Category: Brother Al (Page 5 of 67)

Mark Hemingway wrote a insightful article in the Federalist entitled, “We need to have a national conversation about ‘Toxic Femininity.'” While the author agrees that male violence and misogyny need to be addressed, the rise of internet culture has given rise to “toxic” masculinity.  By “successfully branding men as toxic,” Hemingway point out,  “no one hesitates anymore before disparaging men, whereas huge swaths of Americans are loathe to criticize feminism or make generalizations about women. Even when we can say that feminism has become, very literally toxic.”  

Hemingway maintains that many women don’t fully understand that everything is not about them.  “I don’t doubt,” he notes, “that years of reflective belittling of men affected the way they voted in this election.”  He goes on to say, “Men between ages 18-29 shifted a staggering 30 points to the right (and, worth noting women in the same age cohort also swung right, albeit less dramatically).” But he does not think “men voted for Trump to intentionally to spite women, or that they were susceptible to political programming.”

He points out that it is the women who have been radicalized.  The “discourse” has for a long time been  focused on men being inherently bad.  Many women have forgotten that, “men have their own needs and aspirations that don’t resolve around accepting a lowly place in an intersectional hierarchy.”  

Hemingway then makes a statement, which I can embrace.  “The problem is that healthy masculinity is best realized not by erasing the distinctions between men and women or catering to one over the other, but by embracing the complementarity of the two sexes.  Whether they resent this being mansplaining or not, women have a responsibility to be the nurturing and moderating influence on men the same way men have a responsibility to channel their aggressive tendencies to provide for and defend women.”  

He concludes by saying, “I don’t have any ideas about how to go about helping these women find peace, but the conversation we need to have can’t begin and end with threatening men, ceding to radically left-wing political demands……For now, the first step is to admit you have a problem, and toxic femininity is a real thing we’re going to have to confront and deal with before it drags the whole country over the edge.”

Again, I am politically neutral, but I do believe that this past election cycle indicated a widening gap between man and female attitudes about the sexuality, especially the younger population.  I desire the courage to address the damaging effects of “toxic femininity,” while keeping a focus on the failure of men in our culture.  I want to speak up for men, while admitting the toxicity of both men and women.   Here is what it means for me.

First, live informed by a  Christian worldview.   I have assurance in being created in the image of God as a man.  God declared, “Then God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.  He created them male and female and blessed them.” (Gen 5:1-2).   This is God’s design for human relationships. 

Secondly, my affirmation as a man, comes from my heavenly Father,  As I receive assurance of my masculinity, I can walk in integrity and not apologize for being a man,  be simplify myself, secure in my masculinity.   This has been a lifelong journey, often very painful and confusing.   

Thirdly, I will humbly walk out the implication of being a man, while acknowledging the harm done to women. Because of sin, both male and female can be “toxic.”

Fourthly, I will celebrate the need of the feminine in my journey to wholeness as a man. Thank God for my wife of 59 years. 

Richard V. Reeves, who has become an outspoken voice for boys, had some insightful observations about the election, in his blog  entitled, “Memo to Dems: Don’t blame sexism,” with a subtitle, “Or it will be longer than four years in the political wilderness.”  He is rather blunt when he points out, “If the Democrats conclude that sexism propelled Donald Trump to victory, their spell in the political wilderness will last a lot longer than four years.”   Reeves believes, “There is no strong evidence that young men are turning against gender equality.”  But Reeves does believe, ” they [young men] have turned away from the left because the left has turned away from them.  The problems of young men are not the confections of reactionaries.  This is a story of elite neglect, not voter chauvinism.”  

Then Reeves recites a litany of issues regarding men and boys as he  called attention to: “Suicide rates among men under 30 have risen by 40 % since 2010 and are four times higher than among young women.   Male suicide accounts for as many deaths as breast cancer.  Men are less likely than women to go to college or buy a house.  They are more likely to be lonely and are more vulnerable to addiction.  Young white men from lower-income homes are worse off than their fathers on almost every economic and social indicator.  There is a bigger gender gap on the campuses today than in 1972 – when the government passed Title IX to prevent sex-based discrimination in education – but today the disparities in college enrollment and performance are the other way around.”

