Posts
I just watched "Barge of the Dead," which is an episode of Star Trek: Voyager. You know, there are some episodes of shows that I like to watch more than once, since they speak to something within me. This is one such episode.
In "Barge of the Dead," B'Elanna Torres goes to Klingon hell. As Star Trek: Voyager viewers know, B'Elanna is an interesting character. Her mother was a Klingon (and an obsessive one at that), while her father was a human. She dropped out of the Star Fleet Academy and joined the Maquis, a renegade group that resisted Cardassian tyranny. When the Maquis encountered Voyager in the far-out Delta Quadrant, the two groups teamed up to find their way home. On Voyager, B'Elanna is a Star Fleet engineer.
She is often very moody, yet she displays a lovable, vulnerable side every now and then. On this particular episode, we get to know her a little better. Essentially, B'Elanna has problems fitting in anywhere. She doesn't care for her Klingon heritage, for her mother tried to shove it down her and her dad's throats. In the process, she drove B'Elanna's father away. B'Elanna also doesn't like humans because she sees them as weak, and her Klingon heritage leads her to admire tough warriors. Yet, ironically, she is engaged to Tom Paris, a human on Voyager.
In Klingon hell, she decides to take the place of her mother, yet (for some reason) that is not enough. In despair, she cries out to her mother, "What do you want from me?" Her mother tells her that she must decide that for herself, yet B'Elanna continues to plead for guidance.
She encounters images of her Voyager crewmates, which means that she views her service on the ship as hell. They say that her anger has dragged them down along with herself. The vulcan, Tuvok, tells her to defend herself, as he throws her a Klingon weapon. B'Elanna then complains that she has tried to fulfill all of these roles: Star Fleet officer, Maquis, lover, and daughter. She asks what all of them want from her. Neelix, the cook, responds that they only want her. B'Elanna's mother tells her to embrace life, and B'Elanna finally reaches a point of resignation. "I'm just tired of fighting," she says, as she tosses her weapon into the air.
One reason I identify with B'Elanna is that she lacks inner peace. She is always fighting with someone because her main fight is with herself. She doesn't know who she is and where she is going. She is lost. I feel that way a lot of times.
Yet, she seeks answers. She wants someone to tell her what to do. I cried during this part of the show because I was thinking about that very thing this morning, before I even saw the episode. I thought about how I stumble through this life feeling lost. I don't know what people want from me, or even if I can give them what they want. And virtually everyone has advice. "You need to be the life of the party--a super extrovert. People aren't attracted to those who are reclusive!" "You need to be yourself--be at peace, then people will be attracted to you." "You need to speak out more at events." "No, just listen, then you can hear something that can help you out." "Do this, do that!" "No, do them when you're truly ready!"
I realize that I've probably confused my readers, but I hear all of this advice, and I don't know who's right. I recognize that certain approaches work for me better than others. For example, beating myself up because I'm not the life of the party has never produced good fruit in my life. So should I only follow advice that I like? The problem there is that I don't fully trust myself, for I've made a lot of mistakes in the past.
When The Passion of the Christ was coming out, Mel Gibson gave an interview to Diane Sawyer. Mel was telling the story of his commitment to Christ. He said that he once stood out on a ledge, and he found himself in a dilemma: he didn't want to live, and he didn't want to die. He realized that someone higher than him had to have the answers for life.
I need guidance, yet I also should do what works for me. I can only be me, not someone else. I want to be attractive, yet that will be hard if it requires me to have something witty to say on every occasion. Maybe, like B'Elanna, I'll eventually reach the point where I'm just plain tired of fighting, as I embrace all of the good things that life has to offer.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Matthew 11:7-9: What Did You Go Out to See?
In Matthew 11, John the Baptist is languishing in Herod's prison, and he wonders if Jesus really is the Messiah. He sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus this question, and Jesus points him to his miracles as evidence. After John's disciples leave, Jesus then tells the crowd about John the Baptist. He says that John was not a reed shaken in the wind, nor was he clothed in dainty garments, the types you would see in palaces. Rather, John was a prophet, if not more. Actually, he was the prophesied voice in the wilderness who had prepared the way of the Lord.
I wondered why Jesus said all these things about John the Baptist, so I checked my trusty E-Sword commentaries. And, fortunately, they offered some decent, contextual interpretations. In Matthew 11:6, Jesus said, "And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me" (NRSV). That appears to be a put-down to John. But Jesus wanted to clarify to his audience that John was actually a great man, a holy man. According to Jesus, John was not a reed shaken in the wind, that is, a man unstable in his faith and convictions. He was not someone who sought power and influence within society's upper echelons, nor did wealth "sissify" him. Rather, he was a tough, rustic figure, a wilderness man who was boldly committed to doing the will of God, even if that landed him in jail. Like the prophets of old, he was a righteous man who dared to speak truth to power.
Here is another possible reason that Jesus emphasized John's "outsider" status: Jesus was trying to prepare his audience for a different kind of kingdom. Many first century Jews expected a Messiah who would free them from the Romans and establish a Golden Age, better than the days of David and Solomon. That would involve wealth and power for Israel. But Jesus was a low-key person whose mission was to suffer. He reached out to the lowest people of society: the poor, the sick, and the outcasts. Wealth and power were the opposite of what Jesus represented.
And so, in addition to salvaging John's reputation, Jesus may be saying in Matthew 11:7-9: "Look, there was something that drew you to John the Baptist. He's not like a lot of celebrities you know. He didn't have much wealth or political power, the sorts of things you usually find attractive. But there was something about him. And I want you to get in touch with that something, because that is what my kingdom is all about. And all sorts of people are entering it by force, regardless of the opposition it's experiencing."
This is not to imply that first century Judaism focused solely on wealth and power, or looked down on the poor and the sick. We can read in rabbinic sources that the heirs of first century Judaism did not do this, for Judaism has always had a lot of positive values. But people are people, regardless of the age in which they live. People today glorify glamor, wealth, and power, even if they may give lip-service to higher ideals. So why should we assume that people back then did any differently? But Jesus was trying to reorient their perspective onto true values, such as righteousness, justice, courage, and humility. And John the Baptist was someone who exemplified these things.
