Fragments, Fallout, and Freedom--Part 5

Dad and Trump

Dad died suddenly exactly two weeks after President Trump was elected.  I was in Asia on election day and did not return to the US until the following weekend.  Probably partly because of these logistical realities and our limited time together in November 2016, I don't think I ever heard Dad say anything about the election results. Of necessity, this post is as much about what Dad did not do or say as what he did and said.  Although reasoning from silence has its hazards, I will use tidbits from Dad's record to clarify my own position and motivation.  In general, my positions and motivations align with his.  In a later post, I will probably refer more specifically to questions I've been asked or challenges that I've encountered.

Posting my recollections and thoughts here involves some risk of disavowal from readers, since Dad did a lot of writing, and spoke to many audiences and individuals.  In other words, people could consult their own memories, and research past "Observations" columns in Calvary Messenger and come up with information that counters what I write here.  I invite this kind of evaluation, and hope that if you do it, you share it with me or with the entire reading audience by way of a comment.  Affirmations are welcome too, of course, if your evidence or recollections mirror mine.  I aimed to read all of Dad's Observations columns (almost always on some current event or issue) as they were published.  Occasionally I typed some of those columns before they were submitted.  On some occasions he asked me to critique them. 

I regret that I have a poor memory for details of the kind that I read in Dad's columns, and I don't have ready access to the back issues of Calvary Messenger that contain the columns.  I believe that another reason these columns were "forgettable" to me was that they usually did not contain anything that struck me as being new or novel--the kind of information that my brain soaks up most readily.  I often already knew something about the topic he was writing about, and I already knew how he would be most likely to comment on the information.  Nevertheless I'm sure that what I read in those columns swiftly entered the stew of ideas already bubbling in my brain.  They probably became so thoroughly cooked into the mix that their origin soon became indiscernible.

****************

When Trump's candidacy was still new, I do remember Dad commenting on Trump.  We were sharing a meal in our home, with my brother Marcus and my sister Linda present also.  I don't remember exact words, but I remember that Dad lamented what he saw in Trump (crassness, immorality, poor thinking and communication skills, pride, greed, dishonesty, etc.) and didn't think he had a chance of becoming the top Republican candidate or of winning the election because he couldn't imagine that such a man would appeal to anyone.  I feel sure that he could. not. believe. the results of the election.  He would have been incredulous at the support he garnered from ordinary Americans and deeply distressed that any Christians supported him.  He would have been concerned about the future of this country.

These are some of the things Dad did not do:

1.  He did not vote--as a matter of principle.  He did not campaign against voting either, recognizing that people with a different Christian background might have different sensibilities on this matter than he did.
2.  He did not campaign or voice support for any of Trump's opponents, although I know that he liked what he heard from Ben Carson when he had gone to hear him speak locally before he was involved politically.
3.  He did not denounce Trump publicly.
4.  He did not denounce Obama publicly or express reservations privately, to my knowledge.
5.  He did not speak in support of the turn toward political involvement in some Christian leaders or organizations.
6.  He did not listen to the radio, watch TV, or use the internet.
7.  He did not extol the virtues of capitalism
8.  He did not rail against communism or engage in fear mongering.
9. He did not generally tell people how to think; instead he pointed to Scripture and/or shared his own thoughts.
10.  He did not expect government to solve problems in society.
11.  He did not believe that anything of lasting good was accomplished when Christians used force to try to effect change in the world.
12.  He did not believe that any party or candidate was "good."  If they were before they tried to win elections or carry out government duties, they probably risked being compromised in the process of participation in the process.   


