Some years ago, a Canadian Church of God radio preacher-evangelist-author wrote a small forty-page catechism. That little booklet was his way of providing his radio audience a question-and-answer guide to religious doctrine, a realm to which he devoted much of his life explaining. He titled it THINGS MOST SURELY BELIEVED (Gospel Contact Press/H.C. Heffren/1977), while also proceeding to produce a plethora of literature about a wide range of religious issues.
That writer’s works are being compiled and will soon be republished in new foremat by Reformation Publishers of Prestonsburg, KY. A brief paragraph of his recently caught my attention, as related to the church. This man of the cloth called for the church to again be the church God intended. As I read his words, I was convicted of the need for the church to once more become the Balm of Gilead, the leaves of that tree that Saint John the Revelator described as ”healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2 NASV).
His words were profoundly simple. Yet, they speak to a church that finds itself overwhelmed by a tsunami of hostility, greed, corruption, and violence.
Acknowledging worship as primary (#1) on the church‘s agenda, he followed that with the following, which I quote:Second. It is the duty of the church to care for and be concerned with the needs of others.This is well worded in Galatians 6;10, “As we have therefore opportunity let us do good to all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” The Christian should be friendly, hospitable and courteous to all. If a believer falls into shame or sin, we should remember Galatians 6:1, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Too often the Christian attitude in such cases has been to criticize and condemn. It should be redemptive and bring restoration (emphasis mine).
Simple and to the point, the church is to be about the business of helping people help one another, of bringing healing to the nations, of helping people find meaningful relationships, assisting in restoring broken (strained) relationships, and pointing people to fortifying hope when they have failed.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out ways of becoming more constructive and helpful rather than spamming negative political messages about people and positions they dislike. The Apostle Paul offered a good suggestion to this end, writing, “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.”
Rather, “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31).
Whether one be a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian, there is not much way to improve on what I learned years ago about negotiating a stairway while using crutches. “Up with the good; down with the bad” said the therapist in directing me how to proceed on crutches up and down a stairway, thereby protecting my shattered heel
Up with the good, down with the bad; that could fill a world with hope.
From walkingwithwarner,
Wayne
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Major Hasan Charged With Murder
The fact that Fort Hood's Major Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of murder raises a couple of questions (to raise the question of the 14th victim, a child in the womb, is only to pile on for the sake of a political agenda). People are ready to "throw the books" at the Jordanian Psychiatrist.
Without politicizing the issues involved in judging the Major, I raise a question of a different nature, as once posed by Theologian H. C. Heffren: "Are there such things as big sins and little sins?"
Dr. Heffren suggested "most people regard murder as a great sin, whereas to tell a little “white” lie is regarded of little consequence." He proceeded to answer the question with this line of reasoning: There is a danger in this reasoning. In the first place there is no such thing as a “white” lie. Furthermore, this places the emphasis on the deed committed rather than on the One against Whom it is committed. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall DO AND TEACH them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). No doubt some sins are more abhorrent to God than others but all sin “is the transgression of the law” and “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
"Perhaps our best counsel," concluded this studious friend, is to "at all times . . .consult 1 John 2:1-2, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” An Advocate is like a lawyer who pleads our case, who stands by our side. Christ is our Advocate (italics added).
Not to be ignored is a related question, "Can a person sin against God without doing anything?" Author-Minister Heffren further reasons thus: "In James 4:17 we read, “Wherefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” There is such a sin as “the sin of omission.” Thus, sin may be committed by doing something wrong, or it can be committed by disobeying what is right, or failing to obey God in our duty to Him. In this connection he urges us to read Romans 8:7-8 in which the old KJV reminds us “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: and it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, so then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” A carnal mind is one that is worldly, or sensual; not spiritual. It is as mind dominated by the flesh. Paul says, “To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” ( Romans 8:6--THINGS MOST SURELY BELIEVED/Heffren/1977).
So sin is not only a wrong act, but it is a state of mind that is not subject to God’s rule, but rather disobedient thereto. In other words, sin is not only what you do but also what you are.
