A Case for Easter: Faith’s Foundations

                              A Case for Easter: Faith’s Foundations

                Published in Marietta Daily Journal April 16, 2017

            One of my newest and most intelligent friends is a serious, sincere atheist.  We have been meeting for coffee lately to talk and learn.  He is New York born and bred.  I’m a Southern boy.  He worked for a time in the White House.  All of my days have been spent in a schoolhouse.

            Despite his atheism, he was educated by Catholic nuns.  My learning came from strong public schools and Protestant parents.  He’s a decade younger than I and rides his motorcycle just about everywhere he goes.  I’m not getting on anybody’s motorcycle.

            What shall I say?  He and I are proof that a Christian and an atheist, a conservative and a libertarian, an educated redneck and an astute New Englander can respect each other.  My friend, of course, will not be celebrating Easter.

            In his own words, “The only reality is matter and energy.”

            “But what about love and other such non-material things?” I recently asked.  “You can’t see them but you know they are real. What about fresh little babies and all of the emotions they inspire?  What about laughter, sorrow, even patriotism?  Don’t all of these things testify of non-material reality?”

            “I dunno,” was his reply, a reply I respect because there are things about my own faith and life in general that I don’t know.

            I do know that love, selflessness, and sacrifice are realities that cannot be charted or quantified.  Yes, there is much reality beyond the laws of biology, and Easter is a testimony to the fact.

            Easter is the premier Christian holy day.  What are the prospects of this day’s survival? Is Christianity flourishing or is western civilization sliding into a post-Christian era as my friend and several historians claim?

            These questions are important, but not as foundational as the following: Did God actually put on an earth suit: Is Jesus who He said He was?  Can we believe the testimonies of Chuck Colson, Phil Robertson, Tim Tebow and many others, famous and not, who claim their lives were dramatically changed because of the resurrection message?

            The pluralism of our day questions the claims of Christianity, the resurrection particularly.  Pluralism speaks of “my truth” and “your truth.”  To those who celebrate Easter, however, truth is an objective reality.

            Moderns simply don’t like the idea that truth has boundaries.  Many view the word truth as narrow and onerous.  Truth, of course, has always been narrow.  Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, Old Death visits us all, and we are powerless to change it.

            Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, an event that most certainly defies our so-called physical laws.  Millions of Christians today are exulting in the reality that what we call death is not the end after all.  In the words of John Donne, “Death, thou shalt die!”  Resurrection is the centerpiece of Christian theology, yet this treasured centerpiece is also the bone in the throat of modern, “scientific” man.

            It is the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the epistles (letters) of the New Testament that provide the historical record of the resurrection.  It is on the testimony of others and on their own transforming Christian experience that Christians stake the resurrection Gospel’s veracity.  For example, the Apostle Paul, a former terrorist and persecutor of Christians, became the most prolific writer of the New Testament, expounding on and defending the resurrection.  Obviously something life-changing happened to him.

            Many reject the resurrection and judge the Christian faith generally by its misrepresentation and misapplication.  The Crusades, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist Church are not a fair measure of Christianity.  Billy Graham’s “long obedience in the same direction” and one’s Christian neighbors who have consistently lived out their faith are far better gauges of the Christian Gospel’s credibility and power.

            One of the most contentious arguments in contemporary America is the role of Christianity in the nation’s founding.  Even if Jefferson and others did not believe in miracles such as the resurrection, it is the Holy Bible, particularly its 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, that has formed our national character.  It is the Apostle Paul’s “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where thy victory?” that has lent Christians hope.

            Every individual, institution, and nation needs an occasional renaissance.  For the individual Christian believer, it is the resurrection that pulls him or her back to what is foundational.  That’s the purpose of Easter.

            As Paul the transformed terrorist wrote, “If Christ be not risen, our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain.”  That’s foundational.

