The cult of Sarah Palin

Ordinarily, the resignation of a governor facing ethics charges would be greeted with yawns and finger-wagging as if to say, "See, he became too big for his britches."

But when Sarah Palin, the former Republican Party vice-presidential candidate, announced last week that she would step down from her post as governor of Alaska effective July 26, it only added to her legend. That is, to her supporters.

And I think that says a lot about them.

Of course, those of us who follow politics are wondering what her next move is -- a run for president? Senator? Political commentary from a conservative perspective? (Only with the last would the former TV reporter have any serious bona fides.)

Anyway, to some people Palin's resignation is just about one woman who wanted the power of the office but not the baggage that came with it. Many have even said, "It's all about her."

But this Palin-worship isn't really about her; rather, it speaks to the delusion under which the political right has always operated (but which is becoming more obvious by the day to us non-conservatives). Palin represents little more than a microcosm of much of the conservative movement in general -- impetuous, arrogant, whiny, paranoid, clueless, classless, juvenile. Folks have actually rallied around a figure that resembles them -- but in a negative sense.

In a way, that shouldn't surprise.

Conservatives have always sought some "magic bullet" that would turn people against their opponents and toward them -- that's been their strategy since Nixon -- because doing things that way is easier than actually defending their proposals and the personalities that espouse them. I can't tell you how many right-wing media outlets tried to slander both Bill and Hillary Clinton, insisting that they had "information" that, if publicized, would "finish them off for good." And when it doesn't happen -- well, the media are "hiding something." All because they refuse to admit that their own agenda today is offensive and impractical and has fallen flat, their candidates are to a man (or woman) fatally flawed and their appeals are now falling on deaf ears.

They got lucky with Reagan, who in their view came in riding on a white horse to save the day from evil liberals and a malevolent press corps; perhaps they believe that they can catch lightning in a bottle once again even though times have changed. It's a lot like a football team trying the same play that no longer works because the defense knows it's coming and how to counter it.

With apologies to Bobby Caldwell, what you won't do, do for hate ...

When Palin was announced as the running mate for John McCain, she was touted as a reformer -- that's since proven dubious -- and a "Washington outsider" (according to Jane Mayer, writing in the New Yorker, an outright lie).

During a recent Facebook discussion, a Palin supporter insisted that the Democratic Party "feared" her. If she wants to believe that ... well, she's entitled her her opinion.

But the demographics don't support her claims, especially long-term. Let us remember that 60 percent of the "youth vote" -- that is, under-30 -- voted Democratic (read: liberal) during the last general election, and people generally don't change their voting habits over a lifetime. A few months ago Sen. Arlen Specter, until then a Republican, switched to the Democratic Party. Reason? His power base in the Philadelphia suburbs, generally under the category of "Rockefeller Republicans," during the Clinton years began trending Democratic because they couldn't abide the right-wing extremism that began to typify the national Republican Party.

All of which leads to the main point: It's Palin, not her critics, who is out of touch with reality. What's more, the same must be said for her worshippers, who will b---- and moan about her treatment at the hands of those not of their party. But as the late Chicago journalist Finley Peter Dunne said, "Politics ain't beanbag." If she can't take the scrutiny, she has no business even running for office. And they thus don't have the right to complain.

I'm a complementarian

As a child in the 1970s, I was involved in a church that didn't ordain women to the pastorate or as deacons or elders, and the egalitarian in me considered that stance discriminatory and unnecessary.

Today, I attend a church that doesn't ordain woman as pastors or elders (there, deacons are not ordained positions), and now I understand why. If I haven't entirely recanted that stance, I now respect it.

Yes, I've become somewhat of a "complementarian" -- believing today that, when it comes to leadership in the church, it should be predominately (if not exclusively) male.

About a decade ago I did a lot of ballroom dancing with my then-girlfriend, and the first thing I learned in the process is that, in a couple, the man and woman have strictly-defined roles -- which, in this case, means that the man leads. It just works best that way.

I've come to realize that the same works in the rest of life, too. I didn't always believe that -- I mean, does gender really matter when it comes to relationships, especially in the church?

Yes, it does. Over the last two decades I've found that, when I'm in a situation that subscribes to a complementarian outlook, I'm treated with more respect as a man. But when it was more "egalitarian," with no division of labor according to gender, I often found myself ignored.

Why is that? Well, the feminist movement ended up making far more demands of men than of women -- in many cases the respect that women expected from men simply wasn't reciprocated, especially in evangelical circles. Although women claimed to want to be "equal partners" in marriage, they usually still shoot for partners with equal or higher status than they, which in practice means that the pool of available eligible men has shrunk because they have higher status. (Ironically, many of them complain, "Where are all the single men?")

During services at my church, only men are permitted to serve as ushers, collect tithes and offerings or disburse communion elements (the last of which I do regularly and enjoy). Reason: Men seek purpose, while women are more interested in fellowship. That is to say, men need something specific to do in a church, otherwise they would be less interested in remaining; women, on the other hand, are more satisfied just to "hang out."

