Monday, April 20, 2009

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I've been talking a lot recently about the "Reformed" component of the Reformed Trombonist blog -- that is, the Reformed view of Christianity and how it applies to the world around us -- but I haven't been saying much about the "Trombonist" part. Well, boo on me. Mostly, it's been a slow year for me. I don't really gig much anymore, don't really want to, and am generally quite happy to play in church, stay home, enjoy our new sun room, and practice making martinis.

But this past week, I had a wonderful opportunity to play with the Eastern Tennessee State University Jazz Band. Their director, my friend, Dr. Dave, was a colleague of mine when I served in the 504th USAF Band at Travis AFB, way way back in the early 1980s. Unlike me, Dave went the academic route (I had tried that, and decided that it wasn't for me -- with my professors heartily concurring), and now runs the trumpet studio and the jazz band at ETSU. The annual jazz festival there has turned into an annual trek for several of us old band buddies.

The concert featured three trumpet soloists -- Jon, who also served with us at Travis and has matured into a wonderful trumpet player; Greg, a professor of trumpet at a large Midwestern university and a veteran of the Vegas scene; and Tony, former lead trumpet with some of the famous big bands and also a Vegas vet. With the three of them as well as Dr. Dave himself, there were some amazingly good trumpet sounds on stage this past Friday night. Dave was kind enough to add me to the program as the "comic relief", allowing me to do a solo on an old standard, "Makin' Whoopee." The entertainer George Gobel, once forced to follow Bob Hope and Dean Martin on The Johnny Carson Show, expressed his dismay in fine comedic fashion by asking, "Did you ever feel like the world's a tuxedo and you're a pair of brown shoes?" Yes, George, that's exactly how I felt. Nonetheless, the audience seemed to enjoy my efforts; if not, their politeness went well beyond the call of duty.

I particularly enjoyed working with Dave's students. Dr. Dave had me sit in with them even on the pieces on which I didn't solo. Dave runs a tight ship. He's tough on the students, I think, but fair, and accepts no less than their very best. We had a lot of those types of conductors when I was in music school, too. The difference between then and now is that, then, students did not talk back. Today, at least one or two students seem guaranteed to cop an attitude. This does not reflect badly at all on Dave, or on the other kids there who were respectful -- but it does reflect badly on our society, or so I fear, and confirms the downward spiral that seems so obvious to me, and perhaps others.

Thirty years ago, when I was in school, I don't think I ever witnessed a student talk back to a professor. I speak as an authority, of sorts, unfortunately -- if anyone could have served as the canary for student impudence, it would have been me. I was a bit of a hothead in my student days -- which is like saying Al Sharpton is a bit outspoken -- and quick to take offense. But I don't remember pushing back like a couple of these kids did, ever. I remember feeling like doing it. I remember suffering for sitting there and taking it. I remember complaining bitterly to my friends, who did not want to hear it. But I don't remember actually doing it. Those were the old days, I'm afraid. Respect for authority is vanishing, almost as fast as respect for America.

Just because someone happens to be older or in a position of authority, of course, does not mean they deserve respect. That's beside the point. There are practical reasons why one should be respectful of those in positions of authority, even when it is not deserved. First and foremost among these is that disrespect does not serve us well even on our own terms. The young simply do not understand how much they don't know, nor appreciate how unwise they are. They can't. All they can do is take our word for it, and they can't even do that if they cannot respect someone older and wiser.

But, as is always the case, practical reasons exist only because there are higher principles that must always be served, whether we like it or not. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" -- Romans 13:1. In the world the Lord has created, there will always be a higher authority than our own hearts, and we will need to learn, sooner or later, to submit to it. Who do we harm when we refuse to submit to God's will? God? Hardly. We harm ourselves and those around us. When we are in His court, He will not allow us make up our own rules -- any more than you or I would put up with a dog or a cat that repeatedly and defiantly soils the carpet. Sooner or later, the animal will submit, or will be banished outdoors, or sent to the pound. The Lord is actually blessing us when He provides authorities to whom we must submit, even when we don't particularly enjoy the experience. The Lord can live without our obedience; we can't.

But what to make of this younger generation? As my buddy Jimmy Ray says, "The report card is in for the parenting skills of the Baby Boomers: Straight F's." Kudos to those parents who have done the hard work of raising their children to love the Lord and respect authority. But at some point, for too many parents, it became more important to raise children to "make their own decisions," to "find their own answers" -- i.e., to treat authority as optional. This is the sort of foolishness that happens when the role of fatherhood has been diminished, as it has been in our society: each child grows up believing he is his own authority. No one could be equipped any worse for the job. It's just a stone's throw from there to Columbine.

