Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Getting older! It happens to all of us. Although increased wisdom can come with added years, many of us also experience a decline in our physical and mental abilities. It can be difficult to contemplate intentionally reducing our public activities due to this decline.

This is the situation before us in our national political situation. A week ago, special counsel Robert Hur issued his report in which he concluded that President Joe Biden was not guilty of any criminal activity in his handling of sensitive government documents. Nevertheless, he also wrote that Biden was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”. Biden’s mental gaffes are well-known. In his attempt to refute the poor memory accusation, he gave a talk in which he confused the leaders of Egypt and Mexico.

On the other hand, former President Donald Trump has also committed his share of memory gaffes. The most recent was a campaign speech in which he confused Republican Nikki Haley with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi. Both men are of advanced age and make many mental mistakes. So do I. Although I am not as old as Biden and Trump, I am not far behind. I show the wear and tear of my years in my body and in my mind.

Should Biden or Trump drop out of the race for the presidency at this late date? Is there a precedent? Yes, there is. Back in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson dropped out of his race for re-election in March. I personally believe that the two main political parties (and therefore, the nation itself) would be better off, if Trump or Biden (or both) would drop out. Age and mental acuity are not the only issues. Biden’s handling of the border crisis has not been great (although Republican representatives in Congress are also at fault). Trump’s legal problems are even worse. He has already been found guilty of sexual assault/rape and financial fraud. If the other trials take place this year, he will likely be convicted of other, serious crimes.

Who do I suggest take the place of these men? Although I disagree with some of her policy proposals, Nikki Haley would do a far, far better job as president than Trump. In my opinion, he is morally repugnant, at all levels. On the Democrat side, among the many potential candidates, I would like to see Michelle Obama. She is smart, and of even more importance, very wise due to her life experiences. In addition, her life partner would make a great first “First Gentleman”.

Who Really Won in Iowa? It Depends How You Spin It.

Iowa celebrated its presidential caucus on Monday. Due to the frigid temperatures, voter turn out was lower than expected, but over 100,000 Iowan Republicans braved the weather and participated in the caucuses. Who won? It depends on who is spinning it.

On the one hand, Donald Trump won with about 51% of the votes. Ron DeSantis came in second place with 21% and Nikki Haley in third with 19%. This was the largest victory in the history of the Iowa caucus. From this perspective, it is extremely likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee for president. Most of the other principal candidates have dropped out. Haley has a small window of opportunity. She would have to win the primary in New Hampshire next week, then ride the momentum to win in her home state of South Carolina plus some victories on Super Tuesday. DeSantis has almost no possibility.

On the other hand, there are troubling signs for Trump. Although 51% voted for Trump, 49% of Iowa Republican caucus participants voted against Trump, by selecting other non-Trump candidates. (For example, if Obama had sat out for four years after his first term as president, and only received 51% in Iowa, nobody would describe it as a victory).

In addition, the entrance polls revealed that about one third of Republicans would not vote for Trump in the general election if he were convicted of crimes in federal courts. Although he is currently faring well against Biden in a hypothetical match up, he cannot afford to lose a third of Republican voters. That is why Trump and his lawyers are trying as hard as they can to delay the court hearings until after November.

We, the American people, deserve to know the essential truth about leading candidates…before we vote in November. No one is above the law. If Trump is found to be not guilty, let that become widely acknowledged. If he is found by juries of his peers to be guilty of serious crimes, we need to be aware of that as well. Democracy flourishes if truth is widely distributed. May all people of good will urge that these court trials occur before the general election in November.

A Lesson from the Epiphany: Don’t Believe Leaders who Lie!

On January 6 many Christians celebrated the Epiphany by celebrating when the Wise Men from the East came to worship baby Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Nevertheless, before they reached Bethlehem, they visited King Herod in Jerusalem and asked him if he knew where to find the newborn Messiah. Herod was worried because a rival to his own kingly rule had appeared on the scene. After consulting with religious priests and teachers, Herod found out that Jesus was to be born in the town of Bethlehem. Herod gave the Wise Men this information, and then added, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-12).