But that also speaks to the need for us men to act as servants and not simply as "kings" enamored with authority -- just like our LORD. And that too is attractive to women, who whether they want to admit it or not crave somewhat whom they can trust to fulfill his responsibilities. Done right -- that is, with humility -- the "gender division" would be no big deal.

Communion -- it's NOT for 'everybody'

Last week, the Sojourners blog featured a post from a pastor who received a tearful mobile-phone message from a young woman who had been denied communion at her parents' church. Eventually, the "problem" was resolved when she finally was administered the sacrament in an airport chapel.

Here's the problem: The post didn't give any specific reason why this took place -- whether because the woman's parents attended church in a denomination that limited its observance of the LORD's Supper to adherents or she was involved in some gross sin that disqualified her. The post gave the impression that anyone who wants to should be able to take communion, anywhere, anytime.

On the contrary -- communion is in fact identified as the "believers' covenant meal," which (depending on your perspective) expands or limits participation. It of course represents a reminder of the then-upcoming death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ, through and by which we believers in Him receive eternal life.

For that reason I won't attend or even visit churches -- two examples are Roman Catholic and Church of Christ -- that hold "closed communion"; folks shouldn't have to jump through any additional hoops to be received as fellow Christians. (In such situations their polity, not Christ, is the issue.)

That said, it's also incorrect to say that anyone is welcome at God's table because the Scripture is clear that He initiates any relationship and that no one comes to faith in Christ on his own. We need to understand that Jesus conducted the Last Supper with His disciples, His most intimate friends -- and that, contrary to the practice of that day, He selected them. (That should give us an idea of His intent.) Once receiving Christ, people should renounce the sin that He brings to mind, which should already be happening if they're being properly instructed in the Scriptures; then and only then are they ready to receive the elements.

From 1 Corinthians 12:

²⁷Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the LORD. ²⁸A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. ²⁹For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the LORD eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Earlier today my church held its monthly observance of the LORD's Supper -- I generally have the privilege of serving as a steward -- and the person who officiates, usually the senior pastor, makes it very clear that only "born-again" followers of Christ were eligible to take it but that all of them were. (In fact, most Protestant churches practice similar "open communion.") But to do so properly, those who participate must understand the full implications as to what they're commemorating lest it degenerate into blasphemy.

And if I needed any more proof ... the racist legacy of the modern conservative movement

About a decade ago during my last dating relationship, my girlfriend's brainy middle son brought home from church some literature from the "Conservative Chronicle" that he said came from "some think tank." I looked it up on the internet, and when I learned who the editor was, a Southern reactionary named Samuel Francis, I decided I wanted nothing to do with it because it came across as borderline racist. (Needless to say, I refused to attend the church as well, and that would eventually doom the relationship.)

Well, it turns out that there was nothing "borderline" about that publication.

Today I learned that the "think tank" that produced it was the Council of Conservative Citizens, a name not as innocuous as it sounds -- it was formerly known as the White Citizens Council, a staunchly segregationist organization that opposed the civil-rights movement in the 1960s. In effect, it operated as a kinder, gentler Ku Klux Klan minus the sheets and secrecy and apparently hasn't changed its views in all that time. Furthermore, it had at least two right-wing now-former Republican politicians -- Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi -- speak at gatherings. (Yes, the same Trent Lott who insinuated that he was hankering for segregation in feting the late Sen. Strom Thurmond during his centennial in 2002.)

I find it interesting that the political right likes to call attention to the historic racism of the Democratic Party and, in its arrogance, have openly wondered why African-Americans don't vote Republican. They conveniently overlook the fact that the Southern racists that gave the national Democratic Party that reputation began migrating to the GOP beginning in the 1960s -- of politicians of that era, only the late North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms was never elected as a Democrat -- and completely sold out to the GOP on a national level during the Reagan years. (Recall that even Ronald Reagan himself ran racist campaigns to appeal to them.)

Basically, the political right ought to stop denying its ties to racist groups, present as well as past. I don't think it's any coincidence that race has become less a factor as the political right has fallen from power, because back in that day the right used it has a divide-and-conquer tactic to achieve and maintain power. But instead of marginalizing its opponents, it ended up marginalizing itself. There's a reason Jesus said, "You reap what you sow."

A different shade of green

It still amazes me just how much opposition to President Barack Obama is being expressed, especially by those who didn't vote for him. You'd think that they would wait and see if and how his economic policies would work before criticizing him -- in many cases, getting personal.

On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised. We've seen this before, beginning in 1993 with Bill Clinton, some of whose adversaries were trying to derail him during the campaign.

Anyway, I think I know what's behind it: Envy.