True confessions time: I know whereof I speak. I was not a respectful person when I was young, and I would be much better off today, in every way, if I had been. I saw my father as a miserable, arbitrary, and often vindictive drunk, undeserving of my respect in just about every way. Though I called myself a Christian, somehow the part about "Honor thy father" did not register with me. Unfortunately, the Ten Commandments does not contain an asterisk indicating that the need to respect our fathers depends on fathers behaving well. If your own father does not get your respect, you are not therefore the more anxious to bestow it on someone else. Quite the contrary: respect is a habit. As I floundered my way into adulthood, I dragged around a burning hatred of authority -- senseless, arbitrary authority in particular. It was too much like being back home. This is the ball and chain I carried with me through college, the military, and into the civilian workforce. I still fight it, but I have learned (at last) that it is the problem, not the remedy.

The truth of the matter was that my father was a better man than I am in many ways; I was just too stupid and prideful to understand this. For one thing, he had (when he wasn't drinking) a pleasant nature, and was fun to be with; I'm on the opposite end, a sarcastic sort with a sharp tongue, who is actually a better person tipsy than sober. (I lose my self-importance and enjoy others a whole lot more when living better through chemistry.) Also, my dad served in World War II and survived the Battle of the Bulge; he suffered badly with frostbite, and wearing shoes was very uncomfortable for him for the rest of his life. I never gave that kind of service or sacrifice to my country. There are other ways my dad was better than me, but for now, just take my word for it. None of this justifies his drunkenness or excuses the way he used to treat us, but if I had been wiser, I would have had a better perspective. Through the grace of God, I do now honor and respect my father; too bad, my father never lived to see it.

When we disrespect authority, ultimately, we disrespect the Lord and harm ourselves in the process. This is the most painful lesson of my own life. I want to take those one or two kids who pushed back at Dr. Dave last week, shake them, and say, "You need to break this habit right now. If you do everything your professors tell you, as cheerfully as you can, they will do you far more good than harm. It is your best chance of getting where you want to be. You're not entitled to 'better' treatment. Jesus was the only one ever born who was entitled to the kind of deference you are demanding for yourself, and look at what we did to Him. If Jesus didn't get his just due, you certainly don't deserve any better."

In the master class last week at the jazz festival, Tony the trumpet player shared some of his hard-earned wisdom with the students, and summarized these matters in a breezy and economical fashion. "There are three things you need to remember in order to succeed in music," Tony said.

"One," holding up his index finger, "is, 'Show up!'"

"Two," holding up his index and middle finger, " is, 'Shut up!'"

"And three," adding another finger to the mix, "is, 'Play your ass off!'"

And then he concluded: "But the most important of these," brandishing his middle finger by itself, "is, 'Shut up!'"

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Dissent or Threat?

If the Obama administration wanted to criminalize political dissent, is this what the start of it would look like?

The Department of Homeland Security has released a report entitled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Follow the link. John Hinderaker at PowerLine does a fine job of analyzing the report.

The most troubling aspect of this is that "rightwing extremism" is loosely defined -- loosely enough to include millions of Americans who simply disagree with the current administrations' policies. Here's an example, from the report:

"Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment."


So, anyone who is antagonistic toward open borders, increased entitlements, and government attempts to rein in the Second Amendment, is a national security threat? Here, I had been thinking it was simply a matter of political disagreement.

And is this not rich, coming from an administration that launched its political campaign from a soiree at the home of a 1960s leftist radical who actually did some things that could be considered terrorist -- like, for example, bomb the Pentagon?

Granted, there was a security study done by the government in the past on leftwing radicalism, but the report was highly specific, focusing on a few well-identified organizations and on a specified set of activities. The report on the rightwingers, on the other hand, is marvelously unspecific and doesn't seem to point to any actual acts of terrorism; only the "potential" for such terrorism is hinted at, ominously.

And how about this corker:

From the report: "Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally [my emphasis] fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."


Translation: "Darned First Amendment."

Hinderaker's conclusion:

Hinderaker: "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this Homeland Security report is politically motivated, and reflects the authors' political prejudices more than an objective evaluation of a significant terrorist threat. In that context, the report's conclusion seems a bit ominous:


"DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."


Note to conservatives: Be careful out there among them English.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Two Trillion Bucks, and What Do You Get?

With apologies to Tennesse Ernie Ford, a good singer and great entertainer from an era better than our own. Usually, I'm not much on posting videos, but this one is too good, and too sad, not to pass along.

An Unlikely Christian Apologist?

I have not quite warmed up to Stephen Colbert. I always figured his show was just more of the same as Jon Stewart and the rest of the yuk-it-up crew at Comedy Central -- namely, keep finding new and sophomorically amusing ways to kick conservatives and Christians in the butt.

