Reimagining Man and the Corvette

While standing in the lobby of R & M’s New & Used Tire store recently, waiting for a diagnosis of a leaking tire, I picked up the most recent copy of Automobile Magazine and was drawn to the article, 2014 Man of the Year: Tadge Juechter. (http://www.automobilemag.com/features/awards/1401_2014_man_of_the_year_tadge_juechter/)

You need to read the article in order to get the full story, but Mr. Juechter is the Chief Engineer at Corvette, and what captured my attention was that he didn’t merely tweak what was an already pretty tweaked-out design. Instead, according to the article, “the C7 is a top-to-bottom reimagining of what the Corvette could and should be.”

The original Corvette, introduced in 1953, was a gorgeous automobile, all 300 or so of that first production year being white with a red interior. Unfortunately the engine and transmission had a lot to be desired, and it looked as though the Corvette would be a short lived experiment until the Russian born engineer Zora Arkus-Duntov got hold of it. He transformed this beautiful design with its wimpy power train into the powerful V8, stick shift that became the C1 series of Corvettes. For better or worse, there have been a lot of iterations since, but many aficionados will tell you that there hasn’t been anything to compare to the Halcyon Days of the C1 . . . until now!

Maybe it’s my relatively recent obsession with sports cars, or maybe a couple of wires in my brain got crossed up back in my Bible College days, but as we enter into the Advent season, this makes me think of what Jesus was, and is, all about.

Bear with me.

If we go back to the very beginning when “God created the heaven and the earth”, we find the barest hint of how everything got started. The Hebrew word translated “God” here in Genesis 1:1 is “Elohim”, which is a plural word and the earliest suggestion of the Trinity, thus when God says “Let US make man in OUR image” (Genesis 1:26), I get a picture in my head of God-The-Father, God-The-Son, and God-The-Spirit sitting around the proverbial conference table planning and executing the entire creation process, which did indeed turn out to be a beautiful thing. As a matter of fact, God either said or saw that “it was good” no less than seven times during the creation process, so He was unquestionably happy with this successful beginning.

But this very successful beginning quickly went awry when the apple of God’s eye thought they were smarter than God and decided to ignore His “advise” and do their own thing; thus, the original tweaking process of the very first Great Design begins. To make a rather long and historic story short, God called a man (Abraham) who established a people (Israel) with whom a series of rather complicated rules and regulations were established, which presumably were intended to tweak this race of people back into the famous original that God had intended in the first place. By now we realize that didn’t work out so well. Then again, God being God, He knew all along that it wouldn’t, but was using the tweaking process to prepare the people for the “reimagining of what [man] could and should be”, that “man” being the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), Jesus, His Son.

Now to the theo-purists out there, please don’t confuse my crude analogy with hard and fast theology, but I do ask that you observe the parallels. The millennia of tweaking God was doing all that time was merely working mankind up to His true great imagining, Jesus Christ. While I’m certain that the masters of General Motors were never so prescient as to have planned Corvette’s tweaking years in order to prepare the way for Mr. Juechter, God’s so called tweaking years were precisely planned to prepare the way for Jesus.

God’s great imagining has been revealed, but don’t just stand at the Nativity and ooo and ahhh like you would at a car show, but let Him inside your heart . . . then fasten your seat belt, and enjoy the ride of your life!

Values or Preferences?

When are our values real, honest to goodness values, and at what point do they become merely personal preferences? Do we understand the difference?

In 1763 Patrick Henry made it pretty clear that he understood the difference. Arguing the famed Parson's Cause in Hanover County, Virgina, Patrick Henry proclaimed that, by ignoring their elected representatives, King George was "a tyrant who forfeits the allegiance of his subjects." Henry ratcheted up his inflammatory speech to the point of treason, in some peoples’ minds, when defending his resolutions against the Stamp Act in the House of Burgesses on May 30, 1765.

Later, in March of 1775, Henry urged his fellow Virginians to arm in self-defense, closing his appeal with those immortal words, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Governor Henry understood the difference.