Roger Hines

4/13/17

The Triumph of Illusion: Pleasure that Doesn’t Please

           The Triumph of Illusion: Pleasure that Doesn’t Please

               Published in Marietta Daily Journal April 9, 2017

            The Academy of Country Music awards show last Sunday night (after church, mind you) was an in-your-face reminder that illusion and sensory overload have overtaken entertainment.

            The show’s flashing lights, darkness, more bright lights, deafening drums, smoke, outrageous costumes, screaming entertainers, and hyper-emotional winners made it clear that style was dominating substance.  The singing was secondary to the decked-out singers.  The show wasn’t about recognition of excellence in entertainment.  It was about celebrity. 

            I use this particular show only as an example.  There are many other award shows and entertainment venues that illustrate how American culture has become a culture of illusion.  Like the optical illusion of water in the highway which our vehicles never reach, so is our pursuit of pleasure and entertainment a hopeless endeavor.

            Female breasts were “in” (well, actually out) at the ACM show.  T-shirts for male singers were “in” also, untucked of course. This could get confusing.  Is everything that’s “in” out?

Don’t tell me that dress doesn’t matter.  It matters everywhere, especially at school where we should be teaching and modeling excellence in all things.  Imagine going to the symphony and seeing the musicians dressed any way they prefer.

 And don’t tell me that Kitty Wells, Loretta Lynn, or Tammy Wynette would expose themselves as did the new women of country.  Neither would Charley Pride, Charlie Daniels, or Merle Haggard do a half squat or run back and forth across the stage while they sang.

            But music, dress, and entertainment forms “evolve,” some say.  No, they don’t.  Music moguls change things fast for the sake of marketing.  We can all understand the desire of entertainers to do what they love to make money.  It’s the illusory aspect that’s troubling.

            For examples of illusion, consider “American Idol,” “Dancing with the Stars,” “The Voice,” and all the others.  Not that I have ever watched a complete show of any of these.  I haven’t.  But I’ve seen enough to know that all of them are fantasy-inducing shows that lead viewers to think of themselves as potential celebrities.

            “You’re going to Hollywood!” exclaims an “Idol” judge as lights and audience go wild and background music swells to new heights.

            “Oh, thank-you, thank-you.  I love you guys,” scream the victorious contestants, not realizing that they have become a commodity in a celebrity culture.  Not realizing that while they may or may not make millions, the judges and producers of the show already have, thanks to the hungry eyes of youths whose hearts have oft within them burned for money, fame, and adoration.    

              The winners, of course, can look forward – maybe – to looking fabulous and living their lives on unreal, fabulous sets, perhaps as fabulous as the cover of People Magazine.

            As illustrated by the crotch to crotch dancing on “Dancing with the Stars” and the growing undress on the “country” shows, popular culture is besot with sensuality.  “See me, hear me, touch me.  Devour me and I will know I am successful.  I was not born to serve, but to shine.”

            In his national bestseller, “The Culture of Narcissism,” Christopher Lasch asserts that today faith in ourselves and in a world of make-believe is more important than reality.  He bemoans our excessive pleasuring.  In light of Lasch’s thesis, it’s noteworthy that the ACM show was held in Las Vegas, the city of spectacle, the city that depends on illusions for its very existence.

            It has been a long journey from the highlands of Scotland to the hills of Tennessee to the lights of Las Vegas, but that’s the journey country music has taken.  It too has been hijacked – by sensuality, marketing, and technology. I wish all aspiring entertainers well, but if their music ain’t country, call it something else and let the rest of us keep our fiddles, steel guitars, and the themes that nourished us (home, sacrifice, faith, struggle, front porches) when times were bad.  Let us waltz across Texas with Ernest Tubb without all the glare and glitter.   

            I must be fair, however.  At the end of the ACM show, Reba McIntyre’s stirring song, “Back to God,” and Tim McGraw and Faith Hill’s “Speak to a Girl” turned the show around.  Skeptics might argue these two performances were a bone thrown to traditionalists.  Maybe, but they were inspiring.  Google them for some hope.

