community organizer" alongside corrupt Chicago politicians, voting "present" for a majority of Senate roll calls, and authoring two memoirs glorifying his own personal history and experience.

So apparently in less than two weeks as an actual national leader, "somebody" felt he had accomplished enough to merit being placed alongside the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa. (On the other hand, more recent Nobel Peace Prize winners include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter; apparently their standards have gone down considerably in recent years.)

Here is the reasoning behind the decision to award Obama:

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'" - KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers

Translation: "We do not recognize that Obama has achieved anything for the cause of peace. But, he himself is a 'symbol for peace' and he talks about peace an awful lot. By the way, we endorse his politics (and you can shove that up your you-know-what, George W. Bush!)."

If being a symbol of peace, and talking about peace an awful lot, and "capturing the world's attention" is enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize, why not give it to actor Ben Kingsley for his riveting portrayal of Gandhi? Or better yet, why not give it to David Letterman, who finally humbled himself enough to apologize to (and thereby make peace with) Sarah Palin?

Only history can judge if Obama's national and international political tactics will achieve a lasting peace. People are simply unable to view their own times objectively, and they are not able to fully grasp all the consequences of their ideas, decisions and actions. Simply speaking the language of peace means, in the long run, very little.

For example, in the 1930's, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain adhered to an international politics similar to Obama's - to meet hostile forces without preconditions, to apologize for his own nation's actions, and to seek compromise or agreement wherever possible. None of this did anything to deter the aggression of Nazi Germany or prevent World War II. Can we honestly call Chamberlain a "peace-maker?"

On the other hand, the 70-year-long Cold War was effectively ended, at least in part, due to three individuals: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. All three of them took a hard line stance against Soviet Communism, refused to apologize at all for their own positions, and (in the case of Reagan and Thatcher) strengthened their countries militarily in order to go to war if necessary. The result? The Communist bully backed down, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall was dismantled, and Western ideas such as freedom, justice, and Christianity are now openly proclaimed among the former Soviet peoples.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peace makers" - i.e., people whose concrete actions (of whatever sort) actually bring about peace in the world. (And as he said somewhere else, "The tree is known by its fruit" - i.e., not by its good intentions.)

On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah criticizes people who "dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace."

And the Apostle Paul warns, "While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."

All due respect to the Office of the President...but in my humble opinion, Barack Obama most certainly does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and his receiving it is an insult to all true peace-makers.

Then again, maybe I'm making too much of nothing. After all, past nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and yes, even Adolf Hitler. Maybe it's not the honor everybody thinks it is.

A Conservative Alternative

Earlier today I read an article written by Governor Bobby Jindal (R - Louisiana), which was published in The Washington Post. The article can be found in full here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003_pf.html

I have been praying that the Republicans would cease their usual method of merely attacking the Democrats' health care reform agenda (ala Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc...) or their equally odious method of kowtowing to the Democrats on all fundamental issues (ala John McCain and many, many others), and instead offer a rational, constructive vision for health care reform based on consistent conservative principles.

This article by Jindal is the first I've seen that seems a true answer to my prayers. It is intelligent and clearly outlined, and seems to be based on a desire to address the real concerns of the American people (rather than a discredited ideology and dubious special interest groups, as the Liberals' plan does). I realize this is just an outline, and I'm not saying I agree with every word of it, but it is nice to see this kind of proactiveness coming from the Right these days.

Many early analysis shows Jindal to be a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2012 Presidential election. I have seen him on TV only a few times, and I don't know his position on all issues facing our nation. But I intend to watch him with great interest in the future.

A Political Re-Run

Today, in light of recent news in the American political scene, here is a "re-run" of a post that originally "aired" on January 5, 2008...a few days after the Iowa caucuses of the '08 Presidential Campaign. The Republican winner of those caucuses was Gov. Mike Huckabee, and the Democratic winner was then-Senator B. Hussein Obama. I specifically ask that, in light of the Democrats' insane attempts to literally force their health-care legislation on a skeptical American public, that you read the last two paragraphs. But definitely peruse the whole article, and memorize the second quote from G. K. Chesterton!





The other night, my wife Cherith and I were watching the results of the Iowa caucus. As usual, there were roaring crowds, enthusiastic candidates, and media pundits ready with their fast analysis of the results (which usually changes from day to day).

Obama, the Democratic victor, gave what was by far the most inspiring speech, focusing on the historic moment of the first African-American to win a presidential caucus/primary, and on the hope that he will bring as a candidate of change (although change to what, I haven't yet gotten from him).

The speech that caught my attention was Huckabee's, the Republican winner who seems to be championed by many Evangelical Christians. Certainly more "folksy" and less polished than Obama's, he made reference to a quote by G. K. Chesterton...one of my favorite writers and a major influence on all of the Inklings.