Herod lied. He had no intention of worshipping Jesus. He was using the Wise Men’s naivete to find out Jesus’ exact location in order to kill him. But God spoke to the Wise Men and told them to return their countries by a different way. This they did. When Herod discovered their “disobedience”, he became furious and ordered the massacre of all the little boys in Bethlehem. God told Mary and Joseph to take Jesus to Egypt to find refuge.

There are many interesting lessons to learn from this story, but I would like to concentrate on one. King Herod lied. And he used a religious motivation to cover his lie. Sadly, Jesus, when he was a grown man, taught that kings and other rulers all too frequently lie. They lord it over their subjects yet claim to be doing good (Luke 22:24-25). What is the lesson to be learned? We should not be gullible. We should not be naïve. We should not believe lying leaders…even when they cloak their lies in religiosity.

There are some leaders who are women and men of integrity who generally tell the truth. Nevertheless, we should use great caution and discernment when we hear politicians. Many leaders in every major country frequently lie. Many Democrat leaders and many Republican leaders frequently lie. Lying is not the exclusive domain of our political enemies.

Former President Reagan borrowed the Russian proverb “trust, but verify” and popularized the phrase in the English language. This is what I urge us all to do. Don’t naively believe everything you hear, especially in an election year. To the degree that is possible, question, fact check, and verify the affirmations of all politicians.

I eagerly watched the Republican presidential debate last night. Three candidates had qualified for the debate (Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump), but Trump chose not to participate. It was a lively debate with some substance and some smoke. DeSantis said, “Don’t trust Haley. She is lying.” Haley mentioned a dozen times the website DeSantisLies.com which points out the multiple lies of DeSantis and refutes them with evidence. Here are Republican leaders who tell us not to believe the words and promises of their rivals. They also accused Trump of lying, not just the “little” lies of the value of his properties, the unwanted fondling of women, or the immunity of presidents for all their actions while in office, etc., but the “Big Lie” of the 2020 election being stolen. Haley affirmed, “Biden won, Trump lost. It’s time to move forward.”

Leaders are not usually as good as they claim to be. Their lies must be unmasked. They point to the need for those who will double-check the facts and ask the tough questions. Let us be discerning as we seek the truth that can set us free.

Good News from Latin America: Christian Reflections on Suffering and Crisis

My readers may or may not know that some friends and I began publishing the Journal of Latin American Theology: Christian Reflections from the Latino South back in 2006. With two issues per year, the Journal has become one of the most important voices of Latin American Christian thinking in the English-speaking world. I have the privilege of being the General Editor of the Journal and I believe this issue is one of the very best. It deals with bringing God’s love to those who live in the midst of suffering, trauma and crisis. For those who are interested, here are the contents.

The Journal of Latin American Theology Volume 18:2

Disease and Healing: The Bible and Today’s World by Edesio Sánchez Cetina

Living from the Resurrection Narrative in the Midst of Speculation and Death by Fabio Salguero Fagoaga

An Interdisciplinary Approach for Supporting Women Displaced by Violence and Affected by COVID-19 by Mary Luz Reyes Bejarano

Pandemic, Trauma, and Lament: A Psycho-Theological and Pastoral Approach to Caregiving and Companioning by Daniel S. Schipani

Keys to Post-Traumatic Coping in the Life of Paul of Tarsus by Luis Cruz-Villalobos

Justice vs. Righteousness: A Contextualized Analysis of “tsedeq” in the KJV (English) and RVR (Spanish) by Esteban M. Voth

Sustaining the Momentum of Theological Education by Dieumeme Noëlliste

Film Review – Waaki by Victor Masayesva by Samuel Lagunas

Book Review – Las huellas del reino de Dios: perspectivas teológicas en América Latina (1970–2000) by Martín Ocaña Flores

Book Review – The Lord Roars: Recovering the Prophetic Voice for Today by M. Daniel Carroll R.