There may be more than that to Mr. Colbert, however. (Hat tip: Vere loqui.) Check out this humorous smackdown he serves up to Bart Ehrman, another bit-playing lemming in the Materialist March to the Sea, Literary Division:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorNASA Name Contest

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Sinners and Republicans

Jennifer Rubin wonders why it's so hard to get Republicans to behave like conservatives.

Just a thought: maybe it's because they aren't conservatives.

I've written about this before. The essential problem with fighting the liberals is philosophical unity: conservatism just doesn’t have it. Conservatism is not a cohesive philosophy the same way liberalism is. Liberalism’s charter is to bring cosmic justice to the world, and no less. Heaven on earth today, and don’t get in the way. This gives them an unlimited appetite for power; there is no logical stopping point. Nothing, from making you wear your seat belt to telling you your kid is too fat, is outside politics. Every institution — from the Constitution and the rule of law, to private property, the free market, the church, marriage, and the family — is an obstacle preventing liberals from grabbing all the power they crave. All institutions are under attack, at all times.

It never occurs to them that they do not have the knowledge, wisdom, or goodness to be God. Neither do conservatives, but conservatives tend to follow inspector Harry Callahan's advice: a man's got to know his limitations.

The term “conservative” is applied injudiciously to all those who oppose the liberal agenda, no matter what they believe, even if they only care about defending a single one from among all the institutions under assault. Each besieged institution has its own cadre of defenders. The church and the family are defended by the religious right. The libertarians and small businessmen defend private property and the free market. Big business fights regulation. Law & order conservatives defend the rule of law. Traditional conservatives defend the Constitution. And so forth. Most care very much about their pet institution, and care little about the pet institutions of their informal allies.

This causes two problems. The first problem is that each conservative faction feels no loyalty to the other factions. The libertarians don’t care for the religious right’s agenda, and are openly hostile to it. The strong national defense crowd doesn’t necessarily care if there are tariffs or over-regulation. The big business types don’t care about school choice (they can afford private schools for their own kids.)

The second problem is that, while the Democratic Party is the liberal party, there is no “conservative” party. The Republican Party is the party of big business, pure and simple. You know someone by his non-negotiables, and there simply aren’t very many things a Republican won’t negotiate away at the first sign of trouble with the Democrats. This was never more clear than when the Democrats and Republicans locked arms and pushed for the very unpopular immigration “reform.” It fits nicely with both agendas — it promises the Democrats future clients, and dangles cheap labor before big business. When the conservatives raised a stink, their reward for voting twice for Bush was to be dismissed as a bunch of bigots. This is what conservatives have to deal with: a party leadership that always seems to find common ground with liberals and some reason to forget the folks who actually vote for them.

So, don’t be perplexed when Republicans refuse to act like conservatives. They’re not conservatives. They just talk that way once every two years, to enlist the kind words of commentators such as Ms. Rubin. At the moment, it is in big business’ best interests to turn at least socialist enough to accept taxpayer money. So once again, they have found common cause with liberals and left their allies, and the country, in the lurch.

If Republicans can’t bring themselves to defend this country’s cherished institutions, we might as well find out now. Perhaps the Democrats will overreach again. Perhaps the frog in boiling water analogy is applicable to the situation. Now that socialism has quit creeping and started galloping, it’s time perhaps to see reality. It's a necessary first step.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Apologize? For What?

In the Reformed faith, we hold that God calls His people not with syllogisms, but by changing their hearts. Paul even dismissed debating with non-believers as pointless, since Christianity was considered heresy by the Jews and foolishness by the Greeks -- respectively, the theologians and philosophers of his day. Yet Paul did debate the pagans, and the list of great Christian apologists includes Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and (more recently) C. S. Lewis. So perhaps there is cause, sometimes, to seek to expand God's kingdom through philosophical argument, bearing in mind that that such arguments will not change very many minds. They mainly serve to bolster the believer's confidence that the Lord has sovereignty over all things, including reason itself.

In recent weeks, I have become intrigued with the arguments put forth by the proponents of presuppositional apologetics. The presuppositionalist boldly argues that all world views that are not Christian are self-contradictory. Unlike more traditional forms of apologetics, the presuppositionalist denies that the Christian and the atheist share any common ground upon which even to engage -- that is, as soon as the atheist steps before the podium, he has already conceded the debate. A Thomist's strategy might be to argue on the basis of premises shared by Christian and atheist alike, regarding the tools upon which man's wisdom depends: rationality, reason, order, logic, evidence, morality. By contrast, a presuppositionalist demands that the atheist provide an account consistent with atheism for the existence and authority of these concepts before being allowed to invoke them in his arguments. After all, one cannot use logic to prove that logic itself is valid; its validity must be assumed, i.e., presupposed. The atheist cannot argue that the Christian ought to abandon his faith unless he can explain where "ought" came from. Are logic and morality authoritative? Are they greater than man? If so, how? If they don't, how do they claim any authority? And how do any such claims follow from a godless origin? If what the Christian quaintly refers to as "Creation" is merely the illegitimate offspring of haphazard bursts of energy and the random clanging of atoms, then how can any concept pretend to be transcendent?