In Reeves’ opinion the Democrats and progressives have “a massive blind spot” with male issues.  “Men are seen not as having problems but as being the problem.”  Young men have resisted terms like “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy” specially as they struggle to find their place in the economy.  “For too long,” observes Reeves, “the gender debate has been trapped in a zero-sum frame.”  “Policy makers have overlooked the challenges that are increasingly affecting boys and men, seeing them as somehow in conflict with their efforts on behalf of girls and women.”

The results of the elections should bring about a new approach to boys and men and the issues they care about.  Reeves closes with this observation.  “Voters are capable of holding two thoughts in their head at once: that there is much more work to do for women and girls, and that we must also pay more attention to the  challenge facing boys and men.  In the end, we rise together.” 

Here are some of my thoughts after digesting Reeves’ blog:

1. It seems Reeves has become more outspoken for men and boys.  I believe the time has come for the rest of us to dare speak up for a Christian model of man and wife, going back to creation. “He created them male and female, and blessed them” (Gen. 5:2).  We can grow in “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15).

2. My wife and I, have lived with a complementarity view of marriage for almost 60 years.  I am calling men back to consider anew the challenge of Jesus. “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female'” (Matt. 19:4).  Lord, help me be a good example.

3.  There is a desperate need for older men, like myself to reach the younger generation.  I am grateful and humbled at how God has carried Judy and I over these years. “I will be your God throughout your lifetime – until your hair is white with age.  I made you, and I will care for you.  I will carry you along and save you” (Is. 46:3b-4).  

John Halsey Wood Jr. from Wake Forest University wrote an interesting substack on the recent election, exploring how traditional gender dynamics influenced the 2024 presidential election, noting that “Masculinity [was] indicted by association.”  He goes on to offer his hypothesis: “The political differences between men and women in the ’24 election stem from the different social proclivities of men and women.”  Wood agrees there is agreement concerning men and women in our cultural narrative, but significant disagreement between good or bad. 

Wood astutely points out the differences between male and female in course of the election cycle.   The differences, “suggest that men tend to be more outward-directed and women tend to be more inward-directed.  The masculine ethos tends to emphasize mission, defiance, and action, while the feminine ethos tends to emphasize consensus-building, relational connection and joy.  Women are centripetal and men are centrifugal, and somehow, together they keep the plants in alignment.”  The differences seem to be in our souls, having penetrated deep into our “cultural imagination.”  The differences can lead to a conflict between, what Wood refers to as the, “mission and manor,” that is, being either outward or inward orientation.

Wood believes the Trump campaign “felt more masculine” while Harris campaign “felt more feminine.”  “Harris’s campaign foregrounded the feminine consensus-building impulse by her appeal to joy.  Trump’s power lay in his appeal to difference, his willingness to buck the system, drain the swamp, and his repudiation of established political mores.”  Wood points out the  gender differences in the supporters of both candidates, especially the extreme ones.  “When Trump lost, his most extreme supporters went out and rioted….Trump provided them with a sense of mission even in defeat.”   However, “when Harris lost, her most extreme supporters stayed in and took self-care days.”  

Anthony Bradley, in response to this article, offers the following, “Wood cautions against oversimplifying these dynamics, emphasizing that while gendered differences are real, they are not inherently good or bad.  Instead, they reflect complementary approaches that, when balanced, can enrich social and political life. For instance, men’s outward focus on leadership and mission pairs with women’s inward emphasis on relational cohesion to create a fuller picture of human engagement.”

Wood gives an example from his marriage.  He reflects how his wife tells him to turn left out of the driveway, even though it is familiar to him.  He muses, “If I tell her to turn left it’s because I am conveying information.  If she tells me to turn left it’s because she is building consensus.  She’s maintaining contact.  Directions are a means to that end…….If I don’t know where I am going when I exist the driveway, as the proverb goes, any road will get me there.  She’s there to make sure we arrive together.”

