A Message from George Washington

I have quoted America's first president in many of my articles over the years.  I most often cite one particular statement -- one of my favorites from the era of our Founding Fathers.

Wise Founding Father

Before I repeat it here, I want to ask what you think is George Washington's greatest legacy for America.  Is it his victory in battle over the British and others during his superb military career?  Is it his legendary aversion to bullets, flying through is jacket but not him?  Is it his prayers and ability to retain vague order and morale at Valley Forge among his rag-tag army?  Is it his ascendancy to being the first president of the United States -- twice?  Is it his amazing choice to step down from power and popularity after two terms -- setting a standard that remains with us today, albeit in codified form?  Or is it perhaps his marriage to Martha Washington along with their beautiful mansion at Mount Vernon?  Or is it enough that his name appears on schools and cities all over the country, and his face on so much of our currency, like Caesar of old?

For the record, the evidence of Washington's faith in the holy, gracious, merciful, and almighty biblical Trinity is what I consider to be his greatest legacy -- both for himself and for his country.  But I digress.

Ok, now for the quote.  This is how General Washington replied when the Continental Congress offered him near-dictatorial powers around the end of America's War for Independence, in 1783:

"Instead of thinking myself freed from all civil obligations by this mark of their confidence, I shall constantly bear in mind that as the sword was the last resort for the preservation of our liberties, so it ought to be the first thing laid aside when those liberties are firmly established."

How can we describe this?  Wise -- knowing his potential as a human being to destroy a good thing through personal ambition.  Humble -- not believing himself to be the epitome of the American experiment.  Merciful -- seeking to establish liberty through means that themselves bolster an attitude of freedom.  Faithful -- telling the world that the American people, and / or God Himself, is the source of hope for America's future. Noble and courageous and dutiful also come to mind.

I love the tone this set for his later life (such as stepping down from the presidency).  Matthew 25 says those who are faithful over a few things will receive greater responsibilities in the future.  Good leaders are wary of their own success and of the faith others have in their success.

But tonight, while checking the very pregnant cows and heifers in the corrals on my dad's ranch under a pure, starry sky, I thought of something more personal regarding Washington's principled words...

Going a Step Further

Imagine you are butting heads with somebody close to you -- like a spouse, sibling, or colleague.  You want it to end peacefully and soon, but everything you say seems to keep the conflict alive or even make it worse.  We may call such words Washington's "sword."

What would happen if you put away your sword as early as possible in the conflict (I'm intentionally avoiding the question the validity of the argument in the first place)?  If you merely drew the sword "as a last resort for the preservation of our liberties [or we may say relational harmony]," then indeed "it ought to be the first thing laid aside" when even a ray of hope appears on the horizon.

I do not mean ignoring the issue or the person.  I also do not mean abandoning truth or godly conviction just to appease.  I do mean going all out for the relationship, even if you "lose" the fight, forgive, or apologize.  To do this you need godly traits like mercy or grace or humility.  In fact, lots of biblical passages may apply here:

-Matthew 26: "All who take the sword will perish by the sword."

-Mark 12: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

-Luke 6: "Just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them."

Or, more directly: "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.  The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness." (Proverbs 15)

James 3 clinches the deal for us.  It tells us why Washington could place peacemaking above mere conquest, and why the tactics for the latter should be taken up last and put down first as much as possible:

"Every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea,

is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. But no man can tame the tongue.

It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our God and Father,

and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.

Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing.

My brethren, these things ought not to be so...

For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield,

full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

Why do I share this right now -- besides the inspiration that night skies and hundreds of cows' butts provide?  Because I have recalled these things far too little this week.  And I expect I will need to remember them just as much tomorrow and beyond as well!

How Much Can We Know God? (Part 1)

In which room of your house do you do the most philosophizing?  Where do reality and abstraction connect; where do mind and heart unite?  For me, the answer has been pretty simple for a long time: The Bathroom!

So I was in the shower this afternoon when a long and winding rabbit trail hopped into my thoughts.  Oh, it is still hopping -- as in, this post will help me begin the chase, but I think the answers are far beyond my ability.

So in my best imitation of the late Fred Rogers, from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood: Want to come along?

Knowledge.

Merriam-Webster's first three definitions of "knowledge" -- "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association"; "the fact or condition of being aware of something"; "the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning."

If we have knowledge about something, we communicate about it with some level of authority, or some level of credentials.  If a star baseball pitcher tells you about curve balls, you accept his comments intuitively, since he probably knows what he is talking about.  If he tells you about the "Mona Lisa," you may want to ask him how he learned about art.  Maybe he has a degree in Renaissance painting -- then your respect and attention persist.  Perhaps he thinks Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece is a mountain in Qatar -- then your feet take you away quickly and quietly!

This goes for knowing someone, too.  If I tell you something about my precious two-year-old son, you might politely listen and believe what I am saying.  If you did not, I might reasonably take offense.  But if you, dear reader, and I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, and if I am in no official or casual position to have any information about your family, and yet I try to inform you about them, I might offend you.  I essentially would be babbling and it would not be worth your time to listen.

Humans are terribly good at gossip and / or discussing useless details.  But when a communicator -- whether through verbal, written, or artistic means -- broadens the knowledge of at least one member of his audience, then that member can gain some real understanding of both me and my subject matter.  Conversely, whoever or whatever I am discussing intelligently is something I know, or about which I have knowledge.