More than 150 years later, just two days after Adolf Hitler was installed as Chancellor of Germany, Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer attacked the “fuhrer” (leader) by calling him the “verfuhrer” (mis-leader), or as some translate it, the “seducer”, on one of his regular radio broadcasts. That broadcast was cut off in mid-sentence, and The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Show was history.

Bonhoeffer was the first, clear voice calling for the church to resist Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, declaring plainly that the church cannot merely "bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself."

Pastor Bonhoeffer understood the difference.

Just recently Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio made it pretty clear that they understood the difference when they announced that they would be dropping their student health insurance program because of the federal mandate that these plans must include contraceptive coverage. Agree or disagree with this deeply held value, one thing is crystal clear; the sanctity of life, or at least their clearly articulated definition of life, is indeed a value, and not merely a preference to Franciscan University.

Eastern Ohio’s Franciscan University understands the difference.

Now you may think that Franciscan University’s decision is pretty timid when compared to the likes of Patrick Henry’s and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s decisions, and that may well be so. I leave all that for history to decide. But this isn’t about whether or not one person’s values are bigger, or greater, or more important than the other. It’s a matter of whether or not the principles that we say we hold dear are real, honest to goodness values, or just personal preferences.

I prefer premium, homemade-style ice cream over soft-serve, but I’ll eat soft serve. I prefer one of Shaw’s famous apple smoked pork shops over a Big Mac, but I’ll still eat a Big Mac . . . if I’m really, really hungry, and the alternatives are . . . well, you get the picture. Preferences are plentiful, and they’re relatively harmless no matter which way you go with them. Values . . . that is living up to our values . . . is hard work.

I pray we’re up to it.

The more things change....the more they stay the same....

It seems like just yesterday that the Chicken Littles of this world were running around yelling “Y2K, The Sky is Falling, Y2K, The Sky is Falling.” As hard as it is for me to believe, that was more than ten years ago now and, interestingly enough, the sky did not fall and the world did not come to an end.

To give you an idea of how old I am, I can even remember clear back to the days of double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, a demoralized and underfunded military, international humiliation at the hands of radical, middle-eastern terrorists, and . . . wait a minute . . . other than double digit inflation (and hold onto your wallets, folks, because that’s coming soon) doesn’t this sound vaguely familiar? While the world has certainly changed from those days to now, the old French proverb still rings true; Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose . . . The more things change, the more they stay the same.

If the oft repeated words of philosopher George Santanyana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905) are true, then why are things fundamentally la même chose? At the risk of personally coming across as both arrogant and ignorant, may I suggest two possible reasons? Arrogance and ignorance.

In our “We’re-all-evolving-into-a-higher-state-of-consciousness” culture, each succeeding generation seems to think it’s a wee bit smarter and a whole lot wiser than previous generations. My grandbaby is smarter than my daughter, my daughter is smarter than me, I’m smarter than my Dad, who is smarter than his Dad, ad infinitum.  We’re inundated with this stuff by science fiction writers. You can’t watch a Star Trek rerun without getting bombarded by how stupid we are and how smart everyone is three centuries later. They’re all the time moralizing about how much more evolved they are in those shows compared to the pathetic state of mankind in the late 20^thCentury. Right! They’ve evolved to the point they’ve stopped killing fellow human beings and are just killing Klingons and Romulans.

If they only meant technologically, I could go along with it, but they mean a whole lot more than that. These people actually believe that three hundred years from now it’s going to be all peace, love, and rock’n roll, that man is actually going to evolve into some higher state, and self interests will be a thing of the past. Such arrogance is not only insulting, it’s mind boggling.

I don’t remember the context of the conversation, but I remember telling an English teacher of mine back when I was still in high school that he was smarter than me. I suppose I was probably discouraged about goofing up some composition paper or something, and he looked at me and said, “We really don’t know that. I’m more educated than you, but neither of us knows who is smarter than the other.”  His education clearly gave him an edge, even though I might have been the smartest one of the two of us.