Rather than quibbling so much about the pros and cons of sin's existence or non-existence, we need to deal more realistically with the fact that we are known by the things we do--we are what we do, as well as what we may think, feel, or theorize.
Wayne at
walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com
Without politicizing the issues involved in judging the Major, I raise a question of a different nature, as once posed by Theologian H. C. Heffren: "Are there such things as big sins and little sins?"
Dr. Heffren suggested "most people regard murder as a great sin, whereas to tell a little “white” lie is regarded of little consequence." He proceeded to answer the question with this line of reasoning: There is a danger in this reasoning. In the first place there is no such thing as a “white” lie. Furthermore, this places the emphasis on the deed committed rather than on the One against Whom it is committed. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall DO AND TEACH them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). No doubt some sins are more abhorrent to God than others but all sin “is the transgression of the law” and “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
"Perhaps our best counsel," concluded this studious friend, is to "at all times . . .consult 1 John 2:1-2, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” An Advocate is like a lawyer who pleads our case, who stands by our side. Christ is our Advocate (italics added).
Not to be ignored is a related question, "Can a person sin against God without doing anything?" Author-Minister Heffren further reasons thus: "In James 4:17 we read, “Wherefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” There is such a sin as “the sin of omission.” Thus, sin may be committed by doing something wrong, or it can be committed by disobeying what is right, or failing to obey God in our duty to Him. In this connection he urges us to read Romans 8:7-8 in which the old KJV reminds us “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: and it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, so then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” A carnal mind is one that is worldly, or sensual; not spiritual. It is as mind dominated by the flesh. Paul says, “To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” ( Romans 8:6--THINGS MOST SURELY BELIEVED/Heffren/1977).
So sin is not only a wrong act, but it is a state of mind that is not subject to God’s rule, but rather disobedient thereto. In other words, sin is not only what you do but also what you are.
Rather than quibbling so much about the pros and cons of sin's existence or non-existence, we need to deal more realistically with the fact that we are known by the things we do--we are what we do, as well as what we may think, feel, or theorize.
Wayne at
walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Killed By Friendly Fire
Former Arizona Cowboy, Army Ranger Pat Tillman died deep in southeastern Afghanistan April 22, 2004. Army Ranger Tillman died knowing he was a victim of friendly fire. I first learned of Pat Tillman after the Tillman family (Pat’s mother and brother Kevin, also an Army Ranger in Pat's Platoon) finally rooted out the true information, that had been hidden from them, and they began speaking out in public.
When I saw author Jon Krakauer interviewed on Book TV on a recent Saturday, I determined to find his newest book--Where Men Win Glory, Doubleday, 2009. I found the $28 hardcover among the new book offerings at our local library. Krakauer has detailed a rivoting chronicle of a tragic odyssey that left a trail from SE Afghanistan through the White House, to Pat‘s home on the West Coast. Krakauer researched his book assiduously.
Tillman, an undersized professional football player who made history on the gridiron, extended himself to serve his country and become a tough Army Ranger. He ended up in Iraq, part of an "oversized staging" of the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Driven by complicated emotions, personal notions of patriotism, pride, and masculinity, Tillman overcame his conclusion that the Iraq War was “illegal as hell” and determined to serve his full enlistment--finally dying in Afghanistan.
Deep in the mountains adjacent to Pakistan, maintaining a relatively insignificant outpost, his platoon found themselves floundering with broken down equipment, senseless orders from higher up, and inadequate support. Ordered to divide their Platoon into two groups, they separated as ordered--against their better judgment they followed orders. Pat Tillman’s section eventually came under some enemy fire.
The real conflict came when the second group inadvertently came up unwittingly on Pat’s group--pinned down. In the chaos and confusion, the second group began firing at the first group (unidentified in the dusk) and ultimately the Afghani with Pat was killed and Pat was critically wounded. Krakauer successfully unthreads the complicated story and makes it a very readable adventure.
What disturbed me was the way the Military wanted to use their celebrities (Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman) as Posters to increase public support of the war--being willing to manipulate people, tell glorious lies, and show an utter contempt of truth in doing so. What made it even more sickening to me was how the Military Chain of Command abused the system, hid the truth as long as they could, and deleted integrity.