The quote was: "A true warrior fights not because he hates those in front of him, but because he loves those behind him." A great quote, which Huckabee proceeded to take totally out of context and misapply to his point.

However, Huckabee's use of Chesterton in a political speech made me think of another quote from Chesterton in his book, The Everlasting Man: "A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep."

A despotism is a tired democracy. What a statement.

I look around the US, and in many respects, a tired democracy is exactly what I see, even among faithful Christians.

I see religious conservatives wanting government to legislate their moral principles and allow Christian orthodoxy to intrude into the public sphere...rather than doing the hard task of building relationships, loving, evangelizing, and discipling those who are lost.

I see liberal-thinking Christians wanting government to demonstrate the compassion and justice of Scripture through government entitlement programs and universal health care, all the while using most of their budgets on congregational programs and structures that are often more culture-bound than biblically mandated.

I see the majority of Americans believing that government owes them something beyond being a source of impartial law, an enforcer of contracts among people, and a protector from criminals and foreign enemies...which was implicitly the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Government has gotten so large and has taken on so many functions, we would hardly recognize the very frugal and simple government that existed for the first 100 years of our nation. Ironically, when our national government was small and had limited functions, it was then that our local communities were strong and vibrant, because those local communities were empowered to do things for themselves rather than immediately relying on Washington, D.C.

Is America slowly on the road to becoming a despotism? Are American citizens really more interested in being "cared for" by the government, rather than trusting in God and relying on their own ingenuity and the willing generosity of family, friends, and churches in their communities? Is it even possible to return to the vision of a national government so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson: "...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"? Or has government become yet another idol in which we choose to put our unquestioning faith?

In conclusion, a brief lesson of history: In 1933, Adolf Hitler, perhaps the greatest despot of the 20th century, was elected into office. He did not seize power; it was given to him by the people of Germany, and as he usurped more and more authority while silencing his critics, the majority of Germans (including the church) chose to do nothing.

I pray to God that never happens here, but something tells me He might feel like teaching us the hard way.....

Quit Hitting the Snooze Button, Americans!

Last fall during the presidential campaign, right here on my blog, I quoted a phrase from G. K. Chesterton -- kind of as a warning to any honest American who happens to stop by and read my ramblings.

In the light of recent actions from our current president, his predecessor Mr. Bush, the mainstream media, and the U. S. Congress, I feel compelled to reiterate Chesterton's warning. I will make a more general political reflection in my next blog, with a proposed solution to our economic and political crisis that is certain to offend some people. For now, here are Chesterton's words of wisdom and common sense:

If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep.

Slowly but surely, the liberties and rights that we have cherished as being uniquely American are being taken from us by a "nanny state" that thinks it knows how to take care of us better than we do. The current "economic stimulus" is neither economic, nor will it stimulate. It is a political weapon, and it is aimed at you and me.

Wake up, Americans.

Purpose-Driven Idiots

Because of the flood of annual responsibilities that beset me this December, I haven't been keeping up with the national news as I should. After all, Christmas is the season of "Joy to the World"... Why should I watch the news and become even more depressed than King Herod upon the arrival of the Wise Men?

Anyway, this morning my dad informed me about the latest of several controversies that have surrounded Barack Obama before he has even taken the Oath of Office: Is it his selection of another "moderate" for a cabinet position? Is it his relationship with the corrupt governor and political machine in Chicago? No, nothing so mundane...

Apparently Obama has committed the unpardonable sin by requesting an invocation from Pastor Rick Warren on inauguration day. Gays and lesbians are offended that someone committed to a biblical view of marriage, and who supported the controversial California Proposition 8 restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals only, would be invited to Obama's inauguration...especially when Obama "promised them so much." Some evangelical conservatives are upset that Warren is even associated with Obama. I think all these people need to chill out and listen to a good story:

During my sophomore year in college, my grandfather passed away right before finals. It was a traumatic moment in my life. After I found out, I told a couple of the guys in my dorm. One was a friend who happened to be Jewish. Later that evening, he came to my dorm room, expressed his genuine sympathy, and offered to pray with me.

Now get this: As a Jew, he rejects my fundamental belief that Jesus Christ really was the Son of God and the Savior of all humanity. But I was not about to indulge in self-righteousness or narcissism by pushing aside his prayer. He was a friend. He genuinely cared. And like any person of goodwill, he felt compelled to reach out to me. I don't need to agree with his theology, or anything else for that matter, to appreciate the genuine intent of his heart.

Fast-forward to today: I like Barack Obama immensely for his optimism, I think he is a good husband and father, and I am impressed with his ability to reach out to former rivals like Hillary and McCain for the sake of the country. But I disagree with him on many issues, and I fear that his economic plans will do more long-term harm than good. I think especially that his position on abortion is atrocious. In spite of this, I wish him goodwill and intend on praying for him daily. To those "conservatives" who decry Rick Warren for his association with Obama, I say this: Even if you regard Obama as your enemy, you are under orders from Jesus Christ Himself to pray for him.