            Hope still exists.  It will always exist.  If not, illusion and pleasure will absolutely deaden us to the wondrous and exciting world of reality.

Roger Hines

April 5, 2017

Why I Love Donald Trump and Why His Demonization Continues

Why I Love Donald Trump and Why His                     Demonization Continues

                   Published in Marietta Daily Journal April 2, 2017

            Last November I voted for Donald Trump partly because I didn’t have much choice.  Just before the November election, however, I had begun to warm up to him.  The more I listened and learned, the more I came to believe his critics were wrong.

            There are several reasons why I have come to love the man.  I use the word love because that’s what I mean and because I believe that when affection is developed slowly it is probably more real and more reliable.

            The main reason I love the President is his authenticity.  Can anyone argue that there is even an ounce of pretense or “put on” in this man? Does he ever put on airs?

            For a decade of my life I was in the Georgia General Assembly as a state representative and as an aide to the Speaker of the House.  The experience was quite a positive one because the majority of legislators were good, down-to-earth people.  Those who put on airs and allowed position and power to go to their heads were few, but on television and in the minds of voters, the few can become the face of all politicians everywhere.

            It’s interesting that having academic degrees and elective positions can puff us up in ways that having money never does.  President Trump has both degrees and money, but he is not puffed up or egotistical as so many claim.  Neither is he condescending to ordinary citizens.  Good grief; he won their hearts and their votes.  Those who consider Trump’s supporters unwashed and uneducated are the ones who are condescending and egotistical.

I also love the man because his children love him.  What we see in his sons and daughters is not fake.  They love and respect their dad.  He obviously loves and respects them.  The muckraking media has been unsuccessful in getting the mothers of his children to slam the President.  They have actually praised him.

The third reason is I’ve waited all of my adult life for a national political figure who would set the media on their heels.  Donald Trump is doing just that – confusing them and angering them.  Unlike no other candidate we’ve seen, he questions the question and the questioners, driving the questioners to their pre-suppositions.

ABC’s Sam Donaldson made a sport of yelling at and taunting President Reagan.  The cheerful President stood and took it.  He should not have.  Television reporters ceased reporting decades ago, instead asking questions in such a way that an 8^th grader could discern their intent.  The press likes to be tough with press secretary Sean Spicer, but when Spicer is equally tough, they become cry babies.

Another reason I love the President is his work ethic.  The man is 70 years old, yet his pace is remarkable.  Individuals who have visited him during working hours testify that in discussing policy he displays sobriety and optimism.  In regard to personality, he is described not as irascible but charming.

So far, none of my reasons have included political experience.  Donald Trump doesn’t have any, and that’s good.  Elective politics is demanding, but it is not a particularly difficult art to learn.  Our country was designed to have citizen leaders, not a political class.  Career politicians are killing us.  Their chief contribution has been a regulatory nanny state. Its only solution is term limits at every level of government.

Because he is confident and is not intimidated by the media, the President will continue to be demonized.   Skittish, waffling Republicans will continue to praise him one day and distance themselves from him the next.  Content to let Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton off the hook, the media will continue to refer to the “Liar-in-Chief,” probably for the next four years.

And of course the media doesn’t like Trump’s foreign policy.  Fearing their own loss of credibility brought on by Trump’s election, they feed us dark natterings of how Trump and Putin are buddies.  Since the Trump hurricane blew in, it’s liberals who fear change and hate Russia.  Liberals have always loved Russia, pestering Reagan for calling Russia the evil empire.

The demonizers don’t like Trump’s family one bit and probably don’t care for G.K. Chesterton’s take on the role of the family: “The family is the only check on the state that can renew itself as eternally as the state and more naturally than the state.”

Trump’s detractors place the state above the family.  Today they are the ones who speak somberly of the dangers of change.

But Trump is a changer, and that’s another reason I love him.