What is  interesting to me, is the response of my wife and myself, as we watched both of the candidates giving their “stump” speeches.  My wife saw too much feminine inwardness, while I respected Trump for his strength, looking for more humility and  compassion.  My wife and I are committed to the complementarity model, with the husband as the head and the wife as the very necessary helpmate.  It seems the election revealed deeper societal patterns rooted in historical and cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity.  

I believe one of the most effective model in the day to come will be our marriages.  I will be tested for my part in marriage.  I heed the words of I Peter 3:7 “Husbands must give honor to your wives.  Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life.” 

The recent election has exposed a gender gap in our culture.  Mary Eberstadt wrote a very concise article in First Things on this subject.  She begins by observing, “Red and blue Americans are locked in a hostile custody battle” with an awareness that”the gender gap has never been wider.”  The Wall Street Journal reported in July of young men leaning more rightward than young women.  She noted the influence of online “alpha males” where young men hear, “the song that today’s young men sing among themselves sound the same – and only the political right seems to be listening.”  

“The Intellectual Dark Web”  is populated by men finding a fusion between repudiating identity politics and standing for freedom of expression.  In regards to identity politics, there seems to be a “synergy between enthusiasm for sports and contempt for political correctness.”  The doomed 2023 Bud Light ad,  united bros found a “cause that their enlightened betters couldn’t shut down,” in a rebuke of gender bending.  Forbidden wisdom can be heard on the Web: “men and women are different, sterilizing kids is wrong, marriage and family are the way to go.”

Eberstadt observes, “Today’s New Right, like today’s populism, is powered in large part by a search for male authority, direction and amour propre – a triad visible to anyone who can spell ‘Jordon Peterson.'”   “Today’s young men,” believes Eberstadt,  “don’t need another nanny……. they need something…….lacking at home and searching for in politics.” They need a “daddy.”  She observes in our day, “superior players haven’t a clue anymore about what makes young men tick – whether it’s driving fast, failing to ask strangers for directions, treating Sunday football like church, or saving a subway car full of strangers from disaster……these players haven’t only lost the script about young men.  They’ve unlearned the alphabet of human nature.”

Eberstadt notes the need for “male self-respect.”  “It’s grounded in the belief that rules exist and retain their authority, from baseball to church to war……The real mystery in the political sex imbalance isn’t about boys and men, but girls and women.”  Since the 1960’s we’ve heard the same message, “men are bad; the future is feminine, career first, egg-freezing next; the best ending after falling for someone and making a baby together is to get rid of it.”  

Eberstadt ends by noting how the creation story has been passed over by seeing men and women as  “minor anatomical variations.”  “If that were true, the gender gap wouldn’t exist in the first place.  Politics didn’t create this divide.  But in the political quarterbacking to come, its real origins demand a closer, more empathic look than they’ve yet gotten anywhere.”

Wow, I rejoice in a strong Catholic woman saying what I’ve needed courage to say.  Our culture has, “not only lost the script,” but we have “unlearned the alphabet of human nature.” The real origins of male and female will “demand a closer, more empathetic look then they’ve yet gotten anywhere.” I began writing this blog in the summer of 2009.  That is 14 years ago, when I was 68.  Through the 70’s into the confusion of our day, I have attempted to help men with their masculinity.  In 1968 the gender issue was not such a hot topic as it is today.  I have watched male issues change and evolve.   

The exposing of the gender gap, at least for me, is a wake up call to continue with the “wild man journey.”  I ask all who read this blog to join the struggle.  “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” ( II Cor. 15:58)

As expected there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the results of the election.  Personally the results have confirmed views I have expressed on masculinity.  Of special interest to me are the voting trends of young men and male minorities.  While I have remained steadfast in my neutrality, due to the deep political divide in our culture, and my commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom as the ultimate answer, I find the “gender gap” phenomenon of great interest.  There is much that is insightful for the “wild man” journey.

I must confess, bringing clarity to the discussion is not my strength.  However, there is so much which is obvious that I feel I can share.  Much of what I have absorbed, as a elderly, white, Christian male has been reinforced by my wonderful wife of 59 years.  I consider our deep discussion on gender roles a valuable point of reference for younger men, trying to make sense of “the gender wars” of our day.  So this could lead into a series of blogs. 