Book Review – Los Profetas: The Prophetic Role of Hispanic Churches in America, ed. Daniel F. Flores

Book Review – Introducción a la teología del Nuevo Mundo by Oscar García-Johnson

Theopoetry – “De las cosas sencillas / Of the Simple Things” by Luis Cruz-Villalobos

Available via Amazon and the ATLA theological data bank.

Mary’s Magnificat was neither Meek nor Mild

The Christmas season is when we emphasize the birth of Jesus. Of course, his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, are highlighted for their actions of faith. The popular notion is that Mary was so meek and mild that she would never rock the boat nor challenge the status quo. Wrong! She was a courageous champion of social change. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Mary sang out her mighty message of social transformation:

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, just as he promised our ancestors.” (Luke 1:46-55)

Jesus set in motion this non-violent revolution by what he preached and practiced in his life, death, and resurrection. He urged a radical love for our neighbors…and for our enemies. God continues this social change through simple human beings who follow the Lord’s leading in filling the hungry and lifting up the humble. Some examples come to mind: St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa. May this Christmas season be filled with a renewed commitment to advancing God’s love… on earth as it is in heaven.

Genocide against Israel is Evil…and so is Genocide against the Gazans

On October 7, Hamas attacked Israel and killed over a thousand Israelis and took over a hundred hostages. In response, Israel launched air attacks upon Gaza and, as a result, over ten thousand Palestinians have been killed. Israel also restricted food and water supplies in Gaza, and many additional thousands have died. Hamas is guilty of genocide…and so is Netanyahu’s administration. Both halves of the previous sentence are true and must be affirmed.

In our polarized society, we must apply the same ethical standards to both sides. We must no longer be like sports fans whose favorite team is never guilty of rule violations and whose opponents are never right. International laws that prohibit the targeting of civilians apply to friends and foes alike. If we don’t apply these criteria to all, we are guilty of hypocrisy. The tragic result is that anti-Semitism and anti-Palestinianism have skyrocketed in our country and around the world.

I add my voice to the call for an immediate ceasefire with the following goals:

Hostages on both sides be exchanged.
Humanitarian aid flow into Gaza.
Reasonable Israelis and thoughtful Palestinians sit down together and acknowledge their own guilt.
Both sides sketch out the first steps to achieve a just peace for all involved.
Nations around the world overcome their own interests and biases in order to stimulate and accompany this process of seeking a just peace.

Why do White Evangelicals prefer Trump when they have Better Options?

Why do White Evangelicals Prefer Trump when they Have Better Options?

In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, approximately 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Since then, they have remained some of Trump’s strongest supporters. This is somewhat strange, because his life runs contrary to evangelicals’ most cherished virtues. This must be unpacked a bit. Evangelicals are a subsection of Protestant Christianity which claim that their lives are guided by Biblical principles. Although this is somewhat true at an individual level (honest, hard-working, dedicated to their family, etc.), this is not accurate at a political level. Numerous surveys reveal that fewer than 15% of evangelicals have their political positions shaped by Scripture on important issues of our day (immigration, foreign policy, environment, health care, etc.). Their most important political concern has been to reduce the number of abortions taking place. Since Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have promised to re-shape the Supreme Court with enough conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court, and as a result, Roe was overturned, and the legal status of abortion has been returned to the states.

Although Trump lost the 2020 election, he is running again and is way ahead of his Republican rivals: Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy. My question for white evangelicals is the following: Why do you continue to support Trump when his lifestyle runs contrary to core Christian values and you have better options? Here is a small sample of his character flaws.