Roger Hines

3/29/17

Breaking the Cycle and Gaining Ground

                        Breaking the Cycle and Gaining Ground

            

                 Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 26, 2017

            “One match struck. Two lives lit.”  That’s the motto of Mentoring for Leadership, the splendid program founded by Marietta native Beverly McAfee in 2010.

            Today, 7 years and approximately 200 students later, this stellar 501(c) 3 organization continues to place youths on the path to achievement and success in life. For MFL, achievement and success in life means building character, learning basic life skills, overcoming difficult circumstances, and creating a better future for oneself and the community one lives in.

            Talking with McAfee and her able co-workers Joyce Caldwell and Marge Kellogg about their mentoring program is nothing less than inspiring, mainly because of the commitment these three ladies have, not just to a program but to the young people it serves.

            Based at Marietta High School and supported by the school board, community leaders, and many businesses and individuals, MFL matches students with adult mentors who, by virtue of their one-year commitment, meet with their students at least twice a month and from time to time attend group activities with them as well.  It also enjoys the support and assistance of Leigh Coburn, director of Graduate Marietta Student Success Center at Marietta High School.

             MFL’s major goal is to help students move toward graduation as they form habits and adopt values that will lead to productive citizenship.  No wild-eyed dreamers, but dreamers still, McAfee and company know their program is not for everybody.  Its design is for students with high potential who could benefit from one-on-one support and friendship of an adult mentor but who would also be positive change agents among their fellow students.  To enter the program, students must be recommended by a teacher or administrator.

            Many students who have successfully completed the program experienced transiency, poverty, family dysfunction, or homelessness.  For students grade 6 through 12 there are after school programs, field trips, and extensive leadership training, but the heart of the program is the one-on-one mentoring provided by volunteer mentors from all walks of life.

            This week during an enjoyable hour with McAfee, Caldwell, Kellogg, and Coburn, my thoughts ran to the work of sociologist Charles Murray.  In a book titled Losing Ground and a follow-up volume titled Coming Apart, Murray argued that federal government programs have only served to increase the number of  America’s poor.  Asserting that government largesse destroys self-reliance, Murray insists that to gain ground and to stop our coming apart, each community must take care of its own.

            Murray’s conclusion about help coming from close by is the centerpiece of MFL’s philosophy and practice.  “My town, your town, our town” pretty much reflects the heart and the strategy of MFL’s leaders, mentors, and participants. 

            Another program tenet is that to address social problems, it’s wise to aim efforts toward the next generation.  Organizations that attend to the needs of parents and needy adults in general should be applauded, but to break the cycle of poverty or hopelessness, efforts should be aimed toward youth.  In other words, MFL’s goal is long range: attend to present needs but gain ground by showing the next generation the way to success and good citizenship.

             69% of the students in the program are from extremely low income families.  63% are from single parent families, and 16% have been homeless at some time in the last two years.  Currently the program has 100 students and a goal of 200 by 2020.

The on-time graduation rate for program participants is 85% compared to the state of Georgia’s rate of 69%.  90% are promoted to the next grade level on time.  MFL’s Class of 2016 was awarded over $200,000 in college scholarships.

In the words of Beverly McAfee, “How can I not be passionate when I learn that one of our students is achieving her dream of being the first one in her family to graduate from high school?”  From the lips of an MPL participant, “I got into lots of trouble while in New Orleans but by the grace of God I got to attend MHS and play football.”  This young man is making straight A’s and working 2 jobs.

There’s no cursing the darkness in the MFL office; lighting fires in the hearts of the young is its sole plan and purpose.

It’s after 4 PM but in the Graduate Marietta/MPL wing of storied Marietta High School, students are still around.  I think they don’t want to leave. They’re tutoring and being tutored or working in the clothes closet.  They themselves are lighting up the lives of others.  They themselves are breaking the cycle.

Check out this splendid operation at MentoringForLeadership.org.