Henry Waxman, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee that finally got hold of it, “stated in frustration, ‘What we have is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done. Why is it so hard to find out who did it.'”
Interestingly, the soldiers involved finally received a variety of relative slaps on the wrist as punishment, they did not feel was justified, while the two ranking officers up the echelon received promotions; one became a full Colonel, the other a Brigadier General. Correspondent Ed Henry challenged President Bush with the fact that seven investigations had FAILED to get to the bottom of the truth, but Mr. Bush equivocated.
Pat Tillman’s lifestyle was not one I would choose. Some of the language is not language I find comfortable. Yet, I found compelling reasons for being attracted to the core character and integrity of Pat Tillman, although I am a man of religious faith and he was not. I admire a man who will walk away from a multi-million-dollar contract just to do what he believes is the RIGHT thing to do.
I found the Military-Political behavior revealed throughout the investigations of the “friendly fire” incident self-serving, despicable, unacceptable, totally untrustworthy. Accidents happen. Friendly fire kills many; I understand and accept that, but let the truth be told.
I believe Jon Krakauer found Pat Tillman too good a human being to be wasted as a tool for propaganda and covered up with a Silver Star because of the bungling of a desk officer up the command. It is a remarkable story, more compelling than fiction--worth reading whichever side of the war argument you are on.
Wayne,
Walkingwithwarner@blogspot.com
When I saw author Jon Krakauer interviewed on Book TV on a recent Saturday, I determined to find his newest book--Where Men Win Glory, Doubleday, 2009. I found the $28 hardcover among the new book offerings at our local library. Krakauer has detailed a rivoting chronicle of a tragic odyssey that left a trail from SE Afghanistan through the White House, to Pat‘s home on the West Coast. Krakauer researched his book assiduously.
Tillman, an undersized professional football player who made history on the gridiron, extended himself to serve his country and become a tough Army Ranger. He ended up in Iraq, part of an "oversized staging" of the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Driven by complicated emotions, personal notions of patriotism, pride, and masculinity, Tillman overcame his conclusion that the Iraq War was “illegal as hell” and determined to serve his full enlistment--finally dying in Afghanistan.
Deep in the mountains adjacent to Pakistan, maintaining a relatively insignificant outpost, his platoon found themselves floundering with broken down equipment, senseless orders from higher up, and inadequate support. Ordered to divide their Platoon into two groups, they separated as ordered--against their better judgment they followed orders. Pat Tillman’s section eventually came under some enemy fire.
The real conflict came when the second group inadvertently came up unwittingly on Pat’s group--pinned down. In the chaos and confusion, the second group began firing at the first group (unidentified in the dusk) and ultimately the Afghani with Pat was killed and Pat was critically wounded. Krakauer successfully unthreads the complicated story and makes it a very readable adventure.
What disturbed me was the way the Military wanted to use their celebrities (Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman) as Posters to increase public support of the war--being willing to manipulate people, tell glorious lies, and show an utter contempt of truth in doing so. What made it even more sickening to me was how the Military Chain of Command abused the system, hid the truth as long as they could, and deleted integrity.
Henry Waxman, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee that finally got hold of it, “stated in frustration, ‘What we have is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done. Why is it so hard to find out who did it.'”
Interestingly, the soldiers involved finally received a variety of relative slaps on the wrist as punishment, they did not feel was justified, while the two ranking officers up the echelon received promotions; one became a full Colonel, the other a Brigadier General. Correspondent Ed Henry challenged President Bush with the fact that seven investigations had FAILED to get to the bottom of the truth, but Mr. Bush equivocated.
Pat Tillman’s lifestyle was not one I would choose. Some of the language is not language I find comfortable. Yet, I found compelling reasons for being attracted to the core character and integrity of Pat Tillman, although I am a man of religious faith and he was not. I admire a man who will walk away from a multi-million-dollar contract just to do what he believes is the RIGHT thing to do.
I found the Military-Political behavior revealed throughout the investigations of the “friendly fire” incident self-serving, despicable, unacceptable, totally untrustworthy. Accidents happen. Friendly fire kills many; I understand and accept that, but let the truth be told.
