On Not Fasting This Year

In the past, I have fasted on the Day of Atonement, since I grew up in a version of Christianity in which people did so.  For the past two years, however, I have not.  And I am not fasting today.  Why not?  In the past, it may have been because I felt that I, as a New Covenant Christian, was not required to do so.  Nowadays, I really don't care about that, for I'm skeptical of many attempts to organize the writings of the Bible into some grand, unified message, as if the Bible speaks with one voice and propounds a consistent "theology."  Consequently, I tend to greet most statements that begin with "The Bible says" with skepticism.  This year, I'm not fasting because I just plain don't want to.  In the past, what fasting on the Day of Atonement meant for me was being hungry and thirsty for 24 hours and looking at the clock to see when the day would end.  This was the case, even if I incorporated spiritual exercises into the Day.  I don't believe that I have to fast to have a better relationship with God----to be reminded of spiritual and moral lessons, to remember that God loves me, or to reflect on what I should and should not be doing.  Heck, at this point in my life, I feel that I get spirituality from watching good TV shows!  Why should I put myself through a ritual?

I've wondered in the past why the ancient Israelites were required to fast on the Day of Atonement.  The answers that I usually heard was that fasting reminds people of their limitations, that it is a manifestation of humility, and that doing it shows God that one takes his repentance and need for God's forgiveness seriously.  On the first, I don't need to fast to be reminded of my limitations.  Getting a headache reminds me of that!  On the second and third reasons, I think of what Moses said in the 1956 movie, The Ten Commandments:  "Does this god demand a scarred back and broken hands as the price of his favor?"

The thing is, I respect some of the people who are fasting on this day, looking for a profound spiritual experience.  I know one lady who converted to Reconstructionist Judaism, and she wrote yesterday that she was looking forward to fasting.  The same goes for a number of Jewish people I know.  And, as I look back, I have had good Days of Atonement.  I would take the day off from school (if my school didn't already give students the day off, as the Jewish schools did), I wouldn't do any homework, and I would fast.  I'd either go to a Jewish Hillel service, or I would watch movies that edified me, or I would study Scripture.  It was a change of pace for me, and it was a ritual that kept me grounded, in a sense.  Those were good times.  But I'm just not in that place right now.  Maybe I'll be in the place again sometime in the future.  I'm just not inclined today to refrain from food and water, to remind myself of all of my faults, and to beat myself up just because I fall short of some perfect standard. 

Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full 21

In my latest reading of Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, what stood out to me was Black's Monday morning quarterbacking about what people could have done better.  In this post, I'll give four examples of this, then I will comment.

1.  In May 1970, National Guardsman opened fire on students at Kent State University, as students were protesting President Richard Nixon's campaign in Cambodia.  Four students were killed and eleven were wounded.  Black narrates that the National Guardsmen did this in response to students who "pursued them, pelting them with rocks and returning tear gas canisters" (page 671).  Black believes that both the Governor of Ohio and the National Guardsmen acted wrongly in this situation, and that the National Guardsmen could have solved the problem in a manner that did not involve bloodshed.  Black states on page 671:

"[The student protesters] were irresponsible and annoying, and the Cambodian activity did not justify the histrionics it attracted even on Kissinger's staff, much less the campuses of the country.  But the governor of Ohio had no right comparing this university student demonstration to Hitler's SA.  And he should have assured that the National Guardsmen had the proper rules of engagement.  They should have had rubber or plastic bullets if tear gas wasn't adequate, and if they went to live ammunition they should have fired in the air, or even right on the ground.  Student demonstrators are rarely hard to scatter, and there is no excuse for students to die from gunshot wounds."