Roger Hines

3/22/17

The Arts, the Cold War, and Cultural Investing

         The Arts, the Cold War, and Cultural Investing

               Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 19, 2017

            State school superintendent Richard Woods recently received national recognition for promoting the arts in Georgia’s schools.  Perhaps he believes, as many others do, that the arts carry us out of ourselves: to dream dreams, to learn to look at things from a perspective different from our own.

            One musical artist who dreamed dreams that took him behind the Iron Curtain was the famous pianist, Van Cliburn.  I never met Van Cliburn, but I knew and admired his doting uncle.  The uncle, L.E. Cliburn, was an education professor at East Central Jr. College in little Decatur, Mississippi.  All teacher wannabe’s were required to take Introduction to Education, taught only by Dr. Cliburn.

            If you took Dr. Cliburn’s class, you learned about Van Cliburn.  To illustrate what he called “the art of teaching and the art of life,” Cliburn skillfully wove into his lectures occasional stories about his nephew’s life and work.

            The year was 1963. Cliburn the elder frequently related how his talented nephew developed his art and how “he gave it away freely.”

            “Teachers must do the same,” Cliburn urged, “because you will be just as much an artist as Van is.”

              Perhaps because my father subscribed to four newspapers, I already knew that just five years earlier in 1958, the lanky Texan, Van Cliburn, had traveled to Moscow for a piano competition at age 23.  There he won the First Piano Prize of the Tchaikovsky Competition.  Within weeks, Van Cliburn was internationally known.

            Adoring Russians called him Von Kleeberrn.  According to biographer Abram Chasins, citizens of Kilgore, Texas knew him as the lad who “shot through Kilgore High School in only three years,” and who, as a Baptist boy, “always tithed whatever prize money he earned from his competitions.”  (Cliburn doubled his tithe to Calvary Baptist Church in Manhattan once he became well-heeled and famous.)

             For half a century, L.E. Cliburn and his nephew have perched on my shoulder, whispering to me certain life principles and posing questions, some of which I have found answers for, some not.

            The principles have all dealt with the importance of hard work, the pursuit of excellence, and the development of one’s gifts.  Playing the piano so well that the world applauds you is, I suppose, a lofty gift.  But the ability and willingness to smile and encourage those around you is a lofty gift as well.  Van Cliburn’s uncle said so.

            “Be authentic,” they both have whispered, “and humble.”  Despite concerts all over the world, despite being told by statesmen around the world that his magical music would end the Cold War, Van Cliburn remained Texas folksy and humble.  Unlike so many self-absorbed celebrities of today, he remembered his roots, namely his mother who at his own insistence was his only music teacher until after high school when he headed off to Julliard School of Music, and his father, an unassuming purchasing agent for a local oil company. 

            As for the questions, what should be the place of the arts in a school curriculum and in our federal government’s budget?  Are the arts worth an investment?  I’m persuaded that the arts are a civilizing influence.  Much is made, rightly, of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education.  These disciplines have fed our bodies and our minds.

            Yet, because I have watched the arts serve as a gateway for students to enter the joy of learning in general, I’m persuaded we must guard and transmit both the arts and the humanities which in L.E. Cliburn’s words, “feed the starving soul.”

            But should the federal government (through its National Endowment for the Arts) give millions each year to arts programs?  Columnist George Will says government has no more business giving money to the arts than it has to rodeo.  He cites government-funded works of art that denigrate certain religions and people of faith.  Like Will, I also don’t care for taxpayer-funded demented art.

            Nobody, however, can argue that we have over-emphasized the arts.   In the fifties and sixties while American teenagers were swooning over Chubby Checker, Russian youths were clamoring for Van Cliburn.  That’s something to think about: Chubby Checker’s “Come on Baby, Let’s Do the Twist,” versus Van Cliburn’s “Claire de Lune.”

            YouTube Van Cliburn.  See Khrushchev smiling approvingly.  Ponder whether or not the lanky Texan’s Russian connection cooled the hot words of the Cold War.  (The Soviets did let the American pianist in.)  Ponder what our investment should be.  Consider whether or not we should continue to abandon all things classical – at school, at church, and everywhere else.