Here are some of the things Dad felt, believed, said, or did:

1.  He was aghast when President Clinton's immorality came to light.  He was shocked at the graphic testimony given during the hearings as reported in our local daily newspaper.  Afterward he was sorry that he had not noticed the "graphic" warning at the beginning of the newspaper article.
2.  He had access to the Drudge report over the time of the Clinton impeachment saga.  I'm not sure how this happened because he did not regularly use electronic media, since I don't think it was ever distributed through print media  Probably one of his column readers shared it with him.
3.  In relation to the Clinton impeachment proceedings, I remember Dad expressing concern about what this meant for our government institutions.  I wish I could remember specifically which institutions and effects he was thinking about.  Generally, I believe he was concerned about stability.
4.  He prayed regularly for our rulers.
5.  He acknowledged the sovereignty of God in everything, including American presidential elections.
6.  He did not "major in minors" in speaking of political matters.  If it was a little thing, he left it alone.

The next items on the list are less directly related to Trump and politics in general, but part of the context out of which Dad operated.
7.  He subscribed to The Hutchinson News, Time, World, Christianity Today, and Mennonite World Review.  He sometimes contributed to the "Western Front"--the readers write section of the local daily newspaper.  He liked to deliver these contributions personally to the newspaper editor.  He did the same for Mennonite World Review.  In addition, MWR sometimes picked up parts of his "Observations" column for re-publication.
8.  He went with some of my brothers and others to a seminar featuring Francis Schaeffer, and liked much of what he heard.  Schaeffer's emphasis on civic involvement did not resonate with him, however.*
9. Dad had a strong sense of the need for good stewardship of the gifts God gives.  On at least one occasion I know of, he taught on this topic in a series of meetings in another state.
10.  Dad shared generously of his time and resources with people on the margins of society when his path and theirs crossed.**
11.  Dad loved and honored the Lord in everyday life.
12.  He loved the church and its traditions.
13.  Dad was comfortable in his own skin.
14. Dad would never have said this of himself, but others often marveled at his wisdom and his gift for articulation and diplomacy.
15. Dad's facial expression typically conveyed warmth, openness, and alertness.
16.  Dad had a great sense of humor--often expressed as droll understatement or surprising word twists, and he enjoyed nothing more than listening in on his boys' (and daughter Carol's) sharp and witty exchanges.
17.  Dad loved being around people, but also made good use of time to think while he was alone or working with his hands.
18.  He was strongly pacifist, although he much preferred the term nonresistant, believing it to be more descriptive of a non-combative, redemptive response to violence in all areas of life--not only referring to military matters.
19. Dad had a high regard for Michael Sattler and others in Reformation times who introduced by their words and actions the idea that the church could not be entangled with civic affairs (Schleitheim Confession, 1527).***
20.  Dad was quick to acknowledge the blessing of having public servants who lived with integrity and demonstrated uprightness in how they carried out their duties.

In Dad's last years, my younger brother Ronald had begun to take over the writing of "Observations."  After Dad's death, Ronald became solely responsible.  His most recent column refers to the impeachment proceedings, among other things.  Although what I will share here is unedited and still unpublished, I believe it faithfully represents how my father might have written of it.  If anything, my father might have stated things more strongly.

"The ongoing impeachment saga should be receding in the rear-view mirror of the nation by the time you read this. There is a common phrase that circulates in circles where a judicial process is unfolding. I'm talking about the phrase, “innocent until proven guilty”. Oftentimes it is stated as fact that in the USA a person is indeed innocent until proven guilty. I'd like to point out that the language regarding our rights in this aspect is actually that people are “presumed” innocent until proven guilty. There is sometimes quite a difference between how people who are charged with a crime or misdeed need to be regarded and what they actually are.  Sometimes they are guilty and sometimes they aren't. However, in a 100 years or so from now, it will make very little difference what the general population or the courts have determined regarding any person's guilt or innocence. With God there are no mistakes and no presumption either of guilt or innocence.

I make no claim one way or another with regard to President Trump or his accusers. I have some opinions but they are of little consequence. However, God keeps track of what is right and wrong, and He will address all that if and when he sees fit to do so. Having stated that I make no claim one way or another should not be confused with indifference about it. The fact that people who have been elected to serve, and have accumulated a lot of birthdays, act like little children with poor manners, is not a reassuring scenario, nor one in which I care be identified with.  I hope it's not arrogant for me to understand that Christians are above that kind of behavior.  To the extent that we aren't, a bit of repentance and renewal would be appropriate."