2.  There were people within Nixon's Administration who simply did not get along with each other, and there were some who did not cooperate adequately with President Nixon's agenda.  Henry Kissinger and Secretary of State William Rogers did not get along.  FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was not doing enough (according to Nixon) to investigate and undermine domestic radical groups, and even right-winger Pat Buchanan urged Nixon to retire Hoover immediately, calling Hoover a "'reactionary' who was alienating the young people of the country and whose moral authority was steadily evaporating" (Black's summary on page 680).  On pages 684-685, Black says how he thinks that Nixon could have organized his Administration better, such that it would have been more functional:

"The logical move would have been to move or remove Rogers and give his job either to Rockefeller or Kissinger himself.  Either would have ended the friction between the White House and the State Department and enabled the White House to use the resources of the State Department more extensively.  Rockefeller could have managed Kissinger, but he was becoming rather a defeatist about Vietnam himself...If Nixon didn't want to reward Rockefeller, or create a Rockefeller-Kissinger axis right behind his back, he could have found something else for Rogers, who had no particular aptitude for foreign affairs other than a conciliatory personality, and given the job to Kissinger.  This was the eventual solution.  If Nixon had wanted to make a dramatic move, he would have retired Hoover, replaced him with Mitchell, and Mitchell with Rogers; moved out Laird and replaced him with Shultz, a former marine combat officer in addition to his other attainments; given State to Kissinger with a lecture to desist from some of his more irritating practices; given Finch a serious mandate to turn the new EPA into something important without antagonizing all of American industry; and prepared either Rockefeller or Reagan, depending on which way Nixon wanted to push the party, for the vice presidency in 1972...There were plenty of combinations that would work, and these are just a few of them.  Instead, in the unfortunate manner in which things drifted before events forced Nixon to go into isolation, drink with Rebozo, watch inspirational military films, and then take draconian crisis measures bravely, the squabbling of his administration continued."

3.  When President Nixon received the report of Lyndon Johnson's National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and saw that it "concluded that pornography did not contribute to crime, delinquency, or deviant behavior" (Black on page 696), Nixon was outraged.  He said: "I have evaluated the report and I categorically reject its morally bankrupt conclusions....Pornography can corrupt a society and a civilization....Smut...should be outlawed in every state of the Union."  Black states on page 696 that Nixon's response was inappropriate:

"He could have attacked the report, which was pretty naive and idealistic, and even insensitive to traditionalists, without ranting about the suppression of questionable or offensive literature, which enabled his opponents to conjure up thought police, intrusions into homes, book burnings, and so forth."

4.  In San Jose, Nixon's car was hit by bricks and bottles that were thrown by demonstrators.  Two days later, Nixon gave a speech in which he said: "Those who carry a PEACE sign in one hand and a bomb or a brick in the other are the super-hypocrites of our time."  Nixon directed that this speech be shown on the networks on the eve before the election (in which Senate and House seats were up for grabs).  The Democratic response to the speech was given by Senator Edmund Muskie, who spoke "calmly against fear-mongering from a rocking chair in his house at Kennebunkport, Maine" (page 697).  This was a disaster for Nixon.  Nixon's speech did not come across well on account of the "grainy film", "poor acoustics", and confrontational message (page 697).  Meanwhile, Muskie's response appeared rather cozy and reasonable.  Black says that Nixon would have done better had he shown to the public the news film of the demonstrators' behavior in San Jose, and then followed that up by "giving the sort of address that Muskie did" (page 697).

Now for my comments.  On the one hand, Black's Monday morning quarterbacking is rather annoying. 
On the other hand, Black's Monday morning quarterbacking is interesting.  I think that his suggestions are reasonable, and that Nixon probably would have done better to have done the sorts of things that Blacks suggests.  Something that I ask authors (in my mind, of course) when I read books is, "So you think he did the wrong thing.  Well, what should he have done instead?"  Black offers his opinion on what Nixon and others should have done instead, and that's what makes his book insightful and interesting.

Psalm 125

For my post today about my weekly quiet time, I will blog about Psalm 125.  I will post the Psalm in the King James Version (which is in the public domain), then I will reflect on it.

Psalm 125 states:

They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.
 2 As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever.
 3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.
 4 Do good, O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their hearts.
 5 As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel.