Roger Hines

3/15/17

A Few Questions about the State of American Culture

                A Few Questions about the State of American Culture

                Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 12, 2017

            Government.    Was Jefferson right when he said, “That government is best which governs least”?  Was Reagan right when he said, “Government isn’t the solution.  Government is the problem”? 

            Are we more likely to be governed better by people close to us than by people far away?    Are there at least 2 or 3 federal departments and scores of agencies we could get rid of?  Is a 26-year-old too old to be covered by his or her parents’ insurance?

            Education.  Can a child learn to read with just a reading teacher and only a few materials? Can teenagers do well in a high school that doesn’t look like the Taj Mahal?   Is teaching a human activity, as opposed to a completely objectifiable or quantifiable one?  Has our testing mania negatively affected learning’s human dimension (encouragement, inspiration, joy, human interaction)?  Has it made test scores our primary objective? 

            Politics.  Did Donald Trump win the presidential election?  Did Democrats lose?  Does President Trump appear to be pursuing what he campaigned on?  With the exception of the People’s Republic of California, would every state turn out thousands for a Trump rally any day of the week?  Could serious social chaos result if losers resist the will of the people and continue to take to the streets?  Is there a breaking point at which conservatives would also hit the streets, causing things to get ugly?

            The media.  Is it true that the U.S. Constitution provides for a free press but not a privileged press?  Shouldn’t the media be held to account just as much as anyone else?  Has slant poisoned real news to the point of its near demise?  Has the media ignored the Trump-influenced surge in just about everybody’s stock portfolio, opting to cram the unsubstantiated Russian scare down our throats daily? 

            Sex and the Society.  Does everybody on the planet have a mother and father?  If so, doesn’t this fact provide an unquestionable nature-based model, a prototype, on which the broader society should be structured?  In other words aren’t a mother, a father, and a child a little unit of society, indeed a little unit of government in which and for which some reasonable rules must be established and followed?  Are rules and self-restraint still the price we pay for civilization?  Is it possible that legalizing so-called homosexual marriage plus all of the emphasis on transgenderism is confusing otherwise well-adjusted children or teens, causing them to wonder what the truth about sexuality really is?

            If it’s “insensitive” to say that homosexuality is rebellion against nature, should we at least be allowed to say that it is an aberration or that in sexual matters we have normalized the marginal?  Has the LGBT lobby become hyper-intolerant?  Do they not claim that one is hateful just because he opposes homosexuality?  If Heather has two mommies, wouldn’t the optimum for her, given nature’s original model, be her mommy and daddy?   Aren’t male and female differences wondrous and do they not complement each other?

            Entertainment.  Is comedy serious business?  Is making fun of something one of the best ways to undermine it?  Are Hollywood celebrities far less knowledgeable of politics and public policy than they think they are?  Is Disney still moving further and further away from wholesome family entertainment?  Does nudity and crude language in movies and on television matter?  Is porn harmful to young and older men alike?  Have parents and community and political leaders stopped caring that porn is now ubiquitous, grabbing young boys (in their homes) at the very outset of puberty?

            Corporate America.  Is corporate America ironically leaning left?  Have many non-practicing capitalists like myself written and spoken in defense of capitalism and corporations only to have their CEO’s turn on us, their customers and defenders, to fawn over the LGBT lobby?  Are corporations crazy to curry the favor of those who consider the word “corporation” a symbol for evil?  Are Chambers of Commerce complicit in dismissing the social issues because their only concern is the dollar?

            Is it possible that America can ever again have some shared values and cease normalizing the marginal?

            Just asking.  And my own answer is yes for every question, even the last one.  But an effectual yes for the last question will require that traditionalists make some noise, light up some phones, attend some meetings, and write some emails.  Otherwise, oppressive government and cultural hedonism will continue their romp, all because of our own disengagement.