This is more than just word play. A pivotal tenet of atheism holds that what we perceive as meaning, reason, order, logic, and morality all must have somehow spontaneously emerged from unmeaning, unreason, disorder, incoherence, and amorality. The universe was born perhaps twelve billion years ago, but meaning had to wait, in succession, for the solar system, the Earth, life, and man to be born -- and then had to wait until man could perceive it. Was meaning there all along, waiting to be discovered? If a philosophical proof falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make any sound? Do logic and morality exist in an objective manner, and if so, how do we prove this without begging the question? Or are they simply ideas in man's head, subjective notions born of brain chemicals and circumstances, the result of eons of random mutation and natural selection? Did these notions come about only because they helped our species survive, and have they no further importance beyond that? And what makes man's survival a moral imperative? Many atheists berate Christians for accepting God without rational cause, but mostly they get away Scot-free without being forced to acknowledge their own reliance on things unseen.

Some atheists do believe in objective truth and transcendent morality because it seems instinctive to do so, but not before assuming the validity of instinct -- much like the mathematician who accepts that A = A, or like Descartes announcing, "I think, therefore I am" (which is not a proof, but only an assumption in the form of a proof). What they cannot do is to demonstrate why reason and morality, even if objective, are necessarily authoritative. Being mere participants alongside man in a universe neither made, reason and morality cannot be authoritative. They just sit there mumbling things, and whether we choose to heed them, or not, there are no consequences beyond the purely practical. We cannot tell whether logic is real or a mass delusion. We cannot tell if morality is absolute or even whether it is deranged. Does it whisper in our ear? Adolf Hitler listened to his inner voice when it told him, "Kill the Jews," while Raoul Wallenberg listened to his own inner voice when it said, "Save the Jews." Did they hear different voices, or was it the same voice speaking out of both sides of its mouth? There would be no way to tell.

The materialist has even bigger problems than the atheist/moralist. If physics is all there is, then reason and logic themselves, being immaterial, cannot exist at all as objective phenomena. The "transcendental truths" are therefore linguistic placeholders for illusions created in the human brain by electrical impulses and biochemical dynamics. If everything is physics and physics is everything, then it would be a mischaracterization to describe any argument between a Christian and a materialist as a "debate." I love Doug Wilson's depiction of such an event: it's like shaking up two cans of soft drink, setting them on a platform, and opening them. They can froth and foam at each other, and can even be entertaining. But it is hardly debate, no matter what the two cans of soda think they are doing, or whether they think at all. Since nothing is transcendent, meaning cannot exist, and logic and morality are simply a collection of conceits that crawled out of the mud along with man.

We all presuppose something. The ideas we have been talking about can only possess any meaning if they are eternal and therefore objective, and if they are greater than man and therefore authoritative. In the Christian view, they come from God; they seem eternal because He is eternal, and they seem authoritative because it is His will. There is no contradiction. The atheist therefore depends on the precepts of Christianity even to raise his voice in dissent. In word, the atheist denies God. But in deed, by acknowledging the existence of reason and morality, and because he cannot build their framework himself, he is forced to accept (if ungratefully) what the Lord has provided.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

As I Was Just Saying...

Talking about rule changes...

In a stunningly stupid move, the FDIC, led by Sheila Blair, has recommended the assessment of a one time 20 basis point fee on bank deposits. It will use this to pay for its projected $80 billion in bank failures for 2008 through 2013....

Why weaken the strong banks, who will either lose capital through this, or just pass the costs in the form of lower yields to consumers?....

Should all banks have to pay the price? Think of the bank that is muddling its way through this Great Recession. It gets hit with this fee and teeters a bit more. The government is not going to fund it, because it’s not a monolith that will cause armageddon upon failure. What happens?

It fails.


One more time, from the previous post, here are the new rules in effect:

  • If someone makes bad economic decisions, he prospers -- that is, he goes to Congress with a tin cup, on bended knee, and goes home with a few billion dollars in his pocket.
  • If someone makes good economic decisions, he suffers -- that is, he is forced to subsidize prodigal businessmen and imprudent mortgage defaulters.
Hat tip: Vere loqui

For over a hundred years, progressives and liberals have been chafing for the chance to run things and make the world perfect, chucking little pellets of cosmic justice like Pez dispensers as they traipse about, wreaking all the change we can possibly believe in.

Well, it's change, alright. I'll be grieving in it.