I’ve been involved in higher education of one form or the other for more than 20 years and, I can tell you, it does give you an edge; however, unfortunately for some, education hasn’t done anything to temper their arrogance. If anything, it’s made some even more arrogant. All too often getting a degree in Widget Technology, or whatever, somehow tends to make one think s/he’s somehow smarter than the ignorant masses in just about everything. So education in and of itself is not the solution to arrogance and ignorance.

The wisest person that ever lived, other than our Lord, said it best. Having lived a life of fabulous luxury, bringing his country to and through her golden years, ushering in an era of unprecedented peace, prosperity, and safety for his people, the aging King Solomon paced back and forth in the throne room dictating his memoirs said to his scribe said, “Here is my final conclusion: fear God and obey His commands, for this is the duty of every person.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, NLT)

The more things change, the more that underlying principle stays precisely the same.

Perspective... what is God's?

You’re waiting for the light to turn green and for the car in front of you to go. The next things you experience are the sounds of screeching tires, and the unsettling vision of steel clashing and grinding against steel. You are suddenly eye witness to a collision right in the middle of the intersection. Broken glass, crumpled automobiles, and steaming radiators (not to mention steaming tempers) are not thirty feet in front of you, and you saw it all unfold right before your eyes.

The investigating officer wants to hear your version of events, but not just yours. He wants to hear from as many witnesses, from as many different perspectives as possible. He wants to compare your version with that bystander’s, who also saw it all, but from the sidewalk ninety degrees from where you were sitting in your car. And he wants to compare those perspectives with the driver of the car that was sitting in the mirror-opposite direction of where you were sitting, but not because he believes anyone is lying. None of these witnesses has anything to gain or lose by lying about the chain of events leading up to, and involved in this accident. It’s just that the serious investigator will get a clearer picture of what actually happened by seeing it from the varying angles of the three witnesses.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are such witnesses. I used to be amazed that three people could observe and write about the ministry of Jesus, and have similar yet completely different perspectives about the work of Christ. A couple of these witnesses even “caught” things the others apparently missed, or perhaps just ignored!

Mark, as I understand it, was the first to write about the life and times of Jesus, followed by Matthew’s version of events some twenty years later. Finally Luke, by his own testimony in Luke 1:1-4, having apparently read and studied Matthew’s and Mark’s versions of events and interviewing “eyewitnesses” to the life of Christ, decided he needed to fill-in some blanks.

The skeptic might view what I call perspectives as contradictions, but not the true investigator, who hopes to see and understand the big picture. The true investigator will take Mark’s first, rather hurried version, compare it to Matthew’s very Jewish perspective, and finally compare all of that to Dr. Luke’s more verbose, physician’s perspective, thus gaining a much clearer picture of Jesus, His purpose, and His ministry.

The skeptic will claim such so-called contradictions are evidence that the Bible isn’t the inspired Word of God at all, but simply a collection of interesting anecdotes; however, the true investigator will see that the story tellers are guided by the invisible hand of God Himself, in order that we mere mortals might understand His purposes more clearly.

I can imagine Matthew reading what we’ve come to know as Mark’s Gospel and thinking, “Are you serious, Mark? How could you possibly have missed so many of the Old Testament prophesies that have been fulfilled in Christ? Kids! They get in such a hurry.” (Mark was the youngest of the Gospel writers.)

I can also imagine Dr. Luke, the physician, reading both Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels and thinking, “Oh my, these guys are just going to confuse my dear friend, Theophilus. I need to write “an orderly account” (Luke 1:3 NKJV), so the detailed doctor takes Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, and “completes” them, in his mind at least, by his research.

To the skeptic, and perhaps even to the witnesses themselves, this has the makings of controversy and confusion; but the skilled investigator, honestly seeking the truth, sees the invisible hand of God at work in these three, very different personalities, having seen things from very different perspectives. God smiles at the frustrations of the three witnesses who, unknowingly and imperfectly, are doing His perfect work.

This is why I pray, every day, “Lord, help me to see things from your perspective.”

After all, isn’t it ultimately His perspective that really matters?

Taking responsibility?