I wondered why Jesus said all these things about John the Baptist, so I checked my trusty E-Sword commentaries. And, fortunately, they offered some decent, contextual interpretations. In Matthew 11:6, Jesus said, "And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me" (NRSV). That appears to be a put-down to John. But Jesus wanted to clarify to his audience that John was actually a great man, a holy man. According to Jesus, John was not a reed shaken in the wind, that is, a man unstable in his faith and convictions. He was not someone who sought power and influence within society's upper echelons, nor did wealth "sissify" him. Rather, he was a tough, rustic figure, a wilderness man who was boldly committed to doing the will of God, even if that landed him in jail. Like the prophets of old, he was a righteous man who dared to speak truth to power.
Here is another possible reason that Jesus emphasized John's "outsider" status: Jesus was trying to prepare his audience for a different kind of kingdom. Many first century Jews expected a Messiah who would free them from the Romans and establish a Golden Age, better than the days of David and Solomon. That would involve wealth and power for Israel. But Jesus was a low-key person whose mission was to suffer. He reached out to the lowest people of society: the poor, the sick, and the outcasts. Wealth and power were the opposite of what Jesus represented.
And so, in addition to salvaging John's reputation, Jesus may be saying in Matthew 11:7-9: "Look, there was something that drew you to John the Baptist. He's not like a lot of celebrities you know. He didn't have much wealth or political power, the sorts of things you usually find attractive. But there was something about him. And I want you to get in touch with that something, because that is what my kingdom is all about. And all sorts of people are entering it by force, regardless of the opposition it's experiencing."
This is not to imply that first century Judaism focused solely on wealth and power, or looked down on the poor and the sick. We can read in rabbinic sources that the heirs of first century Judaism did not do this, for Judaism has always had a lot of positive values. But people are people, regardless of the age in which they live. People today glorify glamor, wealth, and power, even if they may give lip-service to higher ideals. So why should we assume that people back then did any differently? But Jesus was trying to reorient their perspective onto true values, such as righteousness, justice, courage, and humility. And John the Baptist was someone who exemplified these things.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Is David a Copycat?
I'm reading Thomas Thompson's The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Cambridge: Basic Books, 2005) . Thompson is a minimalist, which means he doesn't believe most of the Bible is historical. Well, one of his arguments in The Messiah Myth is that the ancient Near East has longstanding traditions of a king who goes into exile, returns to challenge the oppressive reigning king, and sets up a paradise that lifts up the poor. When I read I-II Samuel for my quiet time at Harvard, I wondered if the ancient Near East had stories of a king who went through trials before he ascended the throne, the sort of thing we find with David. Now that I see parallels, I wonder why such stories exist. I mean, I have my own theological/religious answer: God puts people in trials to teach them character and prepare them for their divinely-appointed task. Did others (non-Israelites) in the ancient Near East believe this?
Many believers may have a problem with what Thompson says because it presents the Hebrew Bible as a copycat book. But, personally, my access to such motifs comes through my contact with the Hebrew Bible, which God has seen fit to preserve. So the David story is still special to me, even if other cultures have a similar story. I mean, why should I care what a Moabite king went through? But David started off the dynasty that led to Jesus Christ, and that does matter to me.
Thompson's big point is that the David story (and, going further, the Jesus one) is not historical because it appears so story-like. I think that a minimalist sentiment is that real life is not like a story or a movie, since it is not quite so neat. Actually, that may be a scholarly sentiment in general, not just a minimalist one. But who's to say that stories can't be real, in some way, shape, or form? Real life has good people and bad people, and there are times when the good triumph, as occurs in many stories.
I had another question when I did my I Samuel quiet time years ago: Did the ancient Near East offer negative images of good kings? With David, we see a picture that is not always rosy. I know how some scholars try to explain that: The David court is trying to defend David against detractors and thus acknowledges some of their claims, yet puts a spin on them (Baruch Halpern). Or the criticisms of David are from a post-exilic, anti-Messianic strain of thought (John van Seters). And Christians who read the text devotionally say it shows that the Bible is hard on its heroes, demonstrating that even the best of us sin and fall short of God's glory. But I wonder if other cultures were hard on their heroes, and, if so, why?
Many believers may have a problem with what Thompson says because it presents the Hebrew Bible as a copycat book. But, personally, my access to such motifs comes through my contact with the Hebrew Bible, which God has seen fit to preserve. So the David story is still special to me, even if other cultures have a similar story. I mean, why should I care what a Moabite king went through? But David started off the dynasty that led to Jesus Christ, and that does matter to me.
Thompson's big point is that the David story (and, going further, the Jesus one) is not historical because it appears so story-like. I think that a minimalist sentiment is that real life is not like a story or a movie, since it is not quite so neat. Actually, that may be a scholarly sentiment in general, not just a minimalist one. But who's to say that stories can't be real, in some way, shape, or form? Real life has good people and bad people, and there are times when the good triumph, as occurs in many stories.
I had another question when I did my I Samuel quiet time years ago: Did the ancient Near East offer negative images of good kings? With David, we see a picture that is not always rosy. I know how some scholars try to explain that: The David court is trying to defend David against detractors and thus acknowledges some of their claims, yet puts a spin on them (Baruch Halpern). Or the criticisms of David are from a post-exilic, anti-Messianic strain of thought (John van Seters). And Christians who read the text devotionally say it shows that the Bible is hard on its heroes, demonstrating that even the best of us sin and fall short of God's glory. But I wonder if other cultures were hard on their heroes, and, if so, why?
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Matthew 10:26: Uncovering the Concealed
In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending out his disciples. They are to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and they will experience persecution along the way, from their families, from the synagogues of the cities, and even from Gentile rulers. But Jesus says that such is to be expected, for the world is only treating them as it has treated him: with hatred.
Then, v 26 says something puzzling: "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known" (NRSV).