First, Aaron Renn’s observations.  He observes, “As had been said by others, there’s a difference between being a good man and being good at being a man.  Masculine virtues and expectations are not exactly amoral, but can often be expressed in both good and bad ways.”  Using the attempted assassination of Trump and his now iconic shout of “fight, fight,”  Renn believes “Trump’s courage under actual fire helps to explain his appeal to men, especially young men.”  For me personally, while acknowledging Mr. Trump’s moral flaws and lack of Christian character, I raise up in admiration when He want to fight for “the little, forgotten guy” and the neglected American.

Renn, using anthropologist David Gilmore’s work, notes, “Trump, for all his flaws, models many traditional masculine attributes that young men would do well to adopt.”  The former president is “high energy” and competitive, challenging young men who are getting launched.  He is “in the arena” willing to take substantial public risks.  He is capable of what Gilmore calls “absolute freedom of movement,” that is, he will press on despite overwhelming opposition.  And as Renn notes, “He even went back to hold another rally at the place where he was shot.”  Older and younger men, who are followers of Jesus need to be “engaged,” “in the arena” and willing to “press on” no matter what the cost.  As a man I admire Trump for this tough-nosed qualities.

Here is some sound advise from Renn.  “Young men must wed Trump’s masculine attributes to greater moral integrity and a mature style…. assertive manhood is not inherently toxic.  Even conservatives have too often equated being a good man with being a dutiful doormat.  Healthy masculinity is agentic, aggressive, competitive, courageous, and generous, productive,  moral and dignified.  Men need not consider these values to be in conflict.”

As a senior, who has lived through the cultural wars of the 60’s down through the present age, I know from personal experience of Gilmore’s conclusion that “cultures generally define manhood as an earned status.”  My favorite way of expressing masculinity in our day, is for men to see themselves as both “the lion” and “the lamb” (that is, tough and tender).  Jesus was the perfect lamb sacrificed for our sin, yet he is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). The Revelation declares the Lamb as overcoming. “They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of King” (Rev. 17:14).  We are his followers are learning to tough and tender.

Chapter 12 of Ezekiel records two dramatic prophecies.  The first (3-16) is an enactment of God’s people going into exile.  The second (17-28) dramatizes the stress that is experienced by the impending disaster.   In verse 18 the Lord informs Ezekiel, “Son of man, tremble as you eat your food.  Drink your water with fear, as if it were your last.”  Ezekiel was to give this message to the people because, “they will eat their food with trembling and sip their tiny portions of water in utter despair, because their land will be stripped bare on account of their violence” ( 19).  God was asking Ezekiel to roleplay a captive in Jerusalem at the time of the siege on the city.  God was giving fair warning regarding the stress and anxious in the days ahead.  Could this apply to our nation?  Will we experience a collective collapse emotionally and spiritually?    

Then in verses 21-28 the prophet warns the people that judgment was about to come.  Less than six years after these warnings were given, Jerusalem would be captured.  The people had come to believe an often-quoted proverb, “Times passes, making a lair of every prophet” (22).  But Ezekiel was to give a new meaning to the proverb, replacing the contemporary proverb. “The time has come for every prophecy to be fulfilled” (23).  God does not favor all “the false visions and misleading predictions about peace in Israel. (12:24).  The Lord declares, “For I am the Lord!  What I threaten always happens.  There will be no more delays, you rebels of Israel!  I will fulfill my threat of destruction in your own lifetime” (25).

The Lord spoke further about the apathy of the people.  “Son of man, the people of Israel are saying, ‘His visions won’t come true for a long, long time'” (27).   But God wants them to know there will be, “No more delay! I will now do everything I have threatened! I, the Sovereign Lord, have spoken.” (28). There was a dismissive attitude about the words of Ezekiel, in which the people acknowledged the prophet’s words, but really wondering if his timing was off.  The people could not fathom the fall of Jerusalem.  In effect, they were saying “Right word, but wrong timing, Ezekiel.  Good try!” But the Lord who gives the word will also bring it to pass, without fail.   