***************** 
 *I remember being at a live Schaeffer event later when someone I didn't recognize asked me during intermission what I thought about Schaeffer's teaching.  I expressed general appreciation for what I was hearing but voiced some of the same reservations I heard from my father.  Later I realized that the person who spoke to me was Franky Schaeffer, Francis' son.

Two of my brothers were present with Dad at the earlier seminar.  One of them cites exposure to Schaeffer as having sparked an interest in philosophy.  He has made teaching philosophy his career.  He is also the only one of my siblings who is politically active--but not the only one who is knowledgeable about politics.  His sympathies generally lie with Conservatives.  I note with some amusement that his sons argue with him in much the same way as my brothers used to argue with their father--in both cases, the sons pushing back against the father's conservatism.

The other brother who was present at the Schaeffer seminar regularly counters his brother's views.  He pursued a graduate degree in history and has taught in several Anabaptist post-high-school institutions.  He is a careful observer and occasional unofficial commentator, but is not politically active.  If he votes or if his sons argue with him, I've never heard about it.

I generally don't discuss politics with my siblings or anyone else.  I only listen.  If my sisters vote, I don't know about it.  One of them really hates when people she loves get into political discussions in her presence.  Another is extremely knowledgeable about such matters and is not averse to chiming in when her brothers are "having it out" with each other.  Another one lives in a household where strong conservative political views are held and voting happens.  A different sister has a son who is a strong Bernie Sanders supporter.  Suffice it to say that some diversity exists within the family.

Much of what I've written here about my family demonstrates that growing up in the same home and having been influenced by some of the same people does not guarantee identical outcomes. Personal choice is involved, and, of course, not all experiences are shared experiences.  In the case of political views, I believe the extent to which people have inhaled conservative media content and embraced capitalistic economic principles, to that extent conservative political biases are likely.

** I remember at least four occasions when such people lived with us for multiple weeks.  One of them was an immigrant who had fled violence in a Latin American country.  Others would have been called "tramps" in an earlier time.

On several occasions Dad helped pursue justice and mercy for those who were incarcerated. He grieved with the man's family when one such person died suddenly when he was apparently close to being released, after patient perseverance had uncovered a pattern of mishandling (or perhaps merely negligence) in his case.  Although he probably didn't see any point in pursuing the matter beyond his friend's death, I think he always believed that the death was, at best, very convenient for those in authority whose errors were so very close to coming to light.

***It's easy to see from this excerpt from the Schleitheim Confession why it did not set well with either Catholics or Protestants.  The words may have been the cause for the principal writer, Michael Sattler, being given a death sentence (you'll need a strong stomach if you read the details of how this was carried out). The sharp division between Christians and "the world" seems jarring to our ears.   Indeed, the force of these understandings prevailed for more than 400 years, carried from Europe forward into American Anabaptism, with departure from it happening in the arena of civic affairs only in the late decades of the twentieth century--perhaps earlier in some of the least separated branches of Anabaptism.  To my knowledge, it prevailed unanimously in our congregation until people moved here from other states in recent decades, some of them bringing their partisan political activism with them. The final sentence articulates nonresistance [pacifism], which survives in all Mennonite and Amish groups as the official stance in relation to military service.

The "civic affairs" term occurs in the section on separation between Christians and the evil world.  I've underlined or highlighted several phrases in case you'd prefer not to wade through the entire cumbersome wording.

 "Fourth. On separation of the saved: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them [the wicked] and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who [have come] out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.

To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters. He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and the earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them. From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all popish and antipopish works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the commitments [made in] unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteouness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.

Therefore there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian, devilish weapons of force -- such as sword, armor and the like, and all their use [either] for friends or against one's enemies I would like the records -- by virtue of the word of Christ, Resist not [him that is] evil"  Link