Here's why: With all the bellyaching about what Obama does or doesn't do, rarely if ever do you hear his critics giving any alternatives. Nor can they, because the economic policies they subscribe to are the very same ones that caused the mess that he was elected in part to clean up. It was in that context that radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh declared a few months ago, "I hope he fails."

But that's par for the course, I guess, when you're dealing with a hugely popular political figure who isn't a conservative Republican.

The difference between jealousy and envy is that jealousy results when someone has something you want or is threating to take something you already have; envy, on the other hand, is the result of resentment toward another because of someone's possessions and/or status regardless of whether you can achieve or even want them. That's why the Scriptures describe envy, not necessarily jealousy, as a sin -- it's a form of self-worship and thus idolatry.

That, of course, hasn't stopped the naysayers; you get the impression that they would rather wreck the country than see someone not of their party cause positive change. When conservatives had Clinton impeached, what was their point? Basically, that they were in control for its own sake. It had really nothing to do with his corruption (the allegations were generally manufactured anyway) or his conduct -- the real issue was that, if things worked out, they would be seen as useless.

Which is just where things are going now.

It's one thing if people could actually give specific reasons why Obama's policies will necessarily fail; thing is, they have no authority to do so. They complain about his raising taxes (when he has actually pledged to reduce them on 95 percent of taxpayers). Besides that, if you put more money in the hands of the common people it makes sense that the merchants will eventually get that money back, offsetting a greater tax burden on the wealthy.

But we're talking not about what makes sense -- just "know-nothingism" based on resentment of the "other." And that's getting old. Quickly.

Some thoughts on being a son

When I was growing up, my dad occasionally expressed fear that he was failing as a father. To be truthful, I didn't know how to respond.

As I look back decades later, I think he had every reason to feel that way. For openers, he didn't grow up with his father, whom his mother threw out for infidelity when Dad was 5; had no adult male to show him the ropes; and was probably overwhelmed with the responsibilities. I get that today, as many men, especially in the African-American community, are going through the same thing.

Lately, however, I've caught a number of Charles Stanley's messages on the atmosphere that parents are obliged to create to rear healthy children, which is where my dad did fail. Children need to have a sense of belonging and competence; however, my thoughts, talents and tastes were never accepted, let alone valued, and I was merely expected to conform to the family dynamic. (Which I knew I never could and thus didn't even try.) Though all my gifts and interests were in the arts and communications, as a career I was steered toward math and science -- ostensibly to make a lot of money but ultimately, I suspect, to keep me cooped up at home.

Which leads me to another important point. Last year I ran into a woman that Dad had been involved with after my mother left him -- at the time of his death I was not on speaking terms with him, so I met her only at the first viewing -- and she noted that my mother, brother and I "were all he had."

That was a problem -- perhaps the problem. You see, Dad was using us to determine his identity and give him the security he always lacked. That, of course, was neither our role nor our responsibility because -- well, if he didn't give them to us, where were we supposed to get them?

OK, OK, I'll get out of the self-pity mode. Anyway, I now understand that the most important thing a father can give to his children is a sense of vision, hopefully to make this world just a little bit better than when they came into it. I think that's the problem with many families -- they try to buy a home in the nicest suburb available to raise their kids to go out and make money and start the whole process over again, with no rhyme or reason. Granted, these things aren't bad in themselves, but when that becomes the bottom line ... well, don't you feel a sense of emptiness, that you should be doing more with your life? Even "Christian" families get stuck in that same rut.

As a single man who probably will never have his own children (and thus not engaged in that battle), it's probably easy for me to make those kind of pronouncements. Still, I have an idea of what I would do were I a father -- and, more importantly, what I need to become an effective man. Number one on the list would be to cultivate friendships with older men who have been through the process. (Which I wish Dad would have done.)

Because I may never be a father -- but I will always be a son.

True compassion

Earlier tonight I attended my regular Tuesday evening recovery meeting and, which I can't tell you just what the meeting was about, I can tell you I heard something of which I needed to be reminded. It was this: Identify with and pray for those who are suffering similarly.

That hit home for me because I've lately been struggling again with self-pity about being single, especially since dating has generally been a disaster because I have never initiated relationships very well. (Why that is, of course, is a subject for another day.) And when you're in that spot it's easy to get caught up in your own situation and believe that it will never end.

At times like those, as I first read in the late Walter Trobisch's book "Love Yourself," it's helpful to remember those who also are struggling. It reminds us that, as one of the Program's slogans reminds us, "You Are Not Alone." And I know full well that I'm not the only single man feeling frustrated because relationships with women haven't worked out, even at my advanced age.

But that's a universal. At the funeral of a churchmate and co-worker who died in January of ALS, I relayed the story of this woman asking about another colleague who had also attended our church who was facing cancer. (Unfortunately, he had died the month before.) And he too had prayed for other people rather than focus upon his own fate. In fact, I'm convinced that when we focus upon others our own troubles lift.

So before you hit the sack tonight, pray for someone else who may be troubled. And I hope I can take my own advice.