Trump is a racist. He began his campaign in 2015 by declaring that Mexicans were drug pushers, criminals, and rapists. In 2018 he called African countries, plus Haiti and El Salvador “shithole” countries.
Trump is a womanizer and treats women as objects. In his Access Hollywood tape, Trump affirmed “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
He is a bully. In his rallies, he demeans others based on their physical handicaps, their looks, etc. instead of using reasonable, logical arguments.
He is a compulsive liar. On the day of his inauguration, he lied about the size of the crowd, then told hundreds of significant lies during his presidency, including the allegation that he won the 2020 election. You can google “Trump and lies” for a long list with evidence.
He is narcissistic. His demands for “loyalty” required people to violate the Constitution and their conscience. For those who violated their religious convictions, they have brought shame and disrepute to their faith.
His vanity has led him to make false predictions. He predicted that under his leadership, Republicans would win so many elections, they would “get tired of winning”. That turned out to be false. Republicans lost the 2018 midterm election, the 2020 presidential election, and the special election in Georgia. They underperformed in 2022. Republicans are, in fact, tired of losing with Trump.
His many crimes have led him to be charged with 91 counts in federal courts. It is likely that he will be found guilty of some felonies by the time of the election in November, 2024.

I know people who refuse to acknowledge any of these defects. This was understandable during the heat of the 2016 and 2020 elections, but is totally unreasonable today. There are better options: Haley, DeSantis, and Christie. They are fallen human beings (just like me). They have their own defects (just like me). They probably have skeletons in their closets (just like me). I have significant disagreements with each of them and some of their policies. Nevertheless, they all have been governors and have experience in constitutional positions of leadership. Each of them has a basic minimum integrity as public servants. Each of them would be a better option than Trump.

For further reading, I suggest the new book by Tim Alberta: The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory. American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

So states the Good Book in Isaiah 5:20. The prophet Isaiah pronounced God’s judgment on those religious and political leaders who misrepresented God and distorted the Lord’s teaching on moral issues. To be sure, there are some ethical challenges that are “gray areas” in which right and wrong are not clearly discerned. On these issues sincere people might disagree.

Nevertheless, there are other topics where positions are clearly right or wrong and attempts by leaders to blur these distinctions do indeed deserve God’s judgment and our repudiation. One such issue is taking place before our eyes in Florida. On Wednesday, that state’s Board of Education approved a new curriculum for the teaching of Afro-American history, including slavery in the United States. Instructions for teaching this history to middle schoolers is that students learn how slaves developed skills which could be applied “for their personal benefit”.

I hope my readers would agree that slavery in the United States was horrific. Thousands upon thousands of Africans died in the voyage across the Atlantic. Many more died due to the hard labor and harsh conditions of slavery itself. Black families were torn apart. We fought a long, bloody civil war to rid ourselves of this evil institution. Although some slave owners were not as bad as others, they all benefited from the involuntary labor of the slaves. (Some of my ancestors owned slaves, and therefore, I benefited indirectly from that slave labor). Although many slaves were resilient and endured horrific slavery with God’s help, this does not soften the evil of slavery itself.

The obvious results (and probable purpose) of Florida’s educational curriculum and guidelines are to distort our history and put a benevolent aura upon a sinful system. This is calling evil good and deserves our repudiation. I call upon Florida’s Board of Education to rewrite their guidelines to make their history curriculum more in line with what truly happened.

Memorial Day and our Unjust Wars: Let’s be Honest

This might not be a popular blog, but I submit it to your conscience. This past weekend, our country celebrated the national holiday of Memorial Day in which we honor those soldiers who gave their lives in our nation’s wars. Republicans and Democrats generally agree regarding the honoring of veterans, but both sides are failing the integrity test. Let me explain.

Our country, like most nations around the world, affirms that we practice Just War Theory (JWT). We claim that we will not go to war unless the basic four criteria of JWT are met (just cause, just intent, last resort, legitimate authorization). We also affirm that we will wage war according to JWT principles, like civilian immunity. What should we do when we fail to meet JWT conditions? An honest analysis shows that most of our wars have not been just. (See the book “The Wars of America: Christian Views”, edited by Ronald Wells, for such an analysis of each of our major wars). Our typical response is to slide down the slippery slope of excuses, alibis, or rationalizations. We avoid talking about our moral failures or we try to change the rules in midstream.