As for the gay and lesbian community: We are a nation at war in the Middle East, and the financial situation in this country is worsening. Very few Americans can comprehend the weight that will fall on Obama's shoulders in one short month. The fact that gays and lesbians are complaining about such a petty issue (Rick Warren doing the invocation) at this time shows that they are not motivated by goodwill, but by their own anger and intolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree with them. That makes them just as bad as some of the "evangelicals" that they decry.

Can't We All Just Get Along? (Yes, I really mean that!)

I have become increasingly frustrated with the polarizing "blame game" that is taking place in America. Our political leadership, which is supposed to represent civil and honest discourse, is among the most guilty. I am sick of hearing everyone blaming George W. Bush for the problems of this country...or blaming the Democratic Congress...or blaming the "rich"...or the media...etc...

I think the American people are sick of it too.

I'm very disappointed with President Bush, but I don't think any intelligent American can honestly believe that he alone is responsible for America's economic crisis...just as I do not believe that Barack Obama is an unpatriotic Muslim who has been too influenced by people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

But there is a meanness about today's political discourse that has left me bitter.

I am not necessarily sold out on Rick Warren and his style of ministry, but I thought the one bright spot in this political campaign was the debate held at Saddleback Church, when both candidates confined themselves to issues and spoke intelligently, passionately, and admirably. They did not take cheap shots at their opponents, nor did they spend an inordinate amount of time blaming anyone else for America's problems. They focused on solutions, and they spoke and acted like gentlemen.

But aside from that, there has been a meanness and a childishness about this election season that is very unsettling.

Yesterday, I read some words by political pundit Mitch Alborn, and they really articulated what I have been thinking and feeling for a while. I hope you'll take the time to read them and ponder how we might communicate it to our congregations. Here's the link:

http://jewishworldreview.com/1008/albom101308.php3

God bless America!

Let's Talk Politics...

The other night, my wife Cherith and I were watching the results of the Iowa caucus. As usual, there were roaring crowds, enthusiastic candidates, and media pundits ready with their fast analysis of the results (which usually changes from day to day).

Obama, the Democratic victor, gave what was by far the most inspiring speech, focusing on the historic moment of the first African-American to win a presidential caucus/primary, and on the hope that he will bring as a candidate of change (although change to what, I haven't yet gotten from him).

The speech that caught my attention was Huckabee's, the Republican winner who seems to be championed by many Evangelical Christians. Certainly more "folksy" and less polished than Obama's, he made reference to a quote by G. K. Chesterton...one of my favorite writers and a major influence on all of the Inklings.

The quote was: "A true warrior fights not because he hates those in front of him, but because he loves those behind him." A great quote, which Huckabee proceeded to take totally out of context and misapply to his point.

However, Huckabee's use of Chesterton in a political speech made me think of another quote from Chesterton in his book, The Everlasting Man: "A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep."

A despotism is a tired democracy. What a statement.

I look around the US, and in many respects, a tired democracy is exactly what I see, even among faithful Christians.

I see religious conservatives wanting government to legislate their moral principles and allow Christian orthodoxy to intrude into the public sphere...rather than doing the hard task of building relationships, loving, evangelizing, and discipling those who are lost.

I see liberal-thinking Christians wanting government to demonstrate the compassion and justice of Scripture through government entitlement programs and universal health care, all the while using most of their budgets on congregational programs and structures that are often more culture-bound than biblically mandated.

I see the majority of Americans believing that government owes them something beyond being a source of impartial law, an enforcer of contracts among people, and a protector from criminals and foreign enemies...which was implicitly the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Government has gotten so large and has taken on so many functions, we would hardly recognize the very frugal and simple government that existed for the first 100 years of our nation. Ironically, when our national government was small and had limited functions, it was then that our local communities were strong and vibrant, because those local communities were empowered to do things for themselves rather than immediately relying on Washington, D.C.

Is America slowly on the road to becoming a despotism? Are American citizens really more interested in being "cared for" by the government, rather than trusting in God and relying on their own ingenuity and the willing generosity of family, friends, and churches in their communities? Is it even possible to return to the vision of a national government so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson: "...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"? Or has government become yet another idol in which we choose to put our unquestioning faith?

In conclusion, a brief lesson of history: In 1933, Adolf Hitler, perhaps the greatest despot of the 20th century, was elected into office. He did not seize power; it was given to him by the people of Germany, and as he usurped more and more authority while silencing his critics, the majority of Germans (including the church) chose to do nothing.

I pray to God that never happens here, but something tells me He might feel like teaching us the hard way.....