Recently my wife and I were on a spiritual retreat with another couple we have known for many years.  We had plenty time alone. During one of those times, I felt I was being asked to answer three questions.  Each of these relate to this passage in Ezekiel.  1) Are you ready? 2) How are you preparing? and 3) Are you willing to suffer?  I would like to reflect on each three questions for men in the light of our cultural propensity to avoid the thought of God’s eminent judgment on our nation.

First, are we ready.  Jesus warns us, “So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” ( Matt. 24:44).  We are not the follow Jesus as “part-timers.”  We need to be all in for the long haul.

Secondly, are we prepared?  Remember the story of the ten virgins?  Only the virgins who had enough oil in their lamps were able to meet the bridegroom.  Men, do we have enough “oil” in our spiritual lamps for the days to come?

Thirdly, are we willing to stand and suffer.  Jesus warned, “All men will hate you because of me.  But not a hair of your head will perish.  By standing firm you will gain life” (Luke 21:17-19). Our confidence is in Jesus, but the coming days will bring stormy weather.

I am writing this blog on Sunday night (the 3rd of Nov.) before the aftermath of the elections.  I am writing to warn men who read this blog to have godly restraint in the days to come.  The enemy has stirred up anger and hatred to a fever pitch in the media.  Men need to refrain from falling into this ugly stew.  We have a wonderful opportunity to show those around us who we really are –  Overcomers.  “This is the victory that has overcome the world, ever our faith.  Who is it that overcomes the world?  Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God” (I John 5:4-5).  

In our weekly bible study in our apartment building, believers gather from  different church backgrounds.  I consistently tell them that we will not talk politics, leading us into  rabbit holes with no hope of finding light.  I have said repeatedly that our focus is three fold.  First, the guidance of God’s eternal word; second, the Lordship of Jesus in all our affairs; and three, the kingdom reign of Jesus.  We pray often, “may our kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  On these three issues we have a firm standing.  Men, may you be on solid ground.  We will be able to withstand the coming storm with a focus on these three principles.

We don’t know the future, but we have absolute confidence that in Jesus we are overcomers.  Paul give us encouragement. “We don’t yet see things clearly.  We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist.  But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the  sun shines bright!  We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!” (I Cor 13:12 Message) Then Paul reminds us of love showing the way.  “But for right now, until that completeness, we have three things to do to lead us toward that consummation: Trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly.  And the best of the three is love” (I Cor 13:13 Message).

Earlier in Chapter 13 of I Corinthians, Paul give a picture of  a loving person.   Men, ask God to be merciful and gracious to you, giving you the courage  to be a loving man in the days to come, a man who has overcome in Jesus.  You don’t know the outcome of the elections for our nation, but you are reigning with Jesus.  All thing will  work for the good of God’s reign in our affairs.  

Paul says the love that God puts in our hearts will have the following result in our attitude.  “This love of which I speak is slow to lose patience – it looks for a way of being constructive.  It is not possessive: it is neither anxious to impress nor does it cherish inflated ideas of its own importance…..It does not keep account of evil or goat over the wickedness of other people. On the contrary, it shares the joy of those who live by the truth.  Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything.  Love never fails. (I Cor 13: 4 &6-8).

Men, in the days to come, know that His love in you will help you weather the storm that is coming.  Paul prayed, “And may you have the power to understand, as all God’s people should, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep his love is.  May you experience the love of Christ, though it is too great to understand fully (Eph. 2:18b -19 NLT). 

This is the title of an article in First Things by theologian Peter Leithart.  I marvel how spiritually astute theologians  can express their thoughts in such a concise and profound manner.  I found this to be true of Leithart’s discussion of sexuality.  I hope I can do justice to his very insightful article in this short blog. He begins with this insightful statement, “Ours is an age of sexual insanity.”  After giving a litany of examples, he notes, “Our sexual ethic reduces to a single prohibition: Thou shalt not suppress any sexual desires.”  