I believe Jon Krakauer found Pat Tillman too good a human being to be wasted as a tool for propaganda and covered up with a Silver Star because of the bungling of a desk officer up the command. It is a remarkable story, more compelling than fiction--worth reading whichever side of the war argument you are on.
Wayne,
Walkingwithwarner@blogspot.com
Saturday, November 7, 2009
America's Struggle With Morality
America continues to struggle with its class confrontation of elitism versus inclusivism. As a lifelong Republican, I hold many or most of the conservative values, but for the life of me I cannot understand how so many Americans oppose health insurance for everybody rather than a select minority. It sounds like those early Colonialists who believed only property owners should be allowed voting rights, (thus the development of the current electoral college voting system). Btw, many of them believed it was perfectly okay to give the black man only 3/5s of a vote because he was not equal.
For eighty years now, health insurance has been an issue and we still can't get it right. FDR backed his version; Harry Truman supported it, plus numerous others on both sides of the political aisle, including the now infamous Richard Nixon, whose health plan was little different from what is being offered today.
This is not Obama’s battle; it is our--America’s--battle to overcome elitism; it is not a battle against Socialism; it is an attempt to bring everybody into a process that citizenship should allow--a process we still have not achieved.
Many of the same forces that oppose Health Insurance Reform are those which opposed Integration, when the Southern States Rights bloc protected the rights of the white majority for so long. Remember Orval Faubus and George Wallace? I remember Richard Russell and numerous Dixiecrats who opposed “civil rights for everybody”--I call that elitism.
One simple solution to Health Reform is for Congress to give everybody what Congress gave itself--at our expense. As columnist Bill Ellis points out, we did not vote for Congressional health care, but we pay for it, and a lot of other unnecessary stuff. All Congress has to do is give us equal rights to the same health care; we already pay for it, like we do everything else.
Republicans and others who oppose this because of Budget costs etc are not at all backward about charging us for their military spending for a war the public did not vote for but still pays for. Iraq only cost us about $1.9 million per minute during 2008, and we didn’t even have a choice. SO, I have no problem at all in demanding equal health insurance to that of my Congressional Representatives--health insurance is not a right for a guaranteed few and should not even be “for profit.”
If the health issue is held up because of certain “moral” issues--abortion--as one friend challenged me, then I wonder … When “half” of our school children are on food stamps, what does that tell me about our country and its "sense of morality." It tells me that a few people in our country are living tolerably well (or better) while a whole segment of our country finds itself below economic par. What is “moral” about that? What is “moral” about launching a war that was not really necessary to the defense of our country? What is moral about my being forced to support an immoral war?
Such issues are no more moral than segregation was! (As for abortion: if I had my way, the government would not be meddling in that either way; I do not believe in abortion but neither do I believe the government has a right to dictate to me what should be a personal--civil rights--issue of morality.
Someone challenged me that “if those lazy bums would get off their ‘blessed assurance’ they would not have to be on the dole; if they would work they could buy health insurance, but I personally know too many people of whom that is not true. That is simply another ploy by those people who prefer to cut the safety net out from under people in order to cut taxes and maintain ideological purity.
I know people who believe that; yet they think little of unethical skimming of business profits and/or avoiding paying taxes when they can get away with it. Out of touch with reality, they certainly understand little of God’s concern for the impoverished and those most vulnerable, as the Bible views them, or of their own accountability for their blessings. We don’t talk much about our stewardship of life these days--that's a whole other moral issue.
Let’s make this ballgame called democracy work for everybody! That obviously includes the New York Yankees who have dominated the game by reaching the World Series some 41 times. But there is no “baseball sport” unless those other teams all have the same equal rights and opportunities to reach the World Series. To allow limits on one, or a few, is to stunt the quality and achievements of the majority, and ultimately to spoil the game for the fans without whom there would be no World Series.