How does v 26 relate to the topic of the chapter, which is the mission and persecution of Jesus' disciples? The uncovering of the concealed is obviously relevant to its context, since Jesus offers that as a reason for the disciples not to fear their persecutors.
I checked my E-Sword commentaries, and they had some interesting insights. Essentially, they said that God will publicly vindicate the good character and message of the disciples, even as he reveals the enemies of the Gospel to be truly wicked.
That makes sense, for Jesus says in vv 24-25, "A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!" The Jewish communities of first century Palestine viewed the disciples as the scum of the earth. They saw Jesus' followers as bad people, while they considered themselves to be servants of God whenever they persecuted them (John 16:2).
But the disciples were the ones who were doing God's will. And the religious establishment had corrupt motivations that they did not lay bare to the public. They were the corrupt tenants who said among themselves, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance" (Matthew 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14). They wanted to kill Jesus to preserve their own power, and they plotted to do so secretly, since Jesus had popular support (Matthew 26:4; Luke 22:2).
And so Jesus might be saying, "Take courage when people persecute you. Eventually, God will make plain that you are the righteous ones, while he will expose your persecutors as the wicked people they truly are."
Did this happen? On some level, yes. God demonstrated that Jesus was who he said he was when he raised him from the dead (Acts 2:32-36). The rulers of the world showed their corrupt natures when they crucified Jesus (Colossians 2:15). And God indicated his displeasure at the Jewish religious establishment when Jerusalem fell in 70 C.E. (Matthew 21:33ff.). God publicly revealed his favor upon Jesus and his righteous anger at his detractors. God exposed Jesus' followers as righteous, and the enemies of the Gospel as wicked.
But Jesus in Matthew 10:26 may be referring to the last judgment, when God "will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart" (I Corinthians 4:5). Jesus could be saying that God will vindicate Jesus' disciples and expose the wickedness of their persecutors after the resurrection. After all, Matthew 10 says a lot about post-mortem reward and punishment (vv 15, 28, 39, 41-42).
Or Jesus may be assuring his disciples that the Gospel message will go out, regardless of opposition. Jesus says in Matthew 10:27, "What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops." "The message will go forth, regardless of what people may do to you," Jesus may mean. "So keep preaching what I teach you!"
The statement that appears in Matthew 10:26 is used in a variety of ways, in both the synoptic Gospels (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:2-3) and also the Gospel of Thomas (5, 6, 33). In Matthew 10, it comforts the disciples who will face persecution.
Then, v 26 says something puzzling: "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known" (NRSV).
How does v 26 relate to the topic of the chapter, which is the mission and persecution of Jesus' disciples? The uncovering of the concealed is obviously relevant to its context, since Jesus offers that as a reason for the disciples not to fear their persecutors.
I checked my E-Sword commentaries, and they had some interesting insights. Essentially, they said that God will publicly vindicate the good character and message of the disciples, even as he reveals the enemies of the Gospel to be truly wicked.
That makes sense, for Jesus says in vv 24-25, "A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!" The Jewish communities of first century Palestine viewed the disciples as the scum of the earth. They saw Jesus' followers as bad people, while they considered themselves to be servants of God whenever they persecuted them (John 16:2).
But the disciples were the ones who were doing God's will. And the religious establishment had corrupt motivations that they did not lay bare to the public. They were the corrupt tenants who said among themselves, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance" (Matthew 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14). They wanted to kill Jesus to preserve their own power, and they plotted to do so secretly, since Jesus had popular support (Matthew 26:4; Luke 22:2).
And so Jesus might be saying, "Take courage when people persecute you. Eventually, God will make plain that you are the righteous ones, while he will expose your persecutors as the wicked people they truly are."
Did this happen? On some level, yes. God demonstrated that Jesus was who he said he was when he raised him from the dead (Acts 2:32-36). The rulers of the world showed their corrupt natures when they crucified Jesus (Colossians 2:15). And God indicated his displeasure at the Jewish religious establishment when Jerusalem fell in 70 C.E. (Matthew 21:33ff.). God publicly revealed his favor upon Jesus and his righteous anger at his detractors. God exposed Jesus' followers as righteous, and the enemies of the Gospel as wicked.
But Jesus in Matthew 10:26 may be referring to the last judgment, when God "will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart" (I Corinthians 4:5). Jesus could be saying that God will vindicate Jesus' disciples and expose the wickedness of their persecutors after the resurrection. After all, Matthew 10 says a lot about post-mortem reward and punishment (vv 15, 28, 39, 41-42).
Or Jesus may be assuring his disciples that the Gospel message will go out, regardless of opposition. Jesus says in Matthew 10:27, "What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops." "The message will go forth, regardless of what people may do to you," Jesus may mean. "So keep preaching what I teach you!"
The statement that appears in Matthew 10:26 is used in a variety of ways, in both the synoptic Gospels (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:2-3) and also the Gospel of Thomas (5, 6, 33). In Matthew 10, it comforts the disciples who will face persecution.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Matthew 12:22-37: Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit
In Matthew 12:22-37, Jesus heals a demoniac, prompting the Pharisees to repeat their claim that Jesus did his exorcism through the power of Beelzebub. Jesus responds that this is absurd, for Satan would not undermine his own kingdom by freeing people from demons. That would be against Satan's own self-interest! According to Jesus, his exorcisms were signs of the binding of Satan and the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Then, Jesus makes a statement that has baffled and troubled numerous Christians. He asserts that those who blaspheme the Son (Jesus) can receive forgiveness, but those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, in this world or the world to come. Jesus then says that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks: good words flow out of people with good hearts, while evil words flow out of those with evil hearts. Jesus then emphasizes the importance of words at the last judgment: "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (NRSV).
What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Suppose I hit my little finger with a hammer and curse in anger? Did I just blaspheme the Holy Spirit? John Bunyan thought he had blasphemed the Holy Spirit when he expressed a desire for Jesus to leave him. That dismay put him in a spiritual pit for a long time!