“How can we free ourselves from the morass,” wonders Leithart.  He points us to the Song of Songs (S of S 4:16-5:1). “At the center of the Song of Songs is a garden scene: Bridegroom and Bride rejoice in one another in an erotic Eden, which rekindles the sexual bliss of a new Adam and a new Eve, fired by the unquenchable flame of Yahweh’s love.”

He asks, “What is restored?”  It is found in the dance of mutual desire between male and female.  “The Bride initiates the duet, longing for the Bridegroom’s inebriating kisses, intoxicated by his fragrance, hoping to escape to a chamber where they can drink together the wine of love….. .their desires are fulfilled in an erotic banquet where each is both host(ess) and fare.”   Sexual purity is restored as it burns white-hot.  Leithart notes, “Each receives, each gives; each is consuming, each is consumed.  For Solomon, something like erotic delirium, charged by the current of mutual passion, is the pinnacle of sexual rationality.” Leithart suggests, “far from dividing or separating, sexual disjunction ‘links.'”  

Solitude isn’t good for either men or women.  “In the erotic Eden of the Song, woman becomes herself by virtue of her magnetic attraction to the man, while the man is man as he bends in desire toward his bride.”  We are not able the understand the reality of “woman’ without co-implicating the reality “man.”  When man and woman are restored to their polarity and harmony, the Song’s erotic Eden portrays a humanity no longer disabled.

Bu the Song isn’t just a love story.  The bridegroom is the lover, Yahweh.  The bride is not a generic beloved, but the Bride of Christ.  The erotic Eden of the Song is also a liturgical Eden, where the Creator communes with man in the original marriage whose icon is the disjunctive union of male and female.”  If we read the Song as both a poem and allegory it helps us with sanity.  We need to see the liturgical Eden as well as the erotic Eden.

Leithart closes with this observation.  “But we can’t reach past the liturgical Eden to seize the erotic Eden.  The liturgical enacts the archetypal reciprocity and bi-polarity of Bridegroom and Bride.  The path to sexual sanity passes through the liturgical dialogue of Christ Jesus and his church, which alone restores our broken sexuality and models the polyphonic love for which God created us in his image as male and female.” 

I embrace the images of erotic and liturgical Eden.  Most evangelical have not focused on the liturgical Eden, whereas the past history of Christian spirituality has given us many commentaries on the Song, seeing the church as the bride and Jesus as the bridegroom.  This has been my view for nearly thirty years.  It has helped me to experience my sexual energy intermingled with my spiritual energy.  My sexual passions are as holy as those of my spiritual passions.  I can admit that I am a soulful man with erotic desires.  May my deepest passion be for the Lord, while not being ashamed of my sexual energy.     

My journey as a follower of Jesus, in the fourth quarter of my life, has been influenced by the Carmelite spiritual stream of the Catholic Church, especially St John of the Cross.  I have needed help to making St John relevant in my life.  I have found help in the person of Fr. Donald Haggerty in his teachings on contemplative prayer.  One of his books “Contemplative Enigmas” includes a quote from Saint Edith Stein, a Jewish convert to the Catholicism.  Here is her quote.

“We are a spiritually impoverished generation; we search in all the places the Spirit ever flowed in the hope of finding water.  And that is a valid impulse.  For if the Spirit is living and never dies, he must still be present wherever he once was active forming human life and the work of human hands.  Not in a trail of monuments, however, but in a secret, mysterious life.  He is like a small but carefully tended spark, ready to flare, glow and burst into flame the moment he feels the first enkindling breath.”  

Personally, I have been struggling in my twilight years to become more of a “soulful” man.  I have always been a “heart” person, that is, someone who is more in touch with his emotions then with his “head.”  I connect first with heart, then head.  Even so, I have been reluctant to become aware of my inner life.  In my cry for transparency and authenticity, I have come to realize that I have been more of a “surface” man rather than a “soulful” man.  My time in retirement, having a home in a senior apartment complex, has given me ample opportunity to practice “soul care.”  It has been both liberating and painful.  But my wife (my spiritual director) thinks I am making progress. 