I like Derek Jeter, an area product, but I value the game and support all those underdogs represented by the Philadelphia Phillies…………Oh, btw, someone suggested that all we need do is for all of us to "properly behave." Well, the nature of this human beast is to be myopic, self-serving, and greedy (the Bible calls it sinfulness,(it surely has got us in quite a global mess). It leaves us needing adequate refereeing in all of our economic and political ballgames, and that concern for the common good is a major role of government--of the people, for the people, by the people.
From walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com,
This is Wayne
For eighty years now, health insurance has been an issue and we still can't get it right. FDR backed his version; Harry Truman supported it, plus numerous others on both sides of the political aisle, including the now infamous Richard Nixon, whose health plan was little different from what is being offered today.
This is not Obama’s battle; it is our--America’s--battle to overcome elitism; it is not a battle against Socialism; it is an attempt to bring everybody into a process that citizenship should allow--a process we still have not achieved.
Many of the same forces that oppose Health Insurance Reform are those which opposed Integration, when the Southern States Rights bloc protected the rights of the white majority for so long. Remember Orval Faubus and George Wallace? I remember Richard Russell and numerous Dixiecrats who opposed “civil rights for everybody”--I call that elitism.
One simple solution to Health Reform is for Congress to give everybody what Congress gave itself--at our expense. As columnist Bill Ellis points out, we did not vote for Congressional health care, but we pay for it, and a lot of other unnecessary stuff. All Congress has to do is give us equal rights to the same health care; we already pay for it, like we do everything else.
Republicans and others who oppose this because of Budget costs etc are not at all backward about charging us for their military spending for a war the public did not vote for but still pays for. Iraq only cost us about $1.9 million per minute during 2008, and we didn’t even have a choice. SO, I have no problem at all in demanding equal health insurance to that of my Congressional Representatives--health insurance is not a right for a guaranteed few and should not even be “for profit.”
If the health issue is held up because of certain “moral” issues--abortion--as one friend challenged me, then I wonder … When “half” of our school children are on food stamps, what does that tell me about our country and its "sense of morality." It tells me that a few people in our country are living tolerably well (or better) while a whole segment of our country finds itself below economic par. What is “moral” about that? What is “moral” about launching a war that was not really necessary to the defense of our country? What is moral about my being forced to support an immoral war?
Such issues are no more moral than segregation was! (As for abortion: if I had my way, the government would not be meddling in that either way; I do not believe in abortion but neither do I believe the government has a right to dictate to me what should be a personal--civil rights--issue of morality.
Someone challenged me that “if those lazy bums would get off their ‘blessed assurance’ they would not have to be on the dole; if they would work they could buy health insurance, but I personally know too many people of whom that is not true. That is simply another ploy by those people who prefer to cut the safety net out from under people in order to cut taxes and maintain ideological purity.
I know people who believe that; yet they think little of unethical skimming of business profits and/or avoiding paying taxes when they can get away with it. Out of touch with reality, they certainly understand little of God’s concern for the impoverished and those most vulnerable, as the Bible views them, or of their own accountability for their blessings. We don’t talk much about our stewardship of life these days--that's a whole other moral issue.
Let’s make this ballgame called democracy work for everybody! That obviously includes the New York Yankees who have dominated the game by reaching the World Series some 41 times. But there is no “baseball sport” unless those other teams all have the same equal rights and opportunities to reach the World Series. To allow limits on one, or a few, is to stunt the quality and achievements of the majority, and ultimately to spoil the game for the fans without whom there would be no World Series.
I like Derek Jeter, an area product, but I value the game and support all those underdogs represented by the Philadelphia Phillies…………Oh, btw, someone suggested that all we need do is for all of us to "properly behave." Well, the nature of this human beast is to be myopic, self-serving, and greedy (the Bible calls it sinfulness,(it surely has got us in quite a global mess). It leaves us needing adequate refereeing in all of our economic and political ballgames, and that concern for the common good is a major role of government--of the people, for the people, by the people.
From walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com,
This is Wayne
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
OFF THE RECORD WITH MARTIN LUTHER
I haven’t been able to pedal my tricycle fast enough to keep pace with blogging in recent days. Being a care-giver can by itself become a full-time job. Cooking, cleaning, reading, writing, working on the house with Habitat’s siding specialist (Mike is a former Mennonite pastor--nice young man), doctor’s appointments, researching new health insurance, et al become overwhelming when trying to wrap around them. Too much for one person, but the option is even less appealing--not enough to keep busy.