Let´s take the war in Iraq as an example. We spent twenty years, the lives of thousands of soldiers, over 100,000 civilian Iraqi deaths, and $1.7 trillion dollars for a war that was not justified. Allegedly, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had a close relationship with al-Qaeda. He was a terrible tyrant, but no weapons of mass destruction were ever found nor evidence of communication with al-Qaeda. The war was never authorized, neither by the U.S. Congress nor by the United Nations. The highly respected Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, made the case for war at the UN Security Council. The UN correctly did not approve the request, citing the lack of credible evidence. Being a man of integrity, General Powell later acknowledged his deep regret for having been used as an instrument to disseminate false information that led to a war with over 100,000 deaths, mostly civilians.

How should we remember unjust wars? Only a cheap, false patriotism would celebrate these wars. We would do well to learn from the ancient Israelites who confessed their sins on their annual Day of Atonement. We must learn to hold accountable our officials who gloss over their actions as “good intentions”. Good intentions are not enough. If Just War Theory is to be accepted as a valid national policy, we the people need to demand that our leaders do not take us into deadly wars that are not justified. My faith tradition teaches that if we deny our sins, we are liars and we deceive themselves. But if we confess our sins, we can find forgiveness. Unjust war involves the cheapening of human life. Our society has the highest gun violence in the world which points to a similar devaluing of lives. Let’s acknowledge our mistakes and find healing for our nation.

Further reading: “When War is Unjust” by John Howard Yoder and “Terrorism and the War in Iraq” that I wrote together with Rene Padilla.

Public Policy and the “Separation of Church and State”? A Way Forward.

This is a thorny issue. On the one side are people who argue for a complete separation of church and state (the secular position). On the other side, many religious people claim that their Scriptures clearly distinguish right from wrong and that public laws should replicate this (the theocracy position). In my (not so humble) opinion, both sides have overstated their case. This is a tough issue, but there is a way forward.

People on the secular side argue for a complete “separation of church and state”. This phrase was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, but it does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Some from the secular position seem to have forgotten that many of the important laws in modern, secular societies (that they do agree with) had their origin in Scripture. Laws against murder, theft, and perjury historically came from the Ten Commandments. These usually came about via church/state alliances but have been reaffirmed by citizens in pluralistic societies today. On the other hand, other laws which were religiously motivated (example: the “dry laws” that prohibited sales of alcohol in the Bible Belt South or the “Blue laws” that prohibited supermarkets from opening on Sundays) have generally been dropped across the country.

People on the theocracy side believe that they know God’s will for society, based on their interpretation of their Scriptures and that should be applied to all (like the prohibition of murder). A contemporary example of this is the pro-life position of many religious people in which they affirm that the fetus’s life should be defended as of conception. Many pro-lifers had opposed the Roe v. Wade decision because it was made by members of the Supreme Court in 1973 and not by elected officials. Although Roe v. Wade has now been overturned federally, the legality of abortions is being decided at the state level.

Problems with both extreme positions should motivate us to a third way. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom to all people to choose their own religion…or no religion at all. I might not agree with their choices, but I defend their freedom to choose. Their religious choices probably influence them on a wide array of issues, including public policies. That is fine and appropriate. Freedom of conscience means that people can arrive at their opinions in the way that they prefer. Nevertheless, if they want to codify their opinions into law, there is the next step which is quite difficult. In democracies, they must persuade a majority of their fellow citizens of the appropriateness of their policies (at a district, state, or national level).

This challenge can be seen in what happened in Kansas. With Roe v Wade being overturned, people in Kansas voted on the legality/illegality of abortions in their state. Although Kansas is a “ruby red” state which traditionally votes Republican, 59% voted to keep abortions legal. The pro-lifers failed to persuade a majority of Kansas inhabitants of the “rightness” of their position. Their position would be made stronger if they supported policies that would help pay maternity costs or provide child care or other programs that would be consistently “pro-life”.

What is the third way? People have the right to acquire their personal opinions in the way they prefer. But to codify these opinions into laws, they need to persuade a majority of their neighbors about the “justness” of their positions. They are free to use religious arguments, although non/religious arguments might be better. Democracy is messy. Sometimes your positions win, sometimes they don’t. That is why freedom of speech and elections are important.