Most Christians treat blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an attitude. For them, the Pharisees knew that Jesus was the Messiah on the basis of his miracles, yet they rejected him anyway. Their continual rejection of Jesus placed them in a position where they could not believe and be saved. According to many Christians, if a person is worried about having committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then he most likely has not done so, since he is displaying an attitude of repentance. The Pharisees, however, could not repent, for they were dismissing the very evidence for Jesus' Messianic status. People could reject Jesus and later repent after they recognized their ignorance. But if they rejected Jesus' miracles and good works on behalf of the Kingdom, then what more could Jesus do to convince them? They are in a state of spiritual hopelessness, for their hearts are hard against God himself.
Jesus told the Jewish leaders in John 10:37-38: "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." For Jesus, the miracles that he did were obviously from God, and the Pharisees should have known that, especially when they were doing similar works themselves. And, of course, when they did them, they claimed they were from God! So why did they assume that Jesus' exorcisms were any different? But their attribution of them to Beelzebub was evidence of their opposition to God's goodness and the corruption of their hearts.
The popular Christian answer has a lot of merit, but I have at least two problems with it:
1. Most Christians treat the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit primarily as an attitude of rebellion. And, indeed, Jesus does criticize the Pharisees' hearts. But he also focuses a lot on their words, for he affirms that useless speech can lead to condemnation at the final judgment. And I prefer to translate artos as "useless" or "without redeeming value," not as "careless." In my opinion, Jesus was not condemning the Pharisees because they misspoke or said something without a whole lot of thought. Rather, Jesus believed that what they said was bad.
Matthew 12:32 states, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." The word translated as "speaks" is an aorist, which means a single incident as opposed to a continuous activity. A Greek professor of mine once said that the present tense is like a movie, whereas the aorist is like a snapshot. Therefore, Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees' single statement that Beelzebub had helped out his exorcisms, not just their continual mindset. Those who view the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a continuous attitude should address this point. Jesus says that anyone who says one word against the Holy Spirit will receive no forgiveness. Sure, the word proceeds from a heart that is continuously corrupt, but the word is still what condemns someone.
Pat Robertson was the first preacher I heard who addressed that point. He was asked about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit on the 700 Club, and he replied that it was a single rather than a continuous act, since Matthew 12:32 uses the aorist. But (if my memory is correct) his advice for Christians was not to worry too much about it, since God is merciful. Then why did Jesus get into this whole discussion of forgiveness and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in the first place?
(UPDATE: My understanding of the aorist have changed since I wrote that post. There are different uses of the aorist, so the use of the aorist in Matthew 12:32, by itself, does not necessarily mean that Jesus was condemning a single act.)
2. My second point may not be too crucial, but I do see a need to make it. For most Christians, Jesus was saying that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit cannot repent. But Jesus doesn't explicitly say that. Rather, he stresses that they will not be forgiven. Granted, repentance is what leads to forgiveness, and a person cannot be forgiven if he is unable to repent. But Jesus may mean, "Look, that sin is so bad that God will not forgive it. Watch out, people!"
These are problems that I have with the prevalent Christian interpretation. Now here are three of my problems with the passage itself, or at least people's use of it:
1. Jesus acts as if his miracles are obvious signs that he is from God. But the Bible says on many occasions that false prophets are able to do signs and wonders (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; Matthew 24:24; II Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:13-14). Pharaoh's magicians could duplicate some of Moses' miracles, for example (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18). Such a motif appears in Christian literature. In Frank Peretti's The Visitation, for instance, a false prophet does healings that initially help people yet eventually turn out bad. So if the bad side can do miracles, then why should we be so shocked that Jesus' miracles failed to convince the Pharisees? Of course they can say that the bad side was helping Jesus out! That was an option in the Bible: that a false prophet can do some pretty miraculous things.
When I was a kid, I heard a sermon by a preacher from an Armstrongite church. As Armstrongites usually do, this guy was criticizing Protestants, especially those from the charismatic movement. Essentially, he was attributing their miracles to demons. "So these guys cast out demons. Big deal!" he said. "Satan can tell demons to leave someone. He put them in the person, after all." I was just a kid, but my jaw dropped. "Isn't that the same argument that Jesus was trying to refute?" I thought. "And Jesus said that this argument was blaspheming the Holy Spirit!" That brings me to my next point:
2. Many charismatics act as if anyone who disagrees with them on spiritual gifts is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Their logic runs like this: The Holy Spirit is the one who influences charismatics to speak in tongues and prophecy. To certain Christians, these activities look rather bizarre, if not downright creepy, so they either attribute them to Satan or say that they aren't from the Holy Spirit. For charismatics, since these Christians are criticizing an activity of the Holy Spirit, they are blaspheming him.
But can't there be room for doctrinal disagreement, without saying that people from a certain side are placing themselves permanently outside of God's forgiveness? It's not as if non-charismatics are hardening themselves against God (even though many of them do seem to put God in a box). There are many charismatics who act as if they're special because they have these gifts while others do not, and they want everyone to pat them on the backs. But do they have to say that those who don't pat them on the backs are on their way to hell?
3. Now that I've bashed both non-charismatics and charismatics, allow me to talk about liberal Christians. They too have appealed to Jesus' statement on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I once had a Harvard professor who believed that non-Christians could be saved on account of their good deeds. He was once a conservative Christian who maintained that Jesus was the only way to God, but he changed his mind when he met some nice Jewish people. One rabbi he knew did many good works. He loved God and helped the poor. When he prayed, his prayers were answered.
"Now, you could tell me that all of this was from Satan," he told me. "But that's what the Pharisees told Jesus. And Jesus said that, if they couldn't acknowledge goodness when they saw it, then you can't do anything for them!" For my professor, a refusal to acknowledge the goodness of non-Christians resembled the Pharisees' denial of Christ's good deeds.
Indeed, that is a hard one. So now we have to compromise on Jesus being the only way, or we're in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It seems that, according to a lot of interpreters, it is virtually impossible not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, unless one buys into the interpreters' own peculiar ideology.