Street-level English usage weakens the power of the concept of knowledge or knowing.  "Do you know so-and-so?"  "Yes.  I met him once a few years ago."  The correct answer should be, "No.  But I met him once a few years ago."  The difference is subtle, but significant.  You know the people and things you try to know.  You do not know the people or things you do not try to know.

Recall the definitions above: knowledge comes "through experience or association" and by "apprehending truth or fact through reasoning."  In each case, mental and / or physical effort is required on the part of the person who is seeking knowledge.  Of course, the person or thing to be known has to be at least partially accessible, too.

Fine.  How about the "knowledge of God"?  God, even in a non-Christian sense, is a higher power, correct?   Thus to know Him must take some effort on our part, along with some kind of permission and / or enabling on His part.  Romans 5 calls it "access."  The New King James Version of the Bible notes the "knowledge of God" three times in the Old Testament and five in the New Testament.  Also, the phrase "know God" occurs twice in the O.T. and five times in the N.T.  Each time, knowing God is portrayed as good, not knowing Him is shown as bad.

So how can we know God?  Beyond the foundation of faithful prayer and Bible study, many passages and other writings address this topic.  My main focus is on a different question: how much can we know God?  This was where my mind got rolling in the shower this morning.  This is where the word games really begin.  This may be where an extra glimpse of God's majesty can be pondered.  This is where I will resume next time, hopefully when it is not 2 a.m.!

Hypocrisy 101

Well, my old nature has been at it again!  It is so fitting that Paul writes Romans 7 about the nature of the law and his humble human struggle against it -- even (or especially) as Christians:

                    "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I
                    practice...I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.  But I see
                    another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing
                    me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.  O wretched man
                    that I am!  Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

Isn't Paul one of the great writers of the New Testament?  Isn't Paul one of the grand theologians of all time?  We are supposed to listen to him?  Does he not sound a little, you know, off?

I would say yes and no to all of these questions.  Humanly speaking, I'd say yes to each question.  But when we recall that God really inspired Paul to write these words (about Paul and other sinful human beings, which of course means all of us except Jesus Christ), then I would say no to each question.  Perhaps Paul even tries to show us God's perspective -- how silly and confused we humans can be.  As to the last question, I do not know about you, but Paul's self-description fits me perfectly.  It fits me so well that it goes beyond my nature as a sinner.  "The good that I will to do," even outside of moral issues, "I do not do."

Let's just review today.

I set my alarm for 7:30.  I always wake up to my alarm the first time, because I hate hearing that loud BEEP, BEEP, BEEP any longer than necessary.  Snooze is NOT my friend.  Well, today I went right back to sleep.  I re-woke up at 7:39.  That would have been okay -- as I never sleep enough (I'm groggy-eyed right now!) and I probably needed it -- but today I needed those nine minutes to stay on schedule.

Then I went downstairs and tried very hard to get ready, warm up the truck, load up the truck, and leave by 8:30 or 8:45.  If you are guessing that I left nine minutes late, you would be close -- it was 11 minutes.  I had no good reason for this.  I just tried hard for a certain time and failed.  "The good that I will to do..."  When I climbed into my truck and saw the time, I got upset...for 20 minutes!

Meanwhile, an excellent lecture series I am enjoying on concert music from antiquity though World War I sat quietly in my truck's tape deck.  Worse, I was fasting and, theoretically, focusing on God.  (Please see Isaiah 58.)  Eventually, my disgruntled attitude did evolve into positive prayer, but for awhile the game was Romans 7: "The evil I will not to do, that I practice."

I wanted to stick to my original plan, squeezing in as much as I could before my 10 a.m. appointment.  Doing so would make the middle part of the day much easier.  But I finally wrestled myself into showing up on time, which actually made me feel like a responsible and honorable person!  Of course, this is ironic since being on time is what any respectable person would do.

Then I got slightly upset at how far one of my errands was.  Why this should matter, when God has given me so much, as this very errand proved (piano shopping), is ridiculous.  Again Romans 7: "I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin."

(By the way, I did not buy a piano today.  I need to sell my old upright first.  I'd like to buy a slightly smaller, slightly newer, and slightly better one.  As far as pianos go, $1,000-$2,000 is my price range.  Ten or twenty times that is my dream range!)

Next I did okay.  I did something nice for my beautiful bride.  I got something out of storage she would want rather than something I would want.

Oh, but then came the phone call!  My wife was so cheerful on the other end of the line.  Then I took offense at something small, and wanted her to know about it.  That phone call, and the next one, and the next one all ended with me adding to my sins of the day, mostly in my head and heart: "O wretched man that I am!  Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

Later in the day we were good friends again.  Sadly, she seems to have an ear infection, her first in 15 years!  Why do I only now, hours later, think to pray for her?  (Do you think Paul sighed as he penned Romans 7?)

Then I worked more than I preferred to while I was on shift with my precious toddler son, then I e-mailed rather worked, then I shopped online rather than worked, and now -- yes, I am finally working -- it is 1 a.m.!  "The good that I will to do, I do not do."

Oh, how happy and humbled I am that Paul went on to write Romans 8 -- one of my favorite passages in all the Bible!  Two short verses after his dark "wretched man that I am!" comes a mountaintop of biblical ecstasy:

                    "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ
                    Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the
                    Spirit.  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me
                    free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in
                    that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son
                    in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in
                    the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in
                    us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
                    ...As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."

Amen!