Colleges and universities are taking a real beating these days about growing student loan debt, but it's the government itself that has fostered this mess. Government has made it so easy to borrow literally tens of thousands of dollars more than is necessary to pay for higher education.

The double irresponsibility of our government's idiotic policy, and students borrowing for things with student loans that are in no way related to education, plays a much larger role in this fiasco than the average bear understands, or the press publicizes.

Higher ed . . . the government's next bogeyman!

The introvert's power

Right up until sixth grade, I would have unequivocally called myself an introvert. I was an extremely soft spoken, play-quietly-in-my-room little boy. I neither had, nor needed friends, and at that time I can honestly say that the only real friend I remember was, Donald Newman, and probably Steve Slentz.

Then something happened. I can’t remember why, but I was sent somewhere into the bowels of Petroleum Elementary School. (No, I’m not kidding, and the little town of Petroleum still exists, if only as a mere wide spot in the road 10 minutes south of Bluffton, Indiana.) I came back to class, and once again I can’t remember why, with a Tonka truck, and I did something that was so out of character that to this day, I still can’t believe I did it. I put the truck on the floor, opened the door, and went roaring into the classroom. The class exploded with laughter . . . and I loved it!

From that day forward, I would have called myself an extrovert, because I learned that I loved an audience, and gladly “performed” for its entertainment . . . but from that moment until now there has been this dichotomy in my spirit. I loved, and still love the audience, but when the “show” is over, I want to just slip away and be alone and unwind.

While I certainly struggled with understanding it, and tried very hard to force myself into truly being “outgoing”, I never consciously thought a great deal about this dichotomy until Dr. Gideon King, an entrepreneurial physician, yet introvert friend of mine, introduced me to the book Quiet, by Susan Cain.

Now I understand. Read it. You will, too.

God....the ultimate economist!

“The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer that planted good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. The farmer’s servants came and told him, ‘Sir, the field where you planted the good seed is full of weeds!’ ‘An enemy has done it!’ the farmer exclaimed. ‘Shall we pull the weeds?’ they asked. He replied, ‘No, you’ll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and put the wheat in the barn.’ ”
Matthew 13: 24-30, NLT

Whenever we think of an economy we typically think of a person’s or a nation’s wealth creating machine. The truth is that an economy is much more pervasive than merely “a system of producing, distributing, and consuming wealth.” (http://www.yourdictionary.com/economy, 4.a.) 

It’s “the restrained or efficient use of one’s materials, technique, etc.”

(http://www.yourdictionary.com/economy, 2.b.)

While the media culture has shaped our minds into thinking of economics merely as wealth production, distribution, and consumption, the truth is far more basic; it’s efficiency. God certainly understood, and understands, efficiency. A lot of people doubt that, asking themselves why a God of love would allow evil in the first place. If He is indeed all powerful, why not just destroy it? After all, that would be the most efficient answer, wouldn’t it? Or would it?

The truth is, that’s the knee jerk answer, but it isn’t the most efficient answer, nor is it the most compassionate. God’s love keeps the wheat from being torn up by allowing evil to run its course until the appropriate time. We find in economics that intervention into the normal flow of free markets usually does more harm than good, but God knew that long before we realized it.

God . . . the quintessential economist.

The charitable guilt complex.....

Before you read today's relatively short blog, take a look at this from the New York Times.

The Charitable-Industrial Complex

I disagree with his "more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few" attitude. After all, those systems that create "wealth for the few" also create jobs for everyone else, jobs that are disappearing largely due to our government's attempts to level the playing field by mediating as some sort of modern day Robin Hood, but unlike the legendary Robin Hood, keeping most of what they steal from the rich rather than actually passing it onto the poor.

Having said that, I do agree that philanthropy has become a chest thumping "look what I do for the poor" instead of the honest, biblical mandate to "let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." (See Matthew 6:1-4) I don't think modern philanthropy is so much guilt driven as it is "look at me" driven.

Finally, keep in mind this whole opinion editorial comes from a man who inherited his personal wealth, from a man whose wealth came from investments in the very system he's criticizing today.

Do I smell guilt?  ;^)