My professor may have a point. I don't know. A person's theological or religious construct can influence how he reacts to certain phenomena. If a Christian believes in total depravity, then he will try to explain away the good deeds of non-Christians, depicting them as not truly good (ergo Jonathan Edwards' The Nature of True Virtue). Similarly, the Pharisees tried to explain away Jesus' deeds to fit their own construct. "This guy can't be from God," they thought. "He doesn't keep the Sabbath properly. He rejects the traditions of our elders. He dares to forgive sins, something that only God can do. His miracles must be from Satan!"
But, then again, maybe they were supposed to accept Jesus' miracles on the basis of their own religious construct. Jesus made the point, after all, that they saw exorcism as good, since there were Pharisaic exorcists. Why was it right for them to do it and not Jesus? And some (such as Brad Young) have argued that Jesus was not really going beyond the pale of Judaism, for there were rabbis who (like Jesus) were open to plucking grain on the Sabbath for a little snack. According to this view, the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus' disciples in Matthew 12:1-8 was part of an inter-Jewish dispute, not an accusation that Jesus was completely overturning Judaism. If that is the case, then maybe the Pharisees should have been open to Jesus and his miracles, but they weren't because they were grasping onto their power, which Jesus dared to threaten.
What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Suppose I hit my little finger with a hammer and curse in anger? Did I just blaspheme the Holy Spirit? John Bunyan thought he had blasphemed the Holy Spirit when he expressed a desire for Jesus to leave him. That dismay put him in a spiritual pit for a long time!
Most Christians treat blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an attitude. For them, the Pharisees knew that Jesus was the Messiah on the basis of his miracles, yet they rejected him anyway. Their continual rejection of Jesus placed them in a position where they could not believe and be saved. According to many Christians, if a person is worried about having committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then he most likely has not done so, since he is displaying an attitude of repentance. The Pharisees, however, could not repent, for they were dismissing the very evidence for Jesus' Messianic status. People could reject Jesus and later repent after they recognized their ignorance. But if they rejected Jesus' miracles and good works on behalf of the Kingdom, then what more could Jesus do to convince them? They are in a state of spiritual hopelessness, for their hearts are hard against God himself.
Jesus told the Jewish leaders in John 10:37-38: "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." For Jesus, the miracles that he did were obviously from God, and the Pharisees should have known that, especially when they were doing similar works themselves. And, of course, when they did them, they claimed they were from God! So why did they assume that Jesus' exorcisms were any different? But their attribution of them to Beelzebub was evidence of their opposition to God's goodness and the corruption of their hearts.
The popular Christian answer has a lot of merit, but I have at least two problems with it:
1. Most Christians treat the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit primarily as an attitude of rebellion. And, indeed, Jesus does criticize the Pharisees' hearts. But he also focuses a lot on their words, for he affirms that useless speech can lead to condemnation at the final judgment. And I prefer to translate artos as "useless" or "without redeeming value," not as "careless." In my opinion, Jesus was not condemning the Pharisees because they misspoke or said something without a whole lot of thought. Rather, Jesus believed that what they said was bad.
Matthew 12:32 states, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." The word translated as "speaks" is an aorist, which means a single incident as opposed to a continuous activity. A Greek professor of mine once said that the present tense is like a movie, whereas the aorist is like a snapshot. Therefore, Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees' single statement that Beelzebub had helped out his exorcisms, not just their continual mindset. Those who view the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a continuous attitude should address this point. Jesus says that anyone who says one word against the Holy Spirit will receive no forgiveness. Sure, the word proceeds from a heart that is continuously corrupt, but the word is still what condemns someone.
Pat Robertson was the first preacher I heard who addressed that point. He was asked about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit on the 700 Club, and he replied that it was a single rather than a continuous act, since Matthew 12:32 uses the aorist. But (if my memory is correct) his advice for Christians was not to worry too much about it, since God is merciful. Then why did Jesus get into this whole discussion of forgiveness and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in the first place?
(UPDATE: My understanding of the aorist have changed since I wrote that post. There are different uses of the aorist, so the use of the aorist in Matthew 12:32, by itself, does not necessarily mean that Jesus was condemning a single act.)
2. My second point may not be too crucial, but I do see a need to make it. For most Christians, Jesus was saying that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit cannot repent. But Jesus doesn't explicitly say that. Rather, he stresses that they will not be forgiven. Granted, repentance is what leads to forgiveness, and a person cannot be forgiven if he is unable to repent. But Jesus may mean, "Look, that sin is so bad that God will not forgive it. Watch out, people!"
These are problems that I have with the prevalent Christian interpretation. Now here are three of my problems with the passage itself, or at least people's use of it:
1. Jesus acts as if his miracles are obvious signs that he is from God. But the Bible says on many occasions that false prophets are able to do signs and wonders (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; Matthew 24:24; II Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:13-14). Pharaoh's magicians could duplicate some of Moses' miracles, for example (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18). Such a motif appears in Christian literature. In Frank Peretti's The Visitation, for instance, a false prophet does healings that initially help people yet eventually turn out bad. So if the bad side can do miracles, then why should we be so shocked that Jesus' miracles failed to convince the Pharisees? Of course they can say that the bad side was helping Jesus out! That was an option in the Bible: that a false prophet can do some pretty miraculous things.
When I was a kid, I heard a sermon by a preacher from an Armstrongite church. As Armstrongites usually do, this guy was criticizing Protestants, especially those from the charismatic movement. Essentially, he was attributing their miracles to demons. "So these guys cast out demons. Big deal!" he said. "Satan can tell demons to leave someone. He put them in the person, after all." I was just a kid, but my jaw dropped. "Isn't that the same argument that Jesus was trying to refute?" I thought. "And Jesus said that this argument was blaspheming the Holy Spirit!" That brings me to my next point:
2. Many charismatics act as if anyone who disagrees with them on spiritual gifts is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Their logic runs like this: The Holy Spirit is the one who influences charismatics to speak in tongues and prophecy. To certain Christians, these activities look rather bizarre, if not downright creepy, so they either attribute them to Satan or say that they aren't from the Holy Spirit. For charismatics, since these Christians are criticizing an activity of the Holy Spirit, they are blaspheming him.