Having lived with a spouse with fragile health for almost 63 years, how thankful I am for my own good health and reasonably strong constitution. It is a true blessing from God!
My peers, other pastors, and other friends that are interested in fascinating books will appreciate this word from Hansa-Hewlett Publishers of Kalamazoo. You can order it online at Amazon, or find it at your favorite bookstore--a well-done, 500-page soft cover book ($19.95), and related to one of the Reformation's great souls--a favorite of mine from Church History--Martin Luther.
This is the first, authentic translation of the original conversations between students and colleagues around the Luther dinner table. Some of my peers will find the Reformer’s medieval language occasionally blunt and explosive, even abusive and, at times, coarse--you will understand him.
Most will not know the translator-editor Charles Daudert--a retired trial lawyer become author. Daudert has several published volumes, mostly historical, academic, and religious, both fiction and non-fiction. He was seven years in translating and editing OFF THE RECORD and has produced the most comprehensive translation of “Table Talks” available.
While I long knew of “Table Talks,” I did not know that much of it remained untranslated, until Charles Daudert took it upon himself to expand our English translations. An honor student, a longtime spouse of a German bride with extensive interest in German issues, Daudert won the applause of that other Luther academic and friend, Dr. Paul Maier. Maier, a professor at Western Michigan University and the son of Dr. Walter Maier of the original "Lutheran Hour" admitted he “for one,” had planned such a project - until, that is, “Charles Daudert showed us all how it should be done!”
Available from Amazon and major book outlets, readers will find it filled with spicy wisdom. For example, in July 1532 Luther suggested “a lie is like a snowball, the longer one waltzes with it, the bigger it gets.” Another I like comes from September 1533: “Lustful thoughts come upon us without any special invitation, like fleas and lice; love is there, on the other hand, when we want to serve others.”
Luther’s Rhyme goes like this:
Nothing on earth is better done,
Than to be master of one’s tongue.
Know a lot and say but little,
Have not an answer for every riddle,
For what you borrow return what’s due
Let everyone be who they are,
And so be true to your own star.
It is possible that I can share a reading of this with some of my pastor-peers who are interested but cannot find Luther in their book budget--contact me at my email address.
Luther became a transforming experience for the translator and he will enrich both your personal life and add salt and pepper to your appreciation of Reformation history. Wayne at
Walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com
Thursday, October 15, 2009
JOHN TANNER, THE FALCON
Hansa-Hewlett Publishers of Kalamazoo, MI. recently published Charles Daudert‘s Narrative of John Tanner, The Falcon (found at Amazon and other major book stores.
This newest edition contains Tanner’s original Indian Captivity as he relayed it to Dr. Edwin James, M.D. It also includes the original Treatise on Indian Language and customs by Dr. James. Edwin James, M.D., was a renowned botanist and naturalist, and an Army surgeon at Fort Sault St. Marie, where Tanner had found employment as an Army interpreter.
Daudert, an Attorney as well as an accomplished author, has several published books in areas under History, Religion, and Academic. In his newest effort, he offers his own (new) Introduction based on his lengthy research. A special feature, is his splendid “Epilogue”. This life-long Attorney, has thoroughly reviewed legal issues in the question of “Who killed James Schoolcraft?”
While some allege that Tanner killed James, the brother of Henry Schoolcraft, by whom Tanner had been employed, Daudert offers additional research and provocative insights while weaving his way through a maze of prospective candidates for this as yet unsolved murder of nearly two centuries past--material not before published.
“The Falcon” provides a fascinating narrative of a victim suffering indignities that shape his life--so much not of his making. It offers insight into the daily life of earlier native America. It reflects the inevitable conflict of cultures as well as the corruption, suppression and ultimate destruction of Native American culture--not to mention the corrupt politics of Anglo-European interests.