Roger Hines

3/8/17

Catholic Capitalists and a Baptist Debtor

                             Catholic Capitalists and a Baptist Debtor

                Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 5. 2017

            I am indebted to two Catholics who have taught me much about the American way of life and who have given me an example of how to stand firm even if you must stand alone.  It all started in my childhood.

            When I was eleven, a small Catholic church was built on the east edge of town on U.S. Highway 80.  In Forest, Mississippi there were at the time five churches: two Baptist, one Methodist, one Presbyterian, and one Assembly of God.

            The word ecumenical certainly wasn’t in my vocabulary, but ecumenical we were, if only once a year.  When revival time came, normally at mid-summer, the churches all visited each other.  “Revival” had both a functional and a spiritual meaning.  Functionally it was a week of evening preaching services from Sunday through Friday.  Ordinarily the week’s preacher was an evangelist or a pastor from far off.  Spiritually it was a time for concentration on renewal, rededication, and bringing the faithless to faith.     

In terms of decibels, the Assembly of God, pastored by the brilliantly red-headed Sister Robinson, was the loudest.  The Presbyterians were, without question, the quietest.  In fact, the Presbyterians were deathly quiet, but their quiet was penetrating and meaningful.  It taught me that quiet can often afford self-examination in a way noise cannot.

            The Baptists and Methodists were somewhere in the middle on the decibel scale, although we could get down and loud with those wondrous hymns that are now so disrespectfully ignored.  Speaking of ecumenicalism, had it not been for Charles Wesley, that great hymn-writing Methodist, we Baptists would have had very little to sing.

            I don’t know if  Catholics would have joined us or not, but I remember the effect that the new little Catholic church had on a school bus full of energetic children and teenagers.  When St, Michael’s building was finished and a sign was placed near the highway, we realized that “the Catholics” had come to our area.  Set back into thin woods, the chapel-like structure bespoke as much quietness as the Presbyterians.

            Every morning as the school bus approached and began to pass by the new church, everyone grew absolutely silent.  Those on the church side of the bus pressed their noses to the window and stared.  Those on the opposite side of the bus stood up, leaned over toward the church side, and stared in silence as well.  As soon as the church was out of sight, the bus became noisy again.

            This pattern continued for at least two weeks until we finally got used to the church, or more precisely, to the word “Catholic.”

            A few years later, because of a deep interest in politics, I became more acquainted with Catholicism.  At age 16 I saw my first copy of National Review magazine and became a fan of its Catholic editor and columnist, William F. Buckley.  Buckley was not ashamed of his faith.  Having written “God and Man at Yale” while in college wherein he charged Yale professors with being committed anti-capitalists, Buckley never minimized his faith, never gave up on his church, and never viewed politics and faith or science and faith as being mutually exclusive.  Buckley became my teacher.

            A Catholic I admire just as much is the recently departed Michael Novak.  Novak was a theologian, professor, and Democratic speech writer who took a philosophical turn in his 40’s from leftist to staunch defender of capitalism.  “Capitalism has its flaws,” he wrote, “but all other known systems of political economy are worse.”

            With a deep concern for the poor and for immigrants like his Slovak parents, Novak in his “Spirit of Democratic Capitalism,” wrote,” Any hope we have for alleviating poverty and tyranny lies in the much despised system of capitalism.”

            Faulting his own party for not defending the working class, Novak wrote, “If America is going to come apart into those who went to college and those who didn’t, I want to be with those who didn’t, those who don’t want their kids taking acid, sleeping around, or having abortions.”

            It is rare for a Catholic theologian who trained for the priesthood to be a defender of capitalism.  It is even rarer for such a defender to be avid about it and to write, “Socialism is the residue of Judeo-Christian faith without religion.”

            As for St. Michael’s on U.S. Highway 80 that made me start wondering what a Catholic was, it’s still there, sitting pretty.  I hope the school bus route still takes youngsters by the church.  It might lead them to wonder and learn as it did me.

Roger Hines

3/2/17