But can't there be room for doctrinal disagreement, without saying that people from a certain side are placing themselves permanently outside of God's forgiveness? It's not as if non-charismatics are hardening themselves against God (even though many of them do seem to put God in a box). There are many charismatics who act as if they're special because they have these gifts while others do not, and they want everyone to pat them on the backs. But do they have to say that those who don't pat them on the backs are on their way to hell?
3. Now that I've bashed both non-charismatics and charismatics, allow me to talk about liberal Christians. They too have appealed to Jesus' statement on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I once had a Harvard professor who believed that non-Christians could be saved on account of their good deeds. He was once a conservative Christian who maintained that Jesus was the only way to God, but he changed his mind when he met some nice Jewish people. One rabbi he knew did many good works. He loved God and helped the poor. When he prayed, his prayers were answered.
"Now, you could tell me that all of this was from Satan," he told me. "But that's what the Pharisees told Jesus. And Jesus said that, if they couldn't acknowledge goodness when they saw it, then you can't do anything for them!" For my professor, a refusal to acknowledge the goodness of non-Christians resembled the Pharisees' denial of Christ's good deeds.
Indeed, that is a hard one. So now we have to compromise on Jesus being the only way, or we're in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It seems that, according to a lot of interpreters, it is virtually impossible not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, unless one buys into the interpreters' own peculiar ideology.
My professor may have a point. I don't know. A person's theological or religious construct can influence how he reacts to certain phenomena. If a Christian believes in total depravity, then he will try to explain away the good deeds of non-Christians, depicting them as not truly good (ergo Jonathan Edwards' The Nature of True Virtue). Similarly, the Pharisees tried to explain away Jesus' deeds to fit their own construct. "This guy can't be from God," they thought. "He doesn't keep the Sabbath properly. He rejects the traditions of our elders. He dares to forgive sins, something that only God can do. His miracles must be from Satan!"
But, then again, maybe they were supposed to accept Jesus' miracles on the basis of their own religious construct. Jesus made the point, after all, that they saw exorcism as good, since there were Pharisaic exorcists. Why was it right for them to do it and not Jesus? And some (such as Brad Young) have argued that Jesus was not really going beyond the pale of Judaism, for there were rabbis who (like Jesus) were open to plucking grain on the Sabbath for a little snack. According to this view, the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus' disciples in Matthew 12:1-8 was part of an inter-Jewish dispute, not an accusation that Jesus was completely overturning Judaism. If that is the case, then maybe the Pharisees should have been open to Jesus and his miracles, but they weren't because they were grasping onto their power, which Jesus dared to threaten.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Pat and Jerry Up Close
I just finished Mel White's Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994). Mel White was a ghostwriter for such figures as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham. Unknown to them at the time was Mel's sexual orientation. Mel White is a homosexual.
Mel talks about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson up close, for he got to work with them on several occasions. What's interesting is that his account of their personalities matches what I have read or heard about them elsewhere, in a variety of sources. Or, actually, I have several sources about Falwell. My information on Pat Robertson is from someone who's met him.
Mel White describes Falwell as a practical joker. Jerry once put a baby crocodile in his bathtub, scaring his wife, Macel Pate (who may be related to me, who knows?). That matches something I read on the Internet. There was a journalist who did not like Falwell because of the divisions he caused in her community. She visited Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia to do a story about him, and, much to her surprise, she found him to be a nice, funny guy. When she rode around with him in his truck, he pretended that he was about to run over the students. He definitely had a funny streak.
But, according to Mel White, Falwell also had problems with the truth. White says that Falwell was not overly homophobic up close, for he had a homosexual on his staff. For Falwell, as long as the gay kept his homosexuality to himself, he and Falwell would get along fine. But, at the time of White's writing, Falwell denied that he had a homosexual on his staff (according to White).
White also refers to a mass-mailing that Falwell sent out, detailing his rescue from a homosexual mob in Los Angeles. According to Falwell, the LAPD had to rescue him from a bunch of murderous homosexuals. But the police deny that this even occurred.
I've read in other sources about Falwell's problems with the truth. In Keeping Faith, Jimmy Carter recounts that Falwell was telling people that he (Carter) had homosexuals in his administration, based on a statement that Carter allegedly made to him in a meeting. But, in Carter's recollection, he told Falwell no such thing. Carter says that Falwell later apologized, yet he still aired ads in which a mother told her little girl that Carter was bad because he tolerated homosexuals.
In William Martin's With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York: Broadway, 1996), Falwell recounts that his church began reaching out to African-Americans in the early 1960s. Here's Falwell's version of events:
"[T]he real test came--it was probably 1960 or '61--when a black family came forward to join our church and wanted to be baptized. I said, 'All right, I'll baptize you,' and I did. But I told them that night, as we were about to go down in the water, I said, 'Neither one of us may come up out of that water, so I hope you're right with the Lord. I am.' And I baptized them. We lost a couple of families over that, but just that quickly it was all over. And as far as I know, we became the first church in this town to aggressively begin ministering to everyone...[I]n 1960 in the South, it was a big deal. And it caused criticism--in the city, in the community, not just in the church. There were people wondering, 'What is this young preacher trying to do, ruin our town?'"
According to Martin's research, Falwell's story is inaccurate, for "Thomas Road Baptist Church remained segregated until 1968, and the first baptism of an African-American person appears not to have occurred until 1971" (page 58).
So was Falwell a liar? I don't know. Maybe he just had a certain perspective on past events. On some level, we all place things that happened to us into a narrative, which isn't necessarily accurate in every detail. Perhaps Falwell sincerely believed he was telling the truth.
Regarding Pat Robertson, Mel White depicts him as very intense. White contrasts Robertson to Falwell: "Pat Robertson, on the other hand, was almost always polite, but distant, totally self-absorbed in his ambitious plans, and certainly not much fun." When White was on Robertson's plane, Robertson dropped him off, put a more influential person in Mel's place, and took off again. Mel found himself in a strange airport, "hoping to catch a commercial flight home" (page 205).