Kidnapped from his father's Kentucky farm on the Ohio River at age nine, John Tanner was carried north by Shawnee Indians to Saginaw--Michigan Territory. Two years later he was bartered to an Ottawa tribe at Petoskey. At 13 he was taken to the region of present-day Winnipeg, where he endured a gut-wrenching 30 years of living, hunting, and starving among the Ojibway people--totally culturally assimilated.
Tanner married twice, and had a family, but lost all knowledge of English except for a few rudimentary words. At age thirty-nine, opportunity came for a return to the “Soo”. Meeting Dr. James, he found members of “his family”--a story by itself.
Dr. James wrote down Tanner's autobiography as Tanner told it. In 1830 they published A NARRATIVE OF THE CAPTIVITY AND ADVENTURES OF JOHN TANNER (U.S. INTERPRETER AT THE SAUT de SAINTE MARIE) DURING THIRTY YEARS RESIDENCE AMONG THE INDIANS IN THE INTERIOR OF NORTH AMERICA.
This new edition--Tanner, James, Daudert--includes the original 1830 edition, by Dr. James, with his lengthy treatise of Indian culture and language. Daudert adds a thoroughly researched new Introduction and an interesting Epilogue, along with photographs, maps and brief biographical notes of important people in Tanner's life.
While Dr. Edwin James was an outspoken champion of the Indians, his account of Tanner failed to prevent the “Trail of Tears” and related tragedies. But as we learn, not all forest Indians were corrupted, although perceived as “savages.“ Daudert reminds us that Tanner’s band was rescued from death and starvation by Indians of the forest regions who still practiced the traditions of Native American culture that served them so well for so many generations, until exploited by the White Man‘s “Spirits” and other corruptive influences.
Daudert intends for his expanded edition to enlighten students of Native American culture, as well as achieve some of the purposes originally intended by Edwin James. While I found more information than I could immediately digest, I found a very readable story of a historical character that was new to me--a great read. In addition, mystery, historical intrigue, legal and social issues, fired my mind with interest.
I satisfied myself with who did NOT murder James Schoolcraft; I wonder who you think did. I recommend this new edition by Charles Daudert for your informed reading pleasure. It is apparently selling quite well at Amazon--John Tanner, the Falcon
Wayne, walking with Warner,
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Drunken Behavior
A Connecticut Judge wiped her eyes while testifying before the State Judicial in HARTFORD, Conn.--charged with drunken driving. She was videotaped using racial slurs while arguing with police officers, and suspended without pay for eight months by the review panel.
Confirmed in 1991 as Connecticut's first black female Superior Court judge In her apology to the state Judicial Review Council, Her Honor admitted, "I regret that my actions may have tarnished the institution that I love. I've embarrassed and humiliated my family and loved ones, and disappointed my friends."
The panel unanimous agreed that her "disparaging and demeaning" comments failed to live up to the standards of integrity and impartiality expected of judges. The council could have imposed up to a one-year suspension and recommended her permanent removal by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but settled on the lesser suspension, which she said she would not appeal.
She was arrested Oct. 9 after her car hit a parked state police cruiser in a construction zone. Police say she told them she hadn't had any alcohol, but she failed a sobriety test, and urine tests later that night showed she had a blood-alcohol level twice the legal limit of 0.08. Later, she argued with state and local police officers and a surveillance camera showed her using the N-word, calling a black state trooper "Negro," threatening that trooper's job, referring to a female officer as "little girl" and "Barbie" and using other offensive language.
"When I watched the video, the Judge told the Council, “I did not recognize myself. The woman I observed that night is not the woman I am." She acknowledged that her conduct was "reprehensible," and insisted she did not willfully violate the conduct code because her judgment was impaired by her intoxication.
Judge Susan S. Reynolds appeared to stump the Judge when she asked why her comments were not racist. “Why is it not racism .... hmmm. I think for crimes like bias you have to have intent," the defendant said. "All I can say is I was really intoxicated. ... I can't explain it. Why is it not racism ... I don't know. But if it is or someone perceives that it is, I apologize for that."