When was Psalm 125 written?  I read commentaries that dated it to Israel's post-exilic period, but does that really work?  Vv 1-2 portray Mount Zion as impregnable.  Would that make sense, after Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed?  There does appear to be concern, however, about the wicked possessing the land of the righteous.  The Psalm seems to be saying that such a state of affairs will not last.  That would make sense during the exile, when foreigners possessed land in Israel.  Still, I can't get past vv 1-2!

Perhaps Psalm 125 has the sort of view that is in First Isaiah, where we encounter the inviolability of Zion, mixed with the notion that God will discipline Judah for her sins and will rebuild the nation on a righteous remnant that is in the land.  In this scenario, Jerusalem is preserved, yet Judah and Jerusalem are still purified of wicked people.  Oppression by the wicked is also a salient theme in First Isaiah.  Isaiah 5:8 states: " Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"  Doesn't that sound like the wicked possessing the land of others, the sort of thing that is condemned in Psalm 125?

Perhaps Psalm 125 is pre-exilic and concerns God's preservation of Jerusalem, even as God purifies Israel of evildoers.

Jesus the Radical?

I went to my church's Bible study last night.  We're going through the Gospel of Luke right now.  The Bible study booklet was saying that Jesus was seeking to bring about radical change.

Several years ago, I was in another Bible study group.  When this group was going through the Gospel of Luke, I said on more than one occasion that Jesus was radical.  The group's leader disagreed with me on that.  He noted that Jesus was not some flagrant extremist, for Jesus ate with the Pharisees.

Similarly, last night, the question of whether or not Jesus was a radical came up in my church's Bible study on Luke.  Our booklet said that Jesus was one who was trying to bring about radical change.  But a person in the group, whom I will call Bob (whose past comments I've written about here and here), did not agree with characterizing Jesus as a radical.  He said that he did not think that Jesus tried to shove the truth down people's approach, but rather offered them another way of looking at things, leaving it up to them to make up their own minds.  He also said that the changes that Jesus makes are subtle, not radical.

I identified a lot with what Bob was saying.  For one, it was a good counterbalance to one of the themes that I was hearing last night: that Luke was a slave (or so said Michael Card), and so we should be slaves to God.  I'm sure that Bob believes that it's important to keep Christ's commandments, but he also highlights that God respects our free choice.  Second, Bob's statement that Jesus makes subtle rather than radical changes in our lives resonated with me, since I'm not exactly sure what "radical" change in my life I should be looking for, according to the religionists who use that term.  I would like for there to be changes in me: for example, I'd like to be free from my resentment and less nervous.  These are changes, but they're a far cry from me selling all that I have and giving the proceeds to the poor, or me leaving my family.

I think that Jesus was radical, but also subtle and gentle (though, of course, there were times when he rebuked people).  Establishing a community that did not privilege people according to their social class was radical, in that day and age.  But being in that community entailed simply socializing with other people and showing them respect, which (while socializing is difficult for me) does not exactly strike me as some concept from tim-buk-too: it's radical, but it exhorts us to do something that we can do.  It entails a subtle change----from elitism to seeing value in all kinds of people.

Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full 20

For my blog post today about Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, I will use as my starting-point something that Black says on page 654:

Nixon "was also always ordering boycotts of writers and television anchors.  There was no point to his directed hostility to CBS's Walter Cronkite, NBC's David Brinkley, and Time's Hugh Sidey.  They had been in Washington a long time and would still be there long after Nixon left...Nixon should not have paid a moment's attention to any of them, other than normal courtesies when they met."

Hate can be futile.  I can hate someone, but that person probably doesn't care one way or the other what I think, so why should I drain myself with my hatred?  A person who hates can try to undermine those whom he hates, but then he's opening himself up to retaliation.  I have a hard time going to the other extreme and loving my enemies, however, for I really cannot "love" someone towards whom I lack at least some base of emotional affection.  Lately, what I've found myself thinking to myself is: "I hate that person.  Okay, I don't hate that person, since that person is a human being, like I am.  But I don't love that person, either.  Come to think of it, I don't even have to think about that person!"

Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full 19

For my blog post today about Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, I will use as my starting-point something that Black says on page 614.  The context is the aftermath of a June 10, 1969 press conference that Nixon gave about the Vietnam War.

"It was a very strong performance, and Nixon engaged in what would become a drearily predictable habit: telephoning supporters to a late hour asking them how they thought he had done.  It is astonishing that a man of Nixon's intelligence would not realize how this demonstrable insecurity, when all he had to do was wait for a few hours and he would learn how people thought he had done, would undermine the confidence of his staff."

How are we doing?  Many of us would like to receive positive feedback, or some indication that we are on the right track.  Sometimes, we get that in this world.  At other times, we don't, and we're left wondering how exactly we are doing, and what we can do better.  I don't think that Nixon was always paralyzed by insecurity about how he was doing.  When he was a Congressman investigating the Alger Hiss case, for example, he just did the work that he needed to do, even though he did not know what the exact outcome would be in terms of his own political career.  (Even Roger Morris, who is quite critical of Nixon, acknowledges this.)  That's a good rule of thumb: just keep on doing the work, sowing the seeds, hoping that there will be a harvest.  If you try, you may or may not succeed; if you don't try, you won't succeed.  While being a self-starter is commendable, though, it's still nice to get a pat on the back, every once in a while.

Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full 18

In my post today about Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, I will talk about Richard Nixon's relationship with French President Charles de Gaulle.  Here are some passages, but I will not provide context for them, since I don't want to get into the weeds of de Gaulle's geopolitical views.

Page 389: "Eisenhower and his immediate successors did not...figure out how to deal with de Gaulle (but Nixon did)."

Page 589: After discussing the deteriorating relationship between France and the U.S. under President Lyndon Johnson, Black says that "Nixon was the sixth American president de Gaulle dealt with, and his relationship promised to be the most productive and amicable of all."

Page 604: "[Nixon] invited de Gaulle to come to the United States and added, 'In this age of mediocre leaders in most of the world, America's spirit needs your presence.'  It's doubtful that the rancorous students...would have found much balm in de Gaulle's grandiloquence or erudition, but what Nixon meant was that he would have valued it himself."

Nixon did not exactly have the best social skills in the world, but he still got along with Charles de Gaulle, at a level far beyond what other U.S. Presidents did.  This, according to Conrad Black, was no easy task.  Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson did not really know how they should deal with de Gaulle.  It wasn't always a matter of a lack of mutual cordiality, mind you.  Johnson apparently did not have a good relationship with de Gaulle, but Black states that de Gaulle "liked but disagreed with Kennedy", and that de Gaulle's "relations with Eisenhower...had been cordial but inconclusive" (page 588).  According to Black, de Gaulle had the same sort of relationship with Truman that he had with Eisenhower, and his relations with FDR "were just warming up...after a very difficult start, when Roosevelt died" (page 588).  But de Gaulle had a good relationship with Nixon.

And Nixon apparently had a genuine regard and admiration for de Gaulle.  As Black says on page 604, Nixon wanted de Gaulle to come to the United States because Nixon felt that he needed him, amidst all of the turmoil that the United States was experiencing at the time.

Sometimes, it's the case that a socially-awkward person can succeed in developing and maintaining a rapport with a particular individual, whereas those who are expert charmers either struggle to do so, or flat out fail.  Why is this?  There are probably a variety of reasons.  First of all, a particular individual may be able to smell BS a mile away, and he's not open to being manipulated by charmers.  He'd prefer the company of someone who is low-key and yet real, especially if that person has a genuinely high regard for him.  Second, perhaps de Gaulle and Nixon were drawn to each other on account of their similar personalities.  As Nixon says in Leaders, de Gaulle was quite reserved.  So was Nixon.