That reminded me of someone who told me a story about Pat Robertson. "Why don't you invite Pat Robertson to this area?" he was asked. He replied, "I know Pat and Dee Dee. I've had lunch with them. They're charming, wonderful people. But his attention span for you is like that if you don't present him with the hottest thing since French toast." When he said "that," he snapped his fingers. "If I invite Pat here to speak, he'll look through the curtains to see if he's got a big crowd, and I don't want him to be disappointed."
His interpretation of Pat wasn't as negative as White's, but both seem to present similar characteristics: a man who is ambitious and driven, yet friendly.
When I hear different people say the same thing about someone, I think, "Okay, we're talking about the same person here." But who knows? These figures may have had deeper things in them that never came to the surface. Can we truly say that we know someone? Motivations may be hidden.
Mel talks about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson up close, for he got to work with them on several occasions. What's interesting is that his account of their personalities matches what I have read or heard about them elsewhere, in a variety of sources. Or, actually, I have several sources about Falwell. My information on Pat Robertson is from someone who's met him.
Mel White describes Falwell as a practical joker. Jerry once put a baby crocodile in his bathtub, scaring his wife, Macel Pate (who may be related to me, who knows?). That matches something I read on the Internet. There was a journalist who did not like Falwell because of the divisions he caused in her community. She visited Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia to do a story about him, and, much to her surprise, she found him to be a nice, funny guy. When she rode around with him in his truck, he pretended that he was about to run over the students. He definitely had a funny streak.
But, according to Mel White, Falwell also had problems with the truth. White says that Falwell was not overly homophobic up close, for he had a homosexual on his staff. For Falwell, as long as the gay kept his homosexuality to himself, he and Falwell would get along fine. But, at the time of White's writing, Falwell denied that he had a homosexual on his staff (according to White).
White also refers to a mass-mailing that Falwell sent out, detailing his rescue from a homosexual mob in Los Angeles. According to Falwell, the LAPD had to rescue him from a bunch of murderous homosexuals. But the police deny that this even occurred.
I've read in other sources about Falwell's problems with the truth. In Keeping Faith, Jimmy Carter recounts that Falwell was telling people that he (Carter) had homosexuals in his administration, based on a statement that Carter allegedly made to him in a meeting. But, in Carter's recollection, he told Falwell no such thing. Carter says that Falwell later apologized, yet he still aired ads in which a mother told her little girl that Carter was bad because he tolerated homosexuals.
In William Martin's With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York: Broadway, 1996), Falwell recounts that his church began reaching out to African-Americans in the early 1960s. Here's Falwell's version of events:
"[T]he real test came--it was probably 1960 or '61--when a black family came forward to join our church and wanted to be baptized. I said, 'All right, I'll baptize you,' and I did. But I told them that night, as we were about to go down in the water, I said, 'Neither one of us may come up out of that water, so I hope you're right with the Lord. I am.' And I baptized them. We lost a couple of families over that, but just that quickly it was all over. And as far as I know, we became the first church in this town to aggressively begin ministering to everyone...[I]n 1960 in the South, it was a big deal. And it caused criticism--in the city, in the community, not just in the church. There were people wondering, 'What is this young preacher trying to do, ruin our town?'"
According to Martin's research, Falwell's story is inaccurate, for "Thomas Road Baptist Church remained segregated until 1968, and the first baptism of an African-American person appears not to have occurred until 1971" (page 58).
So was Falwell a liar? I don't know. Maybe he just had a certain perspective on past events. On some level, we all place things that happened to us into a narrative, which isn't necessarily accurate in every detail. Perhaps Falwell sincerely believed he was telling the truth.
Regarding Pat Robertson, Mel White depicts him as very intense. White contrasts Robertson to Falwell: "Pat Robertson, on the other hand, was almost always polite, but distant, totally self-absorbed in his ambitious plans, and certainly not much fun." When White was on Robertson's plane, Robertson dropped him off, put a more influential person in Mel's place, and took off again. Mel found himself in a strange airport, "hoping to catch a commercial flight home" (page 205).
That reminded me of someone who told me a story about Pat Robertson. "Why don't you invite Pat Robertson to this area?" he was asked. He replied, "I know Pat and Dee Dee. I've had lunch with them. They're charming, wonderful people. But his attention span for you is like that if you don't present him with the hottest thing since French toast." When he said "that," he snapped his fingers. "If I invite Pat here to speak, he'll look through the curtains to see if he's got a big crowd, and I don't want him to be disappointed."
His interpretation of Pat wasn't as negative as White's, but both seem to present similar characteristics: a man who is ambitious and driven, yet friendly.
When I hear different people say the same thing about someone, I think, "Okay, we're talking about the same person here." But who knows? These figures may have had deeper things in them that never came to the surface. Can we truly say that we know someone? Motivations may be hidden.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Reagan and AIDS
I recently talked about the episode of Eli Stone that criticized Reagan's record on AIDS. As fate would have it, I was reading a book a few days later that discussed the issue extensively: Reagan's Disciple, by Lou and Carl Cannon.
The Cannons were responding to the Showtime miniseries, The Reagans, which in an early draft depicted Reagan as saying, "Those who live in sin shall die in sin." For many on the left, Reagan's homophobia was the reason that he did nothing to stop the AIDS crisis in the 1980's. But the Cannons demonstrate that Reagan was not homophobic, and that his administration actually did a lot in response to the disease. They still fault him, however, for not speaking much about it in public.
At the outset, let me say that The Reagans miniseries was actually basing the "Those who live in sin" statement on a Reagan quote. Reagan biographer Edmund Morris quotes Reagan as saying, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague...because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." But that doesn't mean that Reagan had a "let them die" attitude. Abraham Lincoln thought the Civil War was God's punishment on America for slavery, but he didn't have a "do-nothing" mindset. Reagan believed in the fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would culminate in Armageddon, yet he tried to prevent that apocalyptic catastrophe. So Reagan could speculate that AIDS was a punishment from God, while still trying to do something about it.