While other judges agreed that the defendant received above-average job evaluations and her reputation was excellent, a psychiatrist agreed she was under a lot of stress in 2008--death of her father, her mother's house burned down, and her adult children had legal problems. “She's had an impeccable record (as a judge) for 17 years,” concluded the Psychiatrist, “and I see no reason she couldn't continue."
In the meantime, the Judge has been accepted into the state's alcohol education program for first-time DUI offenders, and the drunken driving charge will be dismissed if she successfully completes the program.
From professional people to street derelicts, this story repeats itself ad nauseum. Each is part of someone’s family; there are 75 million-or-so of us who have alcoholics in our families. As she admitted, she neither recognized herself, nor approved of her behavior, when intoxicated.
Drunkenness frequently results in behavior not common to a person, except when “under the influence.” Sometimes their character shames them, at other times it is merely an excuse for being “out of character”--under the influence. Generally neither provides sufficient motivation for avoiding further indulgence.
What I fail to understand is how our various levels of government can justify this social cancer for the licensing revenues it brings in. The revenues are hefty, I know, but the tax burden placed upon the public is statistically three times greater. Yet, few among us dare challenge the system.
Clubs, taverns, and bars ring our local downtown area and produce more assaults, knifings, killings, and other violence than any other area. Does that not make our local government and all of us accomplices in crime and violence--for a price?
Wayne
____
Confirmed in 1991 as Connecticut's first black female Superior Court judge In her apology to the state Judicial Review Council, Her Honor admitted, "I regret that my actions may have tarnished the institution that I love. I've embarrassed and humiliated my family and loved ones, and disappointed my friends."
The panel unanimous agreed that her "disparaging and demeaning" comments failed to live up to the standards of integrity and impartiality expected of judges. The council could have imposed up to a one-year suspension and recommended her permanent removal by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but settled on the lesser suspension, which she said she would not appeal.
She was arrested Oct. 9 after her car hit a parked state police cruiser in a construction zone. Police say she told them she hadn't had any alcohol, but she failed a sobriety test, and urine tests later that night showed she had a blood-alcohol level twice the legal limit of 0.08. Later, she argued with state and local police officers and a surveillance camera showed her using the N-word, calling a black state trooper "Negro," threatening that trooper's job, referring to a female officer as "little girl" and "Barbie" and using other offensive language.
"When I watched the video, the Judge told the Council, “I did not recognize myself. The woman I observed that night is not the woman I am." She acknowledged that her conduct was "reprehensible," and insisted she did not willfully violate the conduct code because her judgment was impaired by her intoxication.
Judge Susan S. Reynolds appeared to stump the Judge when she asked why her comments were not racist. “Why is it not racism .... hmmm. I think for crimes like bias you have to have intent," the defendant said. "All I can say is I was really intoxicated. ... I can't explain it. Why is it not racism ... I don't know. But if it is or someone perceives that it is, I apologize for that."
While other judges agreed that the defendant received above-average job evaluations and her reputation was excellent, a psychiatrist agreed she was under a lot of stress in 2008--death of her father, her mother's house burned down, and her adult children had legal problems. “She's had an impeccable record (as a judge) for 17 years,” concluded the Psychiatrist, “and I see no reason she couldn't continue."
In the meantime, the Judge has been accepted into the state's alcohol education program for first-time DUI offenders, and the drunken driving charge will be dismissed if she successfully completes the program.
From professional people to street derelicts, this story repeats itself ad nauseum. Each is part of someone’s family; there are 75 million-or-so of us who have alcoholics in our families. As she admitted, she neither recognized herself, nor approved of her behavior, when intoxicated.
Drunkenness frequently results in behavior not common to a person, except when “under the influence.” Sometimes their character shames them, at other times it is merely an excuse for being “out of character”--under the influence. Generally neither provides sufficient motivation for avoiding further indulgence.
What I fail to understand is how our various levels of government can justify this social cancer for the licensing revenues it brings in. The revenues are hefty, I know, but the tax burden placed upon the public is statistically three times greater. Yet, few among us dare challenge the system.
Clubs, taverns, and bars ring our local downtown area and produce more assaults, knifings, killings, and other violence than any other area. Does that not make our local government and all of us accomplices in crime and violence--for a price?
Wayne
____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