I have learned to embrace such terms as “longing, desire, thirst, and hunger” in my walk with the Lord.  After 40 years of being exposed to the teaching of St John of the Cross on the spiritual life, I am finally making some connections in my walk with the Lord.  The concept of “The living flame of love” speaks to my longing for God.  Deep within my soul the presence of the Lord is like a flame of love, waiting for me to discover the depths of His love for me.

The Palmist wrote, “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God.  My soul thirsts for God, for the living God” (Ps 42:1-2a).  In his poem, St John puts it this way.  “O living flame of love / that tenderly wounds my soul / in its deepest center! / Since now you are not oppressive, now consummate! / If it be your will / tear through the veil of this sweet encounter!” My interpretation – “God you have come to my deepest center in love.  You call me your beloved.  But I have a hard time knowing your love for me.  Brake through the veil of my ignorance so that I may rest in your love.”  This for me is a lifelong process.  John has helped me.

One more passage from the “flame of love.”  “How gently and lovingly you wake in my heart / where in secret you dwell alone; /and in your sweet breathing, /filled with good and glory / how tenderly you swell my heart with love.”  My interpretation – If I am still and listen to my soul life, I become more aware of His love for me which “passes all understanding.”  I don’t understand or fully discern His love for me, but I have the assurance beyond my comprehension that I am His beloved. 

Axios Twin Cities had a very disturbing online article entitled, “Right to lie.”  They were dealing with the issue of “why campaign lying is generally legal.”   As the campaigns attempt to sway voters during this campaign season, politicians will “face few, if any, legal consequences for stretching the truth or telling outright lies.”  Voters are going to be inundated with political TV ads, mailers and texts.  There will be many questionable claims.  “But a long history of court rulings protects politicians’ ability to lie in most cases.” 

Political speech is foundational under the First Amendment. “Lies are not only protected, but even more so for politicians.”  Travis Ridout at Washington State University notes, “We do have laws against defamation, but usually the burden is very, very high when it comes to public figures.”  A lot of leeway is provided for politicians to make exaggerated or misleading campaign claims. Victor Menaldo at the University of Washington points out, “voters should always be skeptical and never take what politicians say at face value.” Then he makes this incredible observation, “Politicians are not in the truth business, but in the power business and quite often the truth is collateral damage.” 

During this political campaign cycle Americans’ top concern around misinformation is politicians spreading it to manipulate their supporters.  “54% of respondents in a survey agreed with the statement, ‘I’ve disengaged from politics because I can’t tell what’s true.'” Half of the voters who were polled said when it comes to political news and the media, “it’s becoming too difficult for them to tell what is true and what if false.”  John Gerzema, CEO of the Harris poll observed, “It used to be, we were worried about China or Russia, fake ads or Facebook.  Now, no, it’s coming from the campaigns.”  

Like so many Americans, godly men are frustrated, not knowing who to believe during this election season.  “Eight in 10 voters said they believe that misinformation can significantly affect election, political discourse and civility.” The article encouraged readers to check other sources to fact check the information they receive.  But we are told to be patient.  “It can take time for reporters and others to get to the bottom of whether a claim is true or false.  If something you see seems unbelievable, it’s smart to take a beat before sharing it more broadly.”  

So, who is the best source for “fact checking.”  As follower of Jesus, we have a great fact checker.  When Jesus was confronted by Pilate, the reply of Jesus during this intense political confrontation should give us guidance in our fact checking. Jesus declared, “I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth.  All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true?”  To oppose Jesus and His kingdom is to believe and be deceived by a lie.  

Jesus warned us that our arch enemy, the devil is behind all lies. “He was a murderer from the beginning.  He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).  Men, remember during this election season, we are in a battle for the truth.  Jesus is the truth. The devil is a lair.  

We still have to do the work of discerning the truth along with fact checking.  Knowing truth will not be easy.   Praise God, with our eyes on Jesus during this election season, we will be following the truth.  So, in dialogue with others, while not having the full answer, we can declare Jesus as the sure truth.