That said, let's turn now to the Cannons' book. I take my information from pages 266-271 of Reagan's Disciple (New York: Public Affairs, 2008).
Did Reagan hate homosexuals? No. He had worked with them throughout his Hollywood career. As Governor of California, he did bow to pressure from his aides when he dismissed his chief of staff, who was an alleged homosexual. But he didn't understand what the big deal was. "Let me tell you something about homosexuals," Reagan said. "There are a lot of them." In 1978, Reagan opposed a ballot measure that would have barred homosexual teachers from public schools. "Whatever it is, homosexuality was not a contagious disease, like the measles," he argued. "Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
As an aside, the Cannons document that George W. Bush has demonstrated the same attitude, notwithstanding his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Lanny Davis was a Clinton aide who went to Yale with Bush in the 1960's. Davis and Bush were sitting with a group of Dekes who were making fun of an effeminate young man, calling him a "queer." According to Davis, Bush snapped. "Shut up!" Bush said. "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?" That coincides with an interview that Bush gave years later, in which he said that he did not fire gay people from his staff. Reagan and Bush are men of religious principle, yet they've shown respect to those who are different.
Back to Reagan and AIDS. In 1984, Reagan thought that AIDS was like the measles and would go away. When his good friend Rock Hudson got sick and died from it, however, Reagan became convinced that it was much more than that. But the Reagan administration spent money for AIDS research starting in 1983. According to the Cannons, "In fiscal year 1983, the Reagan administration...spent $44 million fighting AIDS, a number that essentially doubled each year of Reagan's presidency and reached $2.3 billion in the fiscal year ending in 1989."
But Reagan did not publicly speak out about AIDS until 1987. Certain conservatives in his administration encouraged him to keep his distance from AIDS and homosexuals. Gary Bauer didn't want the President of the United States to say the word "condom" in public.
At the same time, Reagan's Health and Human Services Secretary, Margaret Heckler, did make public statements about the disease. In August 1983, she held the hand of an AIDS patient, Peter Justice, "as a way of alleviating the public's fear about transmission." "The person with AIDS is bearing a very heavy burden," she stated. "We ought to be comforting the sick rather than inflicting them and making them a class of outcasts."
The Reagan record on AIDS is much more complex than the Left assumes. Reagan himself may not have believed that homosexuality was God's will for human beings, but he tried to love homosexuals. He may not have been perfect, but he did try.
March 12, 2016 update: I am learning about how Nancy Reagan declined Rock Hudson’s request for President Reagan to intervene so that Hudson could get treatment in France. See here for an article on that.
The Cannons were responding to the Showtime miniseries, The Reagans, which in an early draft depicted Reagan as saying, "Those who live in sin shall die in sin." For many on the left, Reagan's homophobia was the reason that he did nothing to stop the AIDS crisis in the 1980's. But the Cannons demonstrate that Reagan was not homophobic, and that his administration actually did a lot in response to the disease. They still fault him, however, for not speaking much about it in public.
At the outset, let me say that The Reagans miniseries was actually basing the "Those who live in sin" statement on a Reagan quote. Reagan biographer Edmund Morris quotes Reagan as saying, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague...because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." But that doesn't mean that Reagan had a "let them die" attitude. Abraham Lincoln thought the Civil War was God's punishment on America for slavery, but he didn't have a "do-nothing" mindset. Reagan believed in the fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would culminate in Armageddon, yet he tried to prevent that apocalyptic catastrophe. So Reagan could speculate that AIDS was a punishment from God, while still trying to do something about it.
That said, let's turn now to the Cannons' book. I take my information from pages 266-271 of Reagan's Disciple (New York: Public Affairs, 2008).
Did Reagan hate homosexuals? No. He had worked with them throughout his Hollywood career. As Governor of California, he did bow to pressure from his aides when he dismissed his chief of staff, who was an alleged homosexual. But he didn't understand what the big deal was. "Let me tell you something about homosexuals," Reagan said. "There are a lot of them." In 1978, Reagan opposed a ballot measure that would have barred homosexual teachers from public schools. "Whatever it is, homosexuality was not a contagious disease, like the measles," he argued. "Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
As an aside, the Cannons document that George W. Bush has demonstrated the same attitude, notwithstanding his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Lanny Davis was a Clinton aide who went to Yale with Bush in the 1960's. Davis and Bush were sitting with a group of Dekes who were making fun of an effeminate young man, calling him a "queer." According to Davis, Bush snapped. "Shut up!" Bush said. "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?" That coincides with an interview that Bush gave years later, in which he said that he did not fire gay people from his staff. Reagan and Bush are men of religious principle, yet they've shown respect to those who are different.
Back to Reagan and AIDS. In 1984, Reagan thought that AIDS was like the measles and would go away. When his good friend Rock Hudson got sick and died from it, however, Reagan became convinced that it was much more than that. But the Reagan administration spent money for AIDS research starting in 1983. According to the Cannons, "In fiscal year 1983, the Reagan administration...spent $44 million fighting AIDS, a number that essentially doubled each year of Reagan's presidency and reached $2.3 billion in the fiscal year ending in 1989."
But Reagan did not publicly speak out about AIDS until 1987. Certain conservatives in his administration encouraged him to keep his distance from AIDS and homosexuals. Gary Bauer didn't want the President of the United States to say the word "condom" in public.
At the same time, Reagan's Health and Human Services Secretary, Margaret Heckler, did make public statements about the disease. In August 1983, she held the hand of an AIDS patient, Peter Justice, "as a way of alleviating the public's fear about transmission." "The person with AIDS is bearing a very heavy burden," she stated. "We ought to be comforting the sick rather than inflicting them and making them a class of outcasts."
The Reagan record on AIDS is much more complex than the Left assumes. Reagan himself may not have believed that homosexuality was God's will for human beings, but he tried to love homosexuals. He may not have been perfect, but he did try.
March 12, 2016 update: I am learning about how Nancy Reagan declined Rock Hudson’s request for President Reagan to intervene so that Hudson could get treatment in